handling ball position or touch position?

[Grizzlierbear]

------ b
------ o
------ u
- hand=====n=====arm
------ d
-- BBAALLLL >>keeper pulls ball into him reaching outside
-- the area but the ball is touching the boundryline>
------ r
- hand=====y====arm
------ l
------ i
------ n
------ e

Hopefully the diagram remains as it looks now. The key here is can a keeper use his hands on the ball while outside his penalty area if the ball is in contact with the boundryline?



Imagine exact opposite of the diagram instead of just his hands reaching outside the penalty area the keeper's full body is completely outside his area with legs pointing to centre circle arms outstretched his palm or fingers resting on the ball which is barely touching the penalty area boundryline.

Would either situation bring about a DFK for deliberate handling outside the area?

[gosellit]

------ b
------ o
------ u
- hand=====n=====arm
------ d
-- BBAALLLL >>keeper pulls ball into him reaching outside
-- the area but the ball is touching the boundryline>
------ r
- hand=====y====arm
------ l
------ i
------ n
------ e

Hopefully the diagram remains as it looks now. The key here is can a keeper use his hands on the ball while outside his penalty area if the ball is in contact with the boundryline?



Imagine exact opposite of the diagram instead of just his hands reaching outside the penalty area the keeper's full body is completely outside his area with legs pointing to centre circle arms outstretched his palm or fingers resting on the ball which is barely touching the penalty area boundryline.

Would either situation bring about a DFK for deliberate handling outside the area?

If I read this correctly, in both scenarios, the ball is touching the penalty area boundary line.

Since the line is considered part of the penalty area, the ball is then in the penalty area and the goalkeeper may use his hands. The location of the keepers body is irrelevant. The location of the ball is what must be deterimined if there is deliberate handling or not.

[ref2coach]

Griz, another multi-board user. :D

Statesman, Bloovee, Nashvillian, may I make a suggestion that all of us who have already "staked out" our postion, please hold back and see what a different group of people come up with. :)

Regards
Tony S

[Statesman]

I'd rather just see everybody continue the discussion on Carosi's website instead of trying to track it on seperate boards. But that's just me.

[chrisrun]

If I read this correctly, in both scenarios, the ball is touching the penalty area boundary line.

Since the line is considered part of the penalty area, the ball is then in the penalty area and the goalkeeper may use his hands. The location of the keepers body is irrelevant. The location of the ball is what must be deterimined if there is deliberate handling or not.

I would agree with this. The only arguement that I can see is that the law says that it is a foul is anyone handles the ball deliberately, "except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area". So if the goalie is outside his penalty area, can he handle it? I am guessing this is why it is being brought up in such a fashion.

I always found the wording of the law as it relates to goalkeepers to be awkward. Goalies don't have privileges that are spelled out, they have exceptions to rules that relate to everyone else. If goalie privileges were spelled out, it would be clearer, but make the laws longer. In this case, I always saw it as "Is the ball in team A's penalty area? If yes, then goalkeeper A can handle it." The way I see it, the "within his own penalty area" was meant to mean he can handle it in HIS penalty area, not the other team's penalty area. It wasn't meant limit his abilty to handle the ball when it is in his penalty area.

[Wreave]

Sounds like there is some debate on this issue? I'd be interested to hear it. Seems pretty clear to me, if the ball is partly over the PA boundary line, amd the keeper handles the ball, and in the process of handling it the ball never leaves the PA (i.e. fully crosses the PA boundary line), no call.

But I'm going from the description, as I can't understand the diagram.

Look at this same situation on the endline, say at the intersection of the GA line and endline. If the goalkeeper was trying to save the ball from rolling out, would he have possession, or would it be a CK? He would have possession if the ball did not fully leave the end line (i.e. a tiny sliver of grass in the vertical plane between the edge of the ball and the edge of the line). Wouldn't the same standard apply at the 18?

[ref47]

as gosellit has stated, the keeper's body location is not important. the location of the ball is. if the ball is in the pa, then it may be touched, by hand, by the keeper on that end of the pitch (in his own pa). simple. don't try to complicate it with part of ball outside of the line and keeper touches that part of the ball. that's not how the game is played.

[Alberto]

I have an issue of where the keepers hands are with respect to the penalty area when he handles the ball. If there is no one near the ball from the opposing team, I would let play continue as the touch of the ball outside of the penalty area is trifling. However if the keeper were under pressure and reagardless of whether the rest of his body was outside of the penalty area, his hand cupped the ball to move it back into the penalty area a case for handling could be made.

[chrisrun]

I have an issue of where the keepers hands are with respect to the penalty area when he handles the ball. If there is no one near the ball from the opposing team, I would let play continue as the touch of the ball outside of the penalty area is trifling. However if the keeper were under pressure and reagardless of whether the rest of his body was outside of the penalty area, his hand cupped the ball to move it back into the penalty area a case for handling could be made.
What if his hand cupped the ball to move it back into the penalty area while it was touching the BACK of the penalty area (aka the goal line) and it was between the posts. Would you call handling and thus red card for DOGSO? If not, why would you apply a different standard to one penalty area boundry than the others?

[Wreave]

What if his hand cupped the ball to move it back into the penalty area while it was touching the BACK of the penalty area (aka the goal line) and it was between the posts. Would you call handling and thus red card for DOGSO? If not, why would you apply a different standard to one penalty area boundry than the others?

Or, if this occured outside the goal posts, but within the lateral boundaries of the PA - i.e. goalkeeper is attempting to save a CK. Is he handling the ball outside the PA, even outside the field, and therefore it's a CK? No. If the ball's on the end line, it's still in play, even if the keeper's hands are on the outside of the ball, cupping it to bring it in. Same standard should apply to the 18. If the ball's on the line, it's in the PA, no handling.

