Hi Arturo,

I have been officiating for 68 years and have never before heard to this situation.

I do believe it should be a goal unless your arm or hand was involved and you did this deliberately.

The scoring rule that leads me to this conclusion is as follows: A goal is scored when the entire ball passes beyond the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar provided it has not been deliberately thrown, carried or propelled by the hand or arm of the attacking team.

However, the referee does have the power to make decisions on any point not specifically covered in the rules and he/she may have decided this situation was not covered by the rules.

Thank you for this very unusual question. I hope you have a very successful season.

Hi Arturo
Thanks for the question.
Like my colleague Referee Manjone I have never seen or heard of anything like it until now. I have heard of players pulling their shirt down over the ball or cradling the ball on a stretched jersey which is deemed a handling offence. Yet those were done in jest or as a lark.

One could surmise that in the highly unlikely event of a ball under the jersey with no hand involvement on the jersey putting it there that it is playing in a dangerous manner as the ball cannot be kicked / played without risk of a kick to the player. Put it this way. A ball should never be under a jersey even accidentally in open play.

Much more likely was a pushing, charging, pulling jumping at offence on the defender or goalkeeper which would be punished by direct free kick.

Hi Arturo,
I remember being instructed earlier in my career the shirts had to be tucked in and that it would be easier to see if they got pulled out grabbed. But over the years, Jersey tucks was more etiquette than LOTG. Pretty loose jersey! LOL The referee likely thought it was carried over the goal line, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt, it is an unusual situation. I would have asked the referee in the game for an answer we can only speculate.
Cheers

Hi Petr
Thanks for the question.

Much of the answer rests on the referee’s pre match instructions.
For instance at offside free kicks an assistant will be asked to maintain a position level with the offence until the ball is placed. An AR from the touchline can quietly advise the kicker of moving the ball to satisfy the position if the referee has moved away.
For most free kicks an AR will be busy getting into position to judge offside with players bringing to the referee any incorrect placement of the ball. It is highly unlikely that an AR will be involved in determining the location other than signalling to the referee that all is not well with the location.

An AR can enforce the distance at a free kick that is close yet that is even rare as most referees do that anyway at free kicks. Again maybe asking a sole opponent to move back could be undertaken by an AR if the AR is close to the kick and it is done from the touchline.

Hi Petr,
Theoretically, I suppose an AR could do this but as my colleague ref McHugh explains, this would be rather rare and would usually only happen if the referee has covered it in the pre-game instructions.

The laws do not give the AR the responsibility of ensuring the ball is properly placed for free kicks (only for corner kicks) and I would say that in general, the AR will defer to the referee in such matters.

There is a phrase used in the "Guidelines for Match Officials" section that although it is not designed for this specific situation, I think is applicable here. It says, "In all other situations, the AR must wait and offer an opinion if it is required and then inform the referee ..."

HI Petr,
Restart locations are not ALWAYS a blade of grass but must abide by the referees tolerance and legal LOTG conditions. I dislike the inference that an AR is acting on their own without NEEDING the CR BECAUSE it is a team management system. The CR has the ultimate final decision but pregame instructions and common sense will permit ARs to act in accordance with the LOTG, if the CR ok with them acting to deal with a situation within their quadrant. This includes managing the corner kicks or perhaps a free kick from the corner area and even on a goal kick if the CR had say already withdrawn to centre circle awaiting a long kick. I recall watching the AR in an English Premier where two opposing players had a foul incident directly in front of him, the CR well back, the AR as he was running along side the two of them, allowed advantage and signalled it with one hand. I questioned this in the post game review if this was n acceptable mechanics, the CR replied the AR is a referee as well and he was in the BEST position to make that call.
Cheers

Hi Jose
Thanks for the question.

First of all every player is entitled to their space on the field of play. So if every player just stood there a referee would not have to do anything.

Now we know that is never the case and in many situations referees are faced with players jostling each other before and during play. Referee may intervene by warning players that foul play will be punished.

