signal for goalie passback?

[blech]

what would everyone think about a rule change that had the ref raise his arm to signal to the goalie that he believed the goalie could or could not play the ball with his hands? (i'm not sure which way makes more sense).

i recently saw a play where a ball was kicked up in the air by a defender trying to clear. the ball was misplayed. the goalie caught it. the ref called it, and awarded the indirect free kick. had i been the ref, i would have allowed play to continue, and in discussing it after the game with the two ARs and a few other refs at the field, the poll had about 35% calling it and the others allowing play to continue. which got me thinking, this wasn't a clean situation, so how could the goalie know, unless he gets some signal. as it is now, the goalie really does have to assume the strictest interpretation.

it's probably not practical, as most plays happen too quickly, but this was certainly one where the ball was up in the air long enough for the goalie to have looked up and known, according to this ref, he had to play the ball rather than catch it. anyone have thoughts on this or seen similar plays????

[Ref Flunkie]

I really don't think we should have a REQUIRED signal one way or another, because as you say, sometimes you don't have time to give a signal and if you can't do it all the time, then you should never be required to do it. Really, the only time the keeper should play the ball with his hands if there is ANY question of a pass back or not is if there is severe pressure by the attackers where if he were to play the ball with his feet/body, he would be giving up a good scoring chance. In any other case, the keeper should simply play the ball with his feet and avoid any controversy, especially if there isn't any pressure being applied by the attackers.

In your case, if the ball was clearly misplayed, then there should be no question that it was not a pass back. I'm surprised 35% thought it should be called if it was so clearly a misplay. Assuming it was as obvious of a misplay as you suggest, the referee made a mistake in calling it a pass back.

[NHRef]

there are no signals in soccer about what is about to happen. Hockey has some for things like icing and delayed penalties. I think it would cause more harm than good, for some of the reasons you mention, such as things happen to quick. What are you going to do if you simply didn't have time to put up your hand (or whatever) so the keeper picks it up, you call it and now YOU are the one to blame?

The players need to know the game and the rules.

[whipple]

As referees we are not to interfere or influence play. We only interfere when a law has been broken and has had an effect on play, and then our role is to stop play and signal the restart. If we were to have a signal indicating that it was OK for a keeper to play a ball with their hands, we would no longer be referees but participants.

Sherman

[blech]

i'm not surprised by your responses, which is one of the reasons i suggested the signal might be either direction. if a fist in the air meant it was okay for the goalie to pick up the ball, the goalie would know it was safe in that instance. if the play was too quick for a hand to go up, that wouldn't mean it was unsafe, but rather that a call might or might not be made as normal.

i think it distorts this to say that the referee has somehow become a participant. and, even if that is correct, it seems more important to penalize players who knowingly do something wrong. as i noted, the play in question was not even a close call in my opinion, but the ref saw it differently. did the goalie do anything wrong, other than not know how "this" ref would call it? he knew the rule, just didn't know how it would be interpreted here.

also, on the participant issue, the fact is that this call is somewhat unique in that the play that gives rise to the call has already occurred. anyway, just a thought. thanks for your responses.

[Laggard]

It's not up to me to tell a player if he/she can pick up the ball. They need to know that and if they don't, they pay the price.

I prefer that most of my calls be after the fact, not before.

[blech]

It's not up to me to tell a player if he/she can pick up the ball. They need to know that and if they don't, they pay the price.

I prefer that most of my calls be after the fact, not before.


you've obviously missed my point.

[Laggard]

"what would everyone think about a rule change that had the ref raise his arm to signal to the goalie that he believed the goalie could or could not play the ball with his hands?"

"if a fist in the air meant it was okay for the goalie to pick up the ball, the goalie would know it was safe in that instance."

Seems pretty clear to me. You want us to let the GK know if it's ok to pick up the ball. Again, that's not up to the officials.

[XYZ]

The backpass is a case where a player (the goalkeeper) may have to be a mindreader and guess what the referee is thinking. It's not even necessarily a question of fact (was the ball kicked by a teammate). It might be a matter of opinion (was the ball played or was it misplayed or deflected). The keeper may think the ball was deflected or misplayed, but he still doesn't know what the referee thinks. It seems an unfair position to place a player.

[IASocFan]

If the keeper has enough time to locate the referee and interpret his signal, he has enough time to play the ball with the feet. It's when there's pressure, that the keeper has to make a quick decision, should he play it with his feet or with my hands. It's sort of like defenders standing there with hands up as the attacker is dribbling toward the goal. You have to assume the worst, if I'm not sure, I better play defense (on the offside issue) or I better not pick it up (or accept the consequences)

[Laggard]

If the keeper is unsure, than they should maybe not pick up the ball.

[Ref Flunkie]

If the keeper is unsure, than they should maybe not pick up the ball.

Yup, as I said above unless it is a life and death situation where you are giving up a scoring chance, don't pick up the ball!!!!

[blech]

"what would everyone think about a rule change that had the ref raise his arm to signal to the goalie that he believed the goalie could or could not play the ball with his hands?"

"if a fist in the air meant it was okay for the goalie to pick up the ball, the goalie would know it was safe in that instance."

