Question Number: 18112

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/11/2007

Mel Fros of Urbana, IL Champaign asks...

This question is a follow up to question 18009

I want to respond to a questions submitted by Jay of Santa Cruz, CA #18009

Allow me to weigh in on a most interesting situation submitted by Jay. As a recreational soccer ref., and an aging, deaf one at that, I've seen this situation many times. And though I don't have anywhere near the experience of ref. Steve, Keith, Michelle and Herr Fleischer, I have a serious problem with the BASIS underlying their responses.

The situation described by Jay is simply and clearly stated: the goalie "gets his hand on top of it" (the ball) just before the attacker kicks it (from out the keeper's hand) into the goal. Jay calls off the goal. He assumes it was the momentum of the attacking player, going for a loose ball, that caused the situation to develop as it did.

Let's look at our two (USA) authoritative texts: 1) Laws of the Game (FIFA), and 2) Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game (US Soccer Federation Inc). Look carefully at Law 12 (Fouls and misconduct), suck in the beauty of the written word, and you will find that it Law 12 is silent about Jay's particular situation! Ja, meine Herren und Damen, that is so! Law 12 only says that an attacking player is penalized for preventing the keeper from releasing a ball in his/her POSSESSION (as defined by the attendant Decision 2). The scenario Jay presented is NOT talking about a case in which the keeper is in (full) possession. In Jay's scenario he/she is (merely) in "control". Control is not the same as possession. If it were, Decision 2 of Law 12 would be worded differently. In short, my friends, the Guardians of the Beautiful Game intentionally or unintentionally neglected to tell us poor officials what an attacker may or may not do when the keeper is in control of the ball !!

OK...so what does the other authoritative source have to say? Advice to Referees, section 12.16 talks about the keeper being in possession of the ball. Keeper in control is not mentioned at all !! 12.23 gets us a bit closer to our situation. It talks about 1) charging the keeper, and 2) charging the keeper in possession of the ball. But once again, reference to a keeper in control of the ball is not specifically mentioned.

Well then, what are we talking about? We are clearly not talking about keeper possession. We are talking about Decision 2 CONTROL! Control is not the same as possession. If it were FIFA would not have made the distinction ! We can surmise that "control" is the stage LEADING TO possession. So here we have a gray area where FIFA chooses to remain silent. My guess is FIFA wants the ref. to decide what, if anything, should be called. Perhaps the goal Jay called off should have been allowed! I did not see what happened...and FIFA does not specifically say it should be called off. A subjective decision is advised.

Now I "hear" many of you out there screaming, "Nein, nein, Bruder, you go zat all falsch (wrong)!" But wait...think about it.....stroke the hairs of your chinny, chin, chin before you blow my opinion to the wind!

The keeper has a right to dive headfirst for the ball, putting his noodle in harms way. Equally, she/he has the right to be protected from careless, dangerous or worse play. Since control progresses towards full possession, Law 12 Decision 2 suggests that a fine line has been crossed the instant there's control. The ref. needs to make a decision that is appropriate to the situation. And that situation, in my opinion, MAY (on rare occasions) include allowing the goal to stand!

In Jay's scenario, if the ref. decides the keeper is in control, a charge by the attacking player warrants a DF restart. If the ref. determines there was dangerous play, an IFK is given to the defending team. In both cases the goal is called off because, presumably, the ball fully crossed the goal line AFTER the incident to be penalized was observed.

To award an IFK (as Steve suggests) on grounds the attacker prevented the keeper from releasing the ball is, in my opinion, incorrect, since possession never was established. Possession does not enter Jay's scenario. It is a simple case of control. It seems to me Michell muddies the water by equating control with possession. She writes, "..a GK in possession/ control could not be challenged for the ball." Chuck, in my opinion, comes closet to the Law's intent when he suggests that an IFK or a DFK should be awarded "depending on your feelings about what happened."

And that leaves us with a vexing question: given Jay's approximate scenario, can a goal ever be legitimately scored? I say it can...but it depends on the circumstances...and only by seeing the situation can I render a decision. OK...if anyone can show me the error of my reasoning I will withdraw my objection. Let the dialog begin!

Melchior Fros, IL

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

When we were discussing this we corresponded with the Editor and others involved in the writing of ATR 2007. In those discussions this paragraph was identified as germane. It comes from FIFA training material its own referees are given.

