'keeper posession

[john rod]

the 'keeper [red team] went after a ground ball, touched it, and lost control of it. as she was bending over to try again [had not yet touched it, but was very close], the forward [blue team] came in and kicked the ball, thru her the 'keepers legs, into the net. i called it an OK goal. the game ended 6-1 [for blue], so right or wrong it didn't matter, at games end.
however the blue coach, who is a first season ref. wants to know if that was right or wrong. did/didn't she have posession?
i viewed this as; she spilled the ball, and both players had equal chance at it. there was no physical contact between forward and 'keeper.

thanks rod in arizona

[refmike]

John,

The keeper did not have posession or contact at the time the ball was kicked away so your call was correct but you could also have called dangerous play on the attacker. This was your call and your view was different from the coach, who did have a valid question. Glad to see it did not become an argument.

[ref47]

in order to have possession and, therefore, unable to be fairly charged or contested for the ball, the keeper needs to have the ball in both hands or pinned against the keeper's body, the ground, or the goalpost. pinning the ball against another player is not possession. this can be as simple as the keeper outstretched on the ground and having a hand (or arm) on top of the ball.

if there is no contact with the ball, as you have stated, the keeper is not in possession.

[IASocFan]

If she didn't have a hand on the ball, no possession! If the attacker didn't touch the keeper and the keeper wasn't touching the ball, then it's safe for the attacker to kick the ball in the net. GOAL! Good Call!

Sometimes coaches just have questions (or complaints). If he asks if she had possession, then the answer is NO, free ball.

[njref]

John,

The keeper did not have posession or contact at the time the ball was kicked away so your call was correct but you could also have called dangerous play on the attacker. This was your call and your view was different from the coach, who did have a valid question. Glad to see it did not become an argument.

I agree that as long as the GK is not touching the ball, the GK cannot have possession. Now that the infamous "heading the ball out of the GK's hand/full possession" Q&A has met its maker, we are back to the old rule that the GK need only have a finger on the ball to have possession.

I have never viewed normal kicking the ball on the ground when the GK does not have possession as a dangerous play foul. Yes it is dangerous for the GK who may be on the ground trying to get a handle on the ball. But the GK has placed themselves in this position, and I believe that the attacker has the right to play the ball even close to the GK. Should I be calling DP for these contested balls without possession? And who should I call it on (GK or attacker)?

Of course, I would have a different result if the attacker is kicking high, kicks the GK, etc.

[ref47]

playing goalkeeper brings added risk to the player. diving head first for balls is one such danger. it is not dangerous play, however. but, even if you believe that a keeper can commit dangerous play this is a good example of the keeper placing himself in a dangerous situation.

[PirateJohn]

in order to have possession and, therefore, unable to be fairly charged or contested for the ball, the keeper needs to have the ball in both hands or pinned against the keeper's body, the ground, or the goalpost.Not true. Many keepers, myself included, frequently carry the ball in one hand after a save. Pretty much all goalkeepers do when in the process of punting or drop kicking. This is still clear possession even though it doesn't meet any of your criteria.

[Statesman]

PJ, not to nitpick but I do believe ref47 would call that "pinning the ball to your body."

There is a growing trend of the United States producing the top goalkeepers in the world. This is no doubt due in part to the level of aggressiveness taught from early ages. From what I have seen it appears American goalkeepers in general are more inclined to challenge for a loose ball further out from the goal in less desperate situations.

As a result, there is a parallel trend for goalkeepers in the United States to put themselves at greater risk for injury by not adequately protecting themselves in these challenges. Parents and coaches yell for the referee to "protect the goalkeeper," but in truth there is not much a referee can actually do except call the fouls when they occur. We can't stop the game for something that doesn't happen, simply because the keeper has thrown himself into a precarious position!

In instances such as described in this thread, there really is nothing for the referee to do. The keeper bobbled the save resulting in a free ball that an attacker kicked into the net. The proximity of the outstretched keeper to the ball and the attacker does not influence the outcome of the play.

The only advice I would suggest is to have a word with both keeper and attacker. Remind the keeper he needs to protect himself and be careful in throwing himself into high risk situations, and remind the attacker that the keeper does all he can to protect himself but still is fairly exposed to potential injury and thus to tread carefully when going for a "hopeful" challenge of the free ball.

[Wreave]

I would like to add, my teaching has been that if the keeper has even a finger on the ball, and the ball is stationary (or essentially stationary), the keeper has possession. Touching a moving ball as it rolls along the ground does not define possession.

Agree? Disagree?

NJref and Statesman both also make good points on the keeper placing themselves in a dangerous position as part of the job description, which creates neither a foul against the attacker nor dangerous play against the goalkeeper most of the time.

[john rod]

thanks all, for your input. i live a long way from any big cities. and this forum helps all the time. this is my education on the run. rod

[macheath]

I would like to add, my teaching has been that if the keeper has even a finger on the ball, and the ball is stationary (or essentially stationary), the keeper has possession. Touching a moving ball as it rolls along the ground does not define possession.

Agree? Disagree?

Yes, but I call it tighter for younger players--safety first and all of that.

[PirateJohn]

I would like to add, my teaching has been that if the keeper has even a finger on the ball, and the ball is stationary (or essentially stationary), the keeper has possession. Touching a moving ball as it rolls along the ground does not define possession.

Agree? Disagree?Agree. Ball not moving is a big one for me.