When the ball is put into play a referee has to judge what action is legal and what is an offence. That is a judgement call based on what the referees observes and whether the action steps beyond incidental contact, legal charging, just being there and pushing, pull, illegal charging, impeding etc. are the players going to play the ball or is the action one of only moving to impede, block etc.

Tolerance levels vary between referees and some will adopt a strict approach on contact on goalkeepers including, blocking, pushing, charging, holding while others will perhaps only penalise more obvious egregious contact.

Have a look at this video
https://youtu.be/IRSiHj0Ngb4?si=1cQCS68cGO4dtgz0

The video author believed it was a foul yet it was not given. This was subject to a VAR review so there was no obvious offence that VAR officials felt that the referee missed.
Part of the problem in my opinion was the defending teams’s zonal marking leaving the goalkeeper exposed to players being in and around his space. Being there and trying to play the ball making it awkward for a goalkeeper is a distance from committing an obvious offence such as impeding, pushing holding etc
Perhaps another referee on another day may call an offence and it is a judgement call based on whether any of the penal fouls are present.

Hi Jose,

I prefer to use the NFHS high school rule when determining if impeding has occurred.

This rule states: Impeding is the deliberate act of a player that moves into the path of a player to block, obstruct, slow down, or force a change in direction when the ball is not within playing distance. Being in the way of an opponent is not an offense and is different than moving into the way.

The key word in the determination of impeding is movement.

In the instances you mention, as the referee, I would look at the movement of the goalkeeper and the attacking player. Is the goalkeeper moving or just standing there. Is the attacking player also just standing there or moving to block, obstruct, slow down, or force a change of direction by the goalkeeper. Based on my observation I would make a call of impeding or no call at all if impeding did not occur.

From the your examples, I would guess the first referee was correct since he/she saw the attacker impeding the goalkeeper. The second referee was incorrect in stating that pushing and/or grabbing had to occur for a foul to occur.

Thank you for this question. Impeding of the goalkeeper is a foul that frequently occurs in youth level competition.

Hi Jose,
off corners, free kick or throw in restarts close to the PA the scrums in front of Goal are legendary for controversy due to the equality of the foul potential of the reality, who has a hold of or is pushing who at any given moment?

I recall a professional match where the Winnipeg coach placed 4 attackers in a (+ formation) tight to the Vancouver keeper in middle of + hoping to draw that keeper into a foul trying to escape.

Most pro coaches are well read up on Law changes, they try to use them to their advantage, if they can figure out away to do so.

Offside traps play the ball through to one guy obviously offside only to dummy the ball to another player who is free and open.

The head the ball back to the keeper on the goal kicks inside the PA when they first changed the LOTG so the ball did NOT have to exit first but the opponents were not allowed inside the PA. Took some time but they fixed that flaw making it for what it was circumvention.

As my colleagues stated, all players can stand and own that bit of grass BUT they can not
-shadow- their opponents' movements and claim that same right! If you're pursuing an opposing player grabbing pushing, holding, bumping into people without the ball being in playing distance as a legitimate challenge for possession then chances are that is a foul.

Whereas impeding with minor contact might be over looked as trifling if it appears as if neither is having the best of it, a referee must look at it in totality as to the outcome it has on active play. On the incoming high arcing balls into their area the keeper will jump and or reach up over their head making them vulnerable to being undercut! You can't really charge shoulder to shoulder as their shoulder is not available.

Keepers are gifted with the ability to use their hands, & the LOTG state if they grasp a ball with the hands upon possession of the ball they are -not- allowed to be challenged. Attackers have to be aware and be prepared to bail out of any challenge rather than carry through on it, once this occurs. I would say the keepers have a definite advantage given their safety is often at the higher risk level we carefully evaluate any attacker seeking to create chaos. .

That does not exempt keepers from being the giver as opposed to the recipient of a foul. Jumping up in the air with raised knee in a forward motion or extending the arm out in a punching motion. Or simply pushing or tripping players out of the way to get to the ball making them liable for the foul and usually a penalty kick against.