"The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by trapping the ball between his hands or his hand and any surface [e.g., goal post, ground, own body] or by holding the ball in his outstretched hand"

Right, since the question used the word pinning the ball to the ground we answered using that word rather than introduce another. As you can see the act of holding the ball with one hand against something, be it the ground or the bottom of the crossbar is control by the goalkeeper.

Another paragraph from the same training module states:

"the goalkeeper is also considered to be in control of the ball while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air".

That handles the thing the keeper does. Bottom line, when he gets a hand to the ball it is "out of bounds", "off limits", isn't going to be played by an opponent.

So what happens when an opponent does play it? The referee gets all pissy and blows his whistle. This tells everyone someone has done something he shouldn't have and/or play has stopped. From there the degrees of don't do it again begin. If the attacker is involved in excessive force, recklessness, carelessness, is dangerous or whatever else the referee is able to sort out what to do. The restart of play is either direct or indirect depending on the degree of foul play and the type of foul play.

The referee should never fail to protect the keeper when he has a hand on the ball, for it is written...

So well ich Leben. Tschuss,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

I'm not sure where you got the idea that "control" and "possession" are two different things. In fact, they are used interchangably in the Laws, even within the same sentence. In Law 12 we find that the goalkeeper commits an indirect free kick offense if he "takes more than six seconds while controlling the ball with his hands before releasing it from his possession".

The second sentence of Law 12 Decision 2 is meant to define what a goalkeeper may do following a save versus a deliberate parry. It does not define a difference between control and possession.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I think Chuck explains where we are coming from nicely. The proverbial "keeper has possession of the ball as long as 1 finger has it pinned to the ground" is NOT something any of us have made up. It's so ingrained in Law that FIFA just assumes we all know it. I think the problem you have is the same one I had when first starting out. Having grown up with American sports where rulebooks go on in ad finitum as to detail and encompass hundreds of pages I expected everything having to do with soccer Laws to be in black and white. It's simply not so and this is one of those things. As to your question, no, if the keeper has the ball pinned to the ground, an opponent may not kick the ball. As to the restart, if the referee feels the opponent was attempting to kick the keeper in at least a careless manner he may give a DFK. If not, it's an IFK. As an aside, I did see Mia Hamm kick the ball into the net when a Chinese keeper had the ball pinned in 1999 so not all referees see possession the same. If you were to write Jim Allen, which I encourage you to do, I believe you will find control and possession are one and the same

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Mel,
Interesting as your hypothesis might be the simple fact is a ball in contact with the hard or arm of a keeper is considered as a save/possession unless it rebounds away. Now we understand that a hard charging attacker will not give up easily on a ball where there is an opportunity to put it into the goal! Keeper who can reach out to get a hand to that ball ahead of the attacker is certainly at risk but that is football and it is a referee's opinion which will make that act a foul or a legitimate goal.
If the hand /arm is SEEN to be in contact with the ball when the foot of the attacker arrives it is a DFK or indfk out with possible caution or send off conduct attached. If the ball is not in contact with the hand and the foot pushes the ball through or into the hand arm in the kicking or sliding motion to score a goal then the goal is good unless there was reason to see the act as unsafe or excessive in some manner. The recognition of vulnerability to having broken fingers if unchecked challenges are permitted with no thought to the way such a challenge is performed is simply one of normal caution rather than unfair advantage.
An opponent who decides to FOLLOW through when a keeper has hand to the ball claiming to play the ball has failed to act responsibly and avoid the collision as he must try to do. We can usually see when there is time or no time when the act is legit or a stretch. There will be those collisions when both parties were equal to the opportunity as referee that is our discretion, our match our decision our reputation to see it as part of play or not!

I ask you to think on this situation, an offside attacker who watches as the ball rolls up to the keeper but stops inches away from him. The ball rests at his feet BUT he has not touched the ball either with the feet or hands. The offside player waits for ten seconds but the keeper just stands there in no hurry to touch the ball. The offside attacker figures enough is enough and moves towards the ball! The keeper waits until the last second to reach down and grab the ball but fumbles it and the foot of the attacker is into deflect it into goal? Was that a good goal?
NO because the keeper was forced to react to an OFFSIDE attacker interfering with him.
There was no control because there was no ACTUAL physical touch of the ball until he reached down to do so.
No referee should have permitted the offside player from getting so close where a collision might occur even if the keeper was simply using up time legally by waiting.

If the attacker was onside then the goal would be fine because a fumble puts the ball back in play as long as the ball is not in contact with the arm/hand.
Cheers