[NHRef]

I have an issue of where the keepers hands are with respect to the penalty area when he handles the ball. If there is no one near the ball from the opposing team, I would let play continue as the touch of the ball outside of the penalty area is trifling. However if the keeper were under pressure and reagardless of whether the rest of his body was outside of the penalty area, his hand cupped the ball to move it back into the penalty area a case for handling could be made.

You can not make a case for handling here. Either the ball is in the PA or not, no grey area. If the ball is in the PA, including touching the line in the slightest bit, then it is not handling, period. Regardless of where the hand/body of the keeper are.

Now if the keeper is outside the PA and reaches inside, that's fine, however, watch his hands to see what he does next.

This is a simple idea, I agree the wording of the law is a bit vague, at first read it isn't clear whether the "inside his own PA" refers to the ball or the keeper himself, but it has been clarified here and on Jim Allen's site, as well as asktheref.com, that all that is important is the position of the ball, all else is irrelevant.

[Gary V]

I always found the wording of the law as it relates to goalkeepers to be awkward.As the wording of the Laws is imprecise (sometimes awkward) in other areas. Consider offside:
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the
ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of
the referee, involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that positionWe all know that "at the moment the ball touches" is when we determine the offside position. Involvement can come later to complete the offside infraction. FIFA itself tells us to wait for the involvement - despite the wording of the Law.

WRT handling, "except in his penalty area" really means, "except when the ball is in his penalty area." That has been consistently documented by several official sources.

[macheath]

It is not handling if the ball is on the line, any part. If the ball is in the area (lines are part of the area), it doesn't matter where the keeper's feet, head, legs, nose, or hands are. The LOTG says that handling is defined as "handles the ball deliberately except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area." We all know that this refers to the position of the ball, and the lines of the area are part of the penalty area. If the ball is on the line, it is within the penalty area, and the keeper can use his hands on a ball within the penalty area.

You don't start the reasoning with where the hands are , or the goalkeeper's body position. Your first question is--ball in or out of the area? This governs any subsequent considerations, and moots the issue if the ball is in the area. On the line, in the area. Once that definition is established, then the goalkeeper's allowance from the LOTG comes into play. Although it is written poorly...

[Statesman]

Folks, try not to get too caught up in this debate as the answer has been provided already.

There were two schools of thought on this issue, one dates back a very long time and the other is a more recent understanding.

Originally, all that matters was the point of contact. How the ball was positioned in relation to a field marking was irrelevant. This is the school of thought that both I and Alberto came from.

However, in discussing this issue heavily on Carosi's website, the matter came before both the FA and Jim Allen of USSF. Both confirmed the newer understanding that so long as any portion of the ball is breaking the plane of the boundary line, and contact is judged as being made within that area.

This creates a double-standard now in that fouls on a player are judged by specifically where contact is made, and handling is judged by the position of the ball.

[IASocFan]

...This creates a double-standard now in that fouls on a player are judged by specifically where contact is made, and handling is judged by the position of the ball.

It sounds consistent to me. Fouls on a player are where contact is made.

Handling is where the ball is when contact is made.

Out of play or goal is where the ball is - all the way over the line.

[Statesman]

Phrased in that manner I would agree it sounds consistent. However, when players are on the line we do not consider them part of the area in which the line belongs. We simply look at the exact point of foul contact and restart appropriately. Sometimes we sell the foul as occuring on the field, or outside the penalty area, depending the circumstances and what the spirit of the law dictates. But technically, fouls occur where contact is made.

Except, now, for when the foul contact is made on the ball. The keeper can make contact with the ball outside the penalty area so long as even the slighest millimeter is breaking the plane of the PA line. It was not always understood in this way, but it is very rare for it to even matter.

[chrisrun]

Phrased in that manner I would agree it sounds consistent. However, when players are on the line we do not consider them part of the area in which the line belongs. We simply look at the exact point of foul contact and restart appropriately. Sometimes we sell the foul as occuring on the field, or outside the penalty area, depending the circumstances and what the spirit of the law dictates. But technically, fouls occur where contact is made.

Except, now, for when the foul contact is made on the ball. The keeper can make contact with the ball outside the penalty area so long as even the slighest millimeter is breaking the plane of the PA line. It was not always understood in this way, but it is very rare for it to even matter.

You're down to the semantic level. If the foul is handling a ball NOT in the penalty area, and the definition of being in the penalty area is touching the line, then there is no foul committed. If there is no foul, then there can't be a double standard. Once the ball stops touching the line, it is out of the area, and the foul is at the point where the hand is touching the ball.

[macheath]

(snip) Except, now, for when the foul contact is made on the ball. The keeper can make contact with the ball outside the penalty area so long as even the slighest millimeter is breaking the plane of the PA line. It was not always understood in this way, but it is very rare for it to even matter (snip)

we are beating it to death, but if "even the slightest millimeter (of the ball) is breaking the plane of the PA line" it isn't outside the area. I agree with you on the rarity of these events, but it's good to have them clearly in mind if and when they happen.

[Statesman]

macheath, that sentence is referring to the position of the contact in relation to the position of the ball. The contact is occuring outside the penalty area, but because a tiny portion of the ball intersects the line it is considered "in" the penalty area.

[ref2coach]

Statesman, I tip my hat to you. Once you had satisfactory confirmation of USSF’s position, you are providing your usual level of precise clarifications to the question at Hand. :cool: In spite of your preference for the alternative. ;)