Each referee is aware of the LOTG but each referee will have their own management style and understanding in how to deal with physicality between two teams
Cheers

Hi Crebs
Thanks for the question.

As the referee stopped play to award a penalty kick that was the decision which the VAR process reversed so the only possible outcome was a drópped ball at that location.

The downside of the early call is that if the referee had made no call the restart would have been a corner kick. It is for this reason that referees incorrectly delay on making a penalty call and use VAR as a crutch which the advice tries to avoid.

HI Crebs
a very merry Christmas to you as well.
the referee awarded a PK!
That is the stoppage!
The ball went into touch -after- that event.
The fact it was deemed to NOT be a PK after review.
The changed outcome of a decision will not change the -reasoning for the stoppage- which was the supposed foul!
The fact it should have been a corner kick -IF- only the referee had not erred in awarding the PK because now the LOTG demands that as an inadvertent stoppage, it is a DB.
Given that this stoppage occurs within a PA (penalty area) the LOTG are specific the restart is a DB to the keeper.
The whistle is sounded to stop play but the reason for the whistle is the intended restart for that decision.
When the decision is an oops unnecessary whistle , as it was here, the DB is the go to fix.
A foul CANNOT be awarded if the ball is ALREADY out of play. If there is an incident, that occurs after the ball is deemed to be in touch, it could only be misconduct.
Cheers

Hi Petr
Thanks fir the follow up

The laws allows for B, C and D. B and C are expressly stated in the Laws while D is tacit knowledge as it is not possible to take a throw in or a corner kick without being off the field to do so. It is seen as a playing action.

A and E are not part if the Laws except for an injury while off through momentum. Sure a player could simply walk off and cite A and E to avoid a caution.

As Referee Grove mentions a referee needs to know what is happening in the game. Permission would always be given in A and E yet return would be tightly controlled so that a player could not return into the middle of active play unbeknownst to opponents. That would be patently unfair.

The only true source of the Laws of the Game is the IFAB website. Many former publications have been discarded as as the US ATR as it was not approved by IFAB.

Hi Petr,
I'm wondering what you mean by "the Czech version of the rules." The IFAB does not allow different national associations to come up with their own versions of the Laws of the Game, and while they have started publishing different language versions of the laws on their website, Czech is not one of them. So I'm wondering who publishes this set of laws and where?

Anyway, setting that aside, as my colleague ref McHugh alludes to, scenarios b, c and d are all fairly standard and more or less covered by the laws (you could for instance, class taking a restart as a normal playing action). Scenarios a and e are a little more problematic however. I don't see anything in the laws that would cover these, either explicitly or implicitly. For me, a player should require permission from the referee to leave the field for injury or to change their equipment.

Now, I would say those would be pretty much automatically granted by any referee so I don't see any reason why a player wouldn't ask (or almost just notify) the referee of such an action - but the referee does need to be aware of what's going on. You can't just have players wandering off the field when they feel like it, without the referee being informed. And they definitely need the referee's permission to return.

Hi David,

The referee was correct. The ball is out of play when it has completely crossed a goal line or touch line whether on the ground or in the air.

This is covered in NFHS Rule 9-1-1a.

Please note the ball must be completely outside a goal line or touch line. If any part of the ball was over the goal (end) line and never completely got outside the goal line in the situation you indicate, the goal would have been good.

I do hope your team has a successful season and future games are not as windy.

Hi David
Correct decision by the referee as the ball was out of bounds from your description.

Once all of the ball crosses the plane of the goal line either on the ground or in the air, as in this case, it is out of play.

The restart is a goal kick.

Hi David,
you can AR for me anytime. I enjoyed your thought process as well as your attitude and evaluations. I suspect you went over this with him in the post game? Also given play continued did you notice any defending /keeper dissent?

For what it is worth, if the keeper is in possession as you described and is coming back to ground, offering only an opinion, having not witnessed the event I believe as you are adamant in how you thought this occurred, if the opponents, on their own contact him and knock the ball free, a free kick out! If it simply is proximity and contact occurs and he drops the ball, there is more room for interpretation.

