Question Number: 17975

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/20/2007

RE: AYSO Boys U10 Rec Under 10

Mike of Chino Hills, CA USA asks...

As a young attacker approaches the opponent's goal area, an equally young keeper dives for the ball. The ball then bounces off the keeper's arm, and sits just a few inches from the keeper (in this case, the keeper's face). The keeper lies still on the ground (maybe out of fear), and is no longer actually touching the ball (though very close to it). The attacker then goes to play the ball. Perhaps the attacker is just going to roll the ball back away from the keeper, and take a safe shot. I wasn't about to find out. Given the age of the players, I blew the whistle as soon as the attacker attempted to play the ball. I awarded an IFK to the keeper due to "dangerous play" from the attacker. Here was my reasoning: 1) The keeper had control of the ball when it touched his arm -- even though the ball deflected inches away. 2) Given his young age, the attacker may not have the skill to play the ball safely - therefore, it was dangerous play for him to attempt to do so. 3) It's always better to err on the side of safety with the young ones. I didn't hear any complaints over my decision - maybe a surprised look or two. This scenario happens a lot with young players. I suppose I could have just stopped play sooner, and restarted with a dropped ball - probably the safest choice, and maybe more fair. Or I could have let play continue and evolve more - the least safe choice. I know you guys ref at a much higher level. But I'm a new ref, so I deal with U10 players, and I'd appreciate your insight. Thanks.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

1) Merely being able to deflect the ball doesn't establish control. The ball has to be held between the keeper's hand and something else - the other hand, the ground, his body, the goalpost, etc.

2) True - player skills are being developed, and they don't have the sense to pull back from a potentially dangerous situation.

3) Absolutely - safety for the young players is a primary concern.

Did you ever consider that the goalkeeper might have been creating the dangerous situation? We expect keepers to make dramatic diving plays, putting body parts into positions where they may get kicked, but when he missed the ball and then stayed down on the ground, he may have been the cause of the danger. The IFK possibly should have been inbound, not outbound. I don't know, I wasn't there - it's just a suggestion to think about.

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Hard to fault you at this age level. You perceived a danger and you dealt with it. Possibly the keeper was the one playing in a dangerous manner though and the keeper did NOT have possession.

At older ages you should allow this play to continue though.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 17988