Seems pretty clear to me. You want us to let the GK know if it's ok to pick up the ball. Again, that's not up to the officials.


well, it's "not up to the officials" to tell the GK this under the current laws of the game, but my question was to ask what you (and others) would think of a change.

also, i never said that "i" wanted refs to do this. i merely asked what everyone's reaction would be. should this be part of the refs job (and do we already do it in other areas of the game, such as holding up the arm on an indirect kick until the ball is played by a second player)? and, could this be part of the refs job, and what would be the difficulties and benefits of doing it?

and, to be more specific about my point re your first comment, you cast blame on the goalie, stating s/he needs to "know" whether the ball can be picked up, which misses the point that the goalie can know the law, but not know how the particular ref is going to interpret/apply it.

obviously, one option is to say just be cautious and don't pick up the ball, but it seems that requires that the goalie not pick up the ball in many instances s/he is permitted to do so. the law doesn't say don't pick up the ball unless it's a life or death situation, but rather only if it's a deliberate backpass. obviously, assuming the worst and playing it cautiously is a solution (and clearly the best one under the current system). i was just wondering whether we could come up with a better one.

ps - maybe this is just due to the newness of this law and the significance of the issue i'm raising will go away over time as, perhaps, there will in 5-10 years be more consistency in how this law is applied. as it is now, the disparity in interpretation between refs really seems to place a goalie in the position of having to be overly cautious.

[uniteo]

If the keeper is unsure, than they should maybe not pick up the ball.

Yeah, but the keeper usually is sure, sometimes the ref sees it differently though.

Actually, I think the signal would not work, because the issue is more likely to be a problem precisely when the GK has to concentrate on the ball, without being able to look to the ref.

[whitehound]

As referees we are not to interfere or influence play. We only interfere when a law has been broken and has had an effect on play, and then our role is to stop play and signal the restart. If we were to have a signal indicating that it was OK for a keeper to play a ball with their hands, we would no longer be referees but participants.

Sherman
I disagree in principle. I think a good referee interferrs with play all the time. You should be in among the players using your voice to calm them and prevent foul play. That being said I dont think it applies to this case and we shouldnt have a signal for backpass. Keepers should play is safe and when in doubt, clear it out.

[Red Star]

ps - maybe this is just due to the newness of this law and the significance of the issue i'm raising will go away over time as, perhaps, there will in 5-10 years be more consistency in how this law is applied. as it is now, the disparity in interpretation between refs really seems to place a goalie in the position of having to be overly cautious.

You have hit on the problem that I (playing GK) have suffered under. Had a shot get by me recently, a defender who was on the line cleared it weakly back upfield toward me (a very nice defensive play under the circumstances). I grabbed it and you can guess... :confused:

Unfortunately, when you could use the information, you can't take the time to look for the official.

[Gary V]

Maybe we should warn players when they stray into an offside position, too. Or signal when they get themselves back onside, and are legal to play again?

Granted, there are differences in opinion on what "deliberately kicked to him" means. But there are differences in referee opinions on a lot of things that happen during the game. You play it safe, or you risk a call if you don't know how the ref will see it.

I'm not talking about obvious mistakes - e.g. calling it when the ball has been headed.

[whitehound]

Maybe we should warn players when they stray into an offside position, too. Or signal when they get themselves back onside, and are legal to play again?

Granted, there are differences in opinion on what "deliberately kicked to him" means. But there are differences in referee opinions on a lot of things that happen during the game. You play it safe, or you risk a call if you don't know how the ref will see it.

I'm not talking about obvious mistakes - e.g. calling it when the ball has been headed.
You guys dont call this in michigan anyway right? at least not against vardar!!! ;)

[ref47]

i am on the side of no new signal. players need to make their own decisions during the course of play. when in doubt, use your feet. if you don't know the laws, learn them.

[blech]

***if you don't know the laws, learn them.

as i've said a couple of times, this isn't about the player knowing the laws, but rather knowing how a particular ref is going to interpret them. and, a player would certainly need to know the laws fairly well if s/he were to know in the amount of time we're talking about what a ref's signal meant!

as i noted above, although i posed the question, i wasn't advocating it, but rather had thought about the issue and was searching for a better solution. in thinking about it further, and reading everyone's responses, the most persuasive reason to me for not having such a signal is the practicality in terms of time between when a passback occurs and when a goalie would potentially grab the ball. in the play i saw this past weekend, the ball was up in the air for a while, but that play was certainly the exception. in most cases, by the time the ref even made the signal, it would be too late.

i do think this situation is different than the other instances of referee discretion because of the severity of result. giving up this kind of opportunity for a scoring opportunity is significant, but i guess that's the point some of you have made in saying don't take any chances (even though in my opinion that requires goalie's not to handle balls that they should be able to because of a fear that the ref will take a most aggressive (or even erroneous) interpretation of this fairly new law).

so, i guess err on the side of caution. if the ball came off the foot of your teammate, only pick it up if not doing so would be more dangerous than an indirect free kick or if you have some experience with the ref to suggest that it is okay in that circumstance.


thanks all.