If the arms are extended before he can pull the ball in tight it is plausible to have the extended arms contact close in opponents, possibly jarring the ball loose. Given the proximity of surrounding opponents vying for possession, depending on how this capture within the scrum of PA on free kicks occurred, collisions might be inevitable. You discounted the obvious type of contact when the keeper reaches up and over their own defenders as well as opponents often trying to punch the ball, aware that by catching, it is likely to be knocked loose! The surrounding defenders and opponents jostling is likely the key to the on field referee decision in that he is not holding the opposition as running into the keeper simply the defenders' and opposition together created a bad environment for control and they simultaneously were just grouped together causing contact with no blame attached .

In your match as a CR it would be your decision, your reputation!

Once a keeper has the ball in their hands, no opponent can challenge and should make an effort to turn away, if possible, to avoid contact. They certainly can not barge or run into the keeper as an outstretched keeper is vulnerable yet safety is for all participants not exclusive to the keeper who often get away with raised feet and high knees.

Just ask Gonzalo Higuaín of Argentina when he was one-on-one with Germany goalkeeper Manuel Neuer back at the 2014 WC in Brazil and was utterly destroyed by the knee of the leaping German keeper in what was, in my opinion one of the greatest missed blatant fouls by the referee. Aside from missing the foul, they awarded a free kick to Germany after Manuel Neuer had punched the ball out into touch for what should have been a Argentinian throw in. No VAR back then!

Cheers

Hi David
Thanks for the post.

There are two matters to consider here.

The first one is there an offence / infraction by the attacking team on the goalkeeper? Has the goalkeeper come for a ball into a crowd of players and made contact of his own making and then falls on top of players including his own players and then spilling the ball in the process. I suspect that was the referee saw which is why he did not call it immediately?.

You state that a goalkeeper “cannot be relieved of that possession through incidental contact by an unidentified player or players, assuming that the GK himself has not committed a foul in the process of obtaining possession””

That is not technically correct as the goalkeeper can be the cause of the incidental contact and therefore an opponent has done nothing other than maybe just stood there in that position.

What is not legal is where a goalkeeper has the ball and an opponent challenges the goalkeeper causing the ball to be released.
There is a world of difference between a spill by goalkeepers of their own making colliding with team mates and opponents and opponents challenging goalkeepers for the ball while in possession.

The second point is that I suspect that the referee may have stopped play for an injury. You do not indicate what the restart was and whether it was a drópped ball to the goalkeeper or a free kick?
The referee may have decided that with a prone goalkeeper who has landed on players that the safest decision is to stop the game.

Final point is that you state that the referee was in close proximity to the activity and had an eagle eye on the situation. I do not know the referees pre match instruction or the nuances of NFHS games yet assuming this was not covered I would not be raising a flag here in a FIFA game. It is outside an ARs area of control in the goal mouth and with the referee looking straight at it a referee may not welcome a raised flag.
ARs when they are better positioned than the Referee may flag for an offence and where the referee has not clearly acted on the clear offence. If the assistant referee has additional information, concerning the offence, they wish to give to the referee a discreet signal may be used, but only to supplement the flag signal already given.

David,

You are correct. As indicated in NFHS Rule 12-1-2c1: A player shall not in any manner charge the goalkeeper in possession of the ball in the penalty area unless the goalkeeper is obstructing the player or dribbling the ball with the feet. Possession or control of the ball includes anytime the goalkeeper has the ball trapped by either or both hands or when bouncing the ball or dribbling the ball with the feet.

The call should have been a direct kick for the goalkeeper's team.

I would like to make two additional comments. In high school play, I found it advantageous to work the three whistle rather than the one whistle referee system. Having the side official for plays inside the penalty often has an advantage because the side official gets a better view of the play. The other comment concerns the term pitch. High school soccer is played on a field.

I do hope you have a very successful fall season and get to work in the WIAA boys state tournament in November.

