Random hypothetical question here and just out of curiosity: If a team's starting goalkeeper is red-carded in a game and the team is faced with the choice of his/her replacement, is there anything in the rules that forces the team to replace with another keeper? Could they simply just throw on another field player if for whatever reason (petulance or insanity) they chose to? For that matter, is there anything in the rules that says you have to start a keeper at all? I ask because it occurred to me that sending the keeper up for a last minute header target in desperation games suggests that a keeper can go wherever the hell they want on the field at any time for any length of time, effectively making that person just another field player. The only time I can imagine a zero-keeper situation for an extended period of time would be if a) the team simply didn't care about the game result at all or b) if they legitimately believed that they could dominate a team to such a degree that it didn't matter. ....Which leads to another question: If a team is truly just throwing a game for whatever reason (not playing a keeper etc..) is there a rule that allows the officials to call the game based on it becoming a farce?
Yes, tradition (and page 17 of the LotG). Nothing in the Laws that demand the keeper to do anything useful though.
Some one has to wear a distinctive jersey. There is no requirement that he play primarily in defense of his goal.
You have been a BS member for 14 years yet do not know these rules about a goalkeeper? A goalkeeper is a player and can go and do anything that any other player is allowed to. He is the only one allowed to handle the ball but only in his penalty area, and therefore he has to be distinguished from the other players by wearing a different color jersey. Someone has to be named as the goalkeeper at all times. There is no rule for a referee to call a game if one (or even both) team is not trying to win. There was a very infamous match at the 1982 WC where this happened. PH
Thanks for the replies. I've never seen a game in which a keeper was deliberately played as a constant field player, say at striker, with nobody covering goal at all for the duration of the game, which is why I asked. It would have to be an oddball situation but it made me wonder if there might be some arcane restrictions around that sort of thing.
Some of the games I do, the only thing identifying the keeper is a pinnie. As long as it didn't match the other team, I suppose you could just put a pinnie on a player and say he's the keeper. I have seen games where one team rarely, if ever, got past mid-field. I could see this situation happening in a case like that. It doesn't seem very sporting to me though.
Some indoor leagues restrict the physical location of the keeper (I think footsal does as well), but real soccer has never had such a restriction.
The LOTG for futsal does not restrict the location or movement of the GK, per se. It restricts the amount of time the GK can possess the ball in his own half (four seconds), either in his hands or at his feet. It also stipulates that the GK can only play/possess the ball one time in his own half, unless an opponent touches the ball or play is stopped at some point. For example, the GK can pass the ball to a teammate, but the teammate cannot pass the ball back to the GK as long as the GK is in his own half, unless an opponent touches the ball or play is stopped for a foul, kick-in, goal clearance, etc.
Can you replace the keeper with a garbage can after you put a big yellow dot on it? Some garbage cans can stop more shots on goal then some keepers I have seen. Especially when the game goes to pks in tournaments. There is something about putting a big yellow dot on a keeper shirt. The ball finds that dot a lot more then one would expect
Back when I was in high school. I felt like playing keeper in a safety green made me more of a target and got shots kicked straight at me. But that might have just been in my head.
There is one club around here where the coach will basically play open goal with a sweeper keeper for U-10 girls. Yes, one player wears a pinnie and is considered the GK, but they move up with the rest of the team. They are not concerned with GK development at that age, only the foot skills. Drives their opponents parents crazy.
That, and stuff like "this is not real soccer", "they need to treat this like a real game" etc. It is U-10, non-results oriented. They would usually lose their games, but they were clear that they were developing the individual ball skills that players require.
So, was that what you wanted? I always learned that keeper's wore the wild colors (think Jorge Campos) to draw the shooter's eye, in the hope that the ball would go towards the keeper, rather than away from him/her.
Yes, 'fraid so. I've heard parents claim that the keeper can't leave the penalty area. My (younger) daughter played on a "mixed" team. (It was "mixed" because girls could play on teams that had boys. She was the only girl in the league's "mixed" division, however.) One of her teammates didn't like playing keeper, so, when he had to take his turn in goal, his philosophy was that offense was the best form of defense. He'd be up there, essentially playing forward, while wearing the funny shirt. Unfortunately, we even ran into a youth referee who told him that he had to stay on "his" half of the field.
I've heard two -- directly contradicting -- theories. The Campos theory of bright, distracting colors is one. The other favors muted colors -- grass green being good -- that makes the GK less visible and (the theory goes) harder for attackers to account for where he is. I remain dubious that either has an appreicable affect on the game -- though referencing Campos is perfect for a thread about where GKs can go on the field . . . for htose who don't know Campos, he often took PKs in games, and loved roaming all the way up to midfield.. . .
Speaking of which, what is the provenance of the tradition (if tradition indeed it is) that a keeper who leaves her area to contend with the referee gets an automatic caution for dissent?
Good question. Not in the Laws of the Game or the Interpretation, but I have a dim recollection of a document from USL that wanted dissent reported under two separate codes, one for ordinary dissent and the other for dissent where the goalkeeper has left the penalty area to dissent to the referee or assistant referee. I think most of us interpreted that as meaning that leaving the penalty area to complain should automatically be cautioned for dissent, if only because it usually means it involved a longer distance to come, which makes it much more public.
I remember that being on a report at some point, can't remember if it was in fact USL... As far as the GK coming out of the PA to dissent equating to an automatic caution, I always felt that it was a reward for them traveling that far. No need to send them back to the PA empty handed! In all seriousness, I see it just as a very public act. There is no reason to come out of the PA -- especially for the "usual" dissent topic, a foul for the attacking team -- other than to make a very public display of dissent.
In many cases, the keeper is the/a team captain. 2014 ATR 12.c.5 A goalkeeper who leaves the penalty area to engage the referee or an assistant referee in debate regarding a decision has committed dissent. A substitute or substituted player may also be cautioned for dissent.
True, but does that mean anything here (remembering captains have no special rights or privileges under the LOTG)? What do you know, the ATR has something to say about it. I guess my perspective is that I agree that the GK has committed dissent, but we don't always give the card for every occurrence of dissent. But it reminds us that just leaving the PA to debate is the act of dissent. It doesn't really matter what he/she says at that point, huh?
If dissent is judged by the 3P principle, a keeper going out of his way to come out of hte PA to get to you has met 2 of the three P's before he gets there, it's public and provocative, so he's already almost there