Hi Stephen
As you know it is a dropped ball when the ball touches a match official, remains on the field of play and:
# a team starts a promising attack or
# the ball goes directly into the goal or
# the team in possession of the ball changes.

From your description it appears that it was a shot on goal that hit you and bounced back outside the penalty yet it did not change possession.
Obviously we can rule out going directly into the goal and a change of possession so we are left with the starts a promising attack.

There is an element of asking what would have happened had the ball not hit you in the penalty area? That can be a difficult assessment. It could though be going wide which will have a goal kick restart. It could be going to an opponent?
I suspect you are asking the question as the conceding team may have expected a drópped ball after a significant change of direction.
I personally think it is too significant a contact to ignore and the DB was the expected option under Law 9. I see incidents where lesser contact on referees results in DBs and only insignificant contact where little changed is play on such as a deflected pass to the intended player,
It will require an apology to the attacking team for stopping the shot before the DB.

HI Stephen,
Now if a ball contacts the referee but, in the opinion of that official, it does not alter the play
they can permit play to continue, as it is only allowing what was to continue but if you are INSIDE the PA, the ONLY option, IF you stopped play due to the ball striking you, the correct restart is a DB to the keeper. Now you could think the shot that struck you was catchable by the keeper or perhaps wide and that contact by you changed the outcome so maybe best to do the DB but in hindsight you can only reflect on supposition. Think a bit on why were you inside the PA and your location/position? Was it the correct spot to be in and you were unlucky or could there have been better vision and alternate places to be?
Cheers

Hi Edson,
The simple answer is a retake, as the ball was NOT put into play correctly. If a goal results and only then the AR notifies the CR, hey the restart was incorrect because the ball was NOT within the arc (even a tiny overlap of curve on the line itself is sufficient) the CR and AR should be in eye contact and sync when it comes to restarts & waving flags should be noticed. The fact is, UNTIL the kick off, the referee can alter awarding the goal as NO restart had occurred since the ball was improperly put into play. If a kick off ensued and only then the AR says, oh by the way that corner kick was not correct, it is TOO late to do or change anything! Best situation is to communicate, get the restart right!
Cheers

Hi Edson
The simple answer is a retake as the corner was not taken correctly as per Law 17 even if a goal is scored.
A double touch or handling offence will obviously result in a free kick.
Now good mechanics by the assistant should try to ensure the kick is taken correctly which can mean stepping in to advise the kicker that the ball is not say in the arc and by doing so stopping the kick.
In addition alertness by the referee should spot the raised flag which means that the referee should endeavor to halt play immediately.

Now it also brings in the question of doubtful and trifling. We regularly see balls being placed on the edge of the arc many times ever so slightly beyond the line on the non assistant side. Play never gets halted on that side whereas on the assistant side an AR may step into to check the ball placement.
As an AR if I have failed to act and the placement is trifling or doubtful then why create an issue for the game unlike say a more obvious infringement such as a double touch or a moving ball which may be seen by the opponents.

hi Crebs
The answer is yes and it does happen from time to time. A team may decide to place a left footed and a right footed kicker at a corner kick to allow the option of an in swinging or out swinging kick.

What one finds is that the opponents will have no difficulty with that as in effect it is one less attacking player to worry about.

A referee could be super picky and insist that only one player be off the field of play yet most referees will not concern themselves with it. It’s not doing anything unfair or disadvantaging the opponent.
It rarely happens so it is not going to trouble many referees if any. I rarely if ever seen it in games.

Hi Crebs,
it is not a usual tactic but it is not illegal. As my colleague explained the type of kicker might play a role if inswing or an outswing is needed . Defensive set, up wind etc.. or possible a quick tap and dribble, give and go in towards the goal. One thing to consider is to remember they are both exempt at the kick just the kicker can not play the ball twice. I recall a situation as described the kicker was the furthest out into the FOP and the other player came in along the goal line. The ball hit the post and rebounded back to where the other player crossed it a 2nd time, The AR incorrectly raised the flag and the referee incorrectly awarded an INDFK out
Cheers