Goal keeper handball question

[LoewenBoy]

DGH only applies when the ball is headed into the goal, so it doesn't apply either.
Does not necessarily have to be heading into the goal. It has to simply be what the law states, an obvious goal scoring opportunity where the hand is used (if other than the GK in his own area). I have seen plenty of examples where the OGSO was denied with the hand and the ball was not heading to the goal, but was still an OGSO.:D

[Janice]

Again, we have another case of some looking to find a reason to blow the whistle. :confused:

If a GK leaves the PA still holding the ball through the normal run of play (sliding, tripping, stepping out before a punt, etc) it should FIRST be considered trifling. If other factors (many stated above) occur you may then need to call the handling foul. Don't overthink the situation.

Discussion is supposed to be an exchange of information why are you so presumptuous I am looking to blow the whistle? There are many erroneous statements contained within these posts. The reason or at least my reason for coming to post or to read is food for thought not absolute truth. We consider the what ifs, so that when faced with an on field decision of a bizarre occurrence we have a feel for the actions that can BEST be implemented to fit the incident! If a keeper was going to get a break on being outside the area in doubtful or trivial possession of the ball with his hands he must RELEASE the ball NOT carry it back inside his PA and continue its distribution.

IOW if the attacker does not have the ball there is no OGSO. Simply not true
And the 6-second clock continues to tick. How so?
Of course he gains an advantage; he gets possession of the ball even though he went out of the box. Law 5 does not apply to this!

Part of adding more to the original scenario is a keeper’s uses of his hands a deliberate act even if the accidental momentum or trip carries him and the ball outside the penalty area? We look at how it occurred are there opponents disadvantaged in some manner by this action?

Lets say he fell a little out past the goal line into the goal, its a goal if he carried the ball in his hands under the crossbar between the posts over the goal line. Hardly trivial or doubtful in its implications

Now we switch out over the goal line but not in goal, it is a corner kick again hardly trivial or doubtful in its implications?

So when the ball is carried out into the field of play we are so quick to say trivial or doubtful? Why? The opposition could be awarded a DFK? Is that a trivial restart inches outside the 18 yard boundary line?

The concept of a ball released into play by a punt out or a throw out is generally because the blurring of a release point and the hands and the ball are in unsure territory. If the act was blatant 3 yards inside the ARC and the ball caroms off the face of an attacker are you now unsure?

I pointed out that if we felt it was a punt out and the keeper accidentally tripped as a doubtful non deliberate action we might see the handling as trivial provided he released the ball back into play. I see it as less controversial if no opponents are within playing distance.

Now if we see the keeper realize he is outside and removes his hands that ball is free to be played and we as referee have made a decision we considered as he has released the ball back into play he can no longer use his hands.

So now an opponent comes forward to participate in that play the keeper can not dribble the ball back inside and use his hands nor use his hands there outside so he falls on top of the ball for an unreasonable length of time PIADM the frustrated attacker looks at you? You award an INDFK? Was DOGSO realized?

If one considers a slide out on the wet grass where the keeper first grasps the ball inside his PA as a incoming attacker was chasing the ball within playing distance and the handles the ball deliberately occurs as the ball is carried outside because the ball was now heading away from goal no DOGSO is present? No attacking opportunity lost?

Bluedevil pointed out
This is the crux of why refereeing is so difficult!
Expectations and perception a referee still sees what she sees :rolleyes:

[BC_Ref]

If one considers a slide out on the wet grass where the keeper first grasps the ball inside his PA as a incoming attacker was chasing the ball within playing distance and the handles the ball deliberately occurs as the ball is carried outside because the ball was now heading away from goal no DOGSO is present?

IN this type of situation, my own view is that the keeper "killed" the goal scoring opportunity in a legit manner (got the ball initially within the box, so killed the scoring oppotunity at that point), so no DOGSO. I can't see me giving even a yellow. Of course, a smart attacker could simply plunk the ball down and chip the ball over the keeper's head for an easy goal - so I'd be very aware of what the keeper did "after" the whistle to ensure he didn't prevent a quick free kick. Still, opinions vary and the answer might change if I was doing a very high level game. But I'd hope those high level games have equally high level fields rather than the mud with bits of green that pass for pitches locally (I make a call for a handling in this matter about once a year. We have very wet fields for 1/3 to 2/3 of the season)

[gosellit]

Does not necessarily have to be heading into the goal. It has to simply be what the law states, an obvious goal scoring opportunity where the hand is used (if other than the GK in his own area). I have seen plenty of examples where the OGSO was denied with the hand and the ball was not heading to the goal, but was still an OGSO.:D

How so?

From the 2006 ATR:
12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GAOL SCORING OPPORTUNITY
(a) Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball.
The send-off offense for deliberately handling, nuber 4 under the sevensend-off offenses, "denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportuntity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)," does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense under cirumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

[gosellit]

Discussion is supposed to be an exchange of information why are you so presumptuous I am looking to blow the whistle? There are many erroneous statements contained within these posts. The reason or at least my reason for coming to post or to read is food for thought not absolute truth. We consider the what ifs, so that when faced with an on field decision of a bizarre occurrence we have a feel for the actions that can BEST be implemented to fit the incident! :

I agree.

If a keeper was going to get a break on being outside the area in doubtful or trivial possession of the ball with his hands he must RELEASE the ball NOT carry it back inside his PA and continue its distribution.:

If an opponent is in a position to play the ball if he releases it and the GK chooses to retreat back into PA still holding the ball, this is an occasion where the deliberate handling foul should be called.

IOW if the attacker does not have the ball there is no OGSO. Simply not true.:

No OGSO. See my previous post from the ATR.


And the 6-second clock continues to tick. How so?
Of course he gains an advantage; he gets possession of the ball even though he went out of the box. Law 5 does not apply to this!

Part of adding more to the original scenario is a keeper’s uses of his hands a deliberate act even if the accidental momentum or trip carries him and the ball outside the penalty area? We look at how it occurred are there opponents disadvantaged in some manner by this action?

Lets say he fell a little out past the goal line into the goal, its a goal if he carried the ball in his hands under the crossbar between the posts over the goal line. Hardly trivial or doubtful in its implications

Now we switch out over the goal line but not in goal, it is a corner kick again hardly trivial or doubtful in its implications?

So when the ball is carried out into the field of play we are so quick to say trivial or doubtful? Why? The opposition could be awarded a DFK? Is that a trivial restart inches outside the 18 yard boundary line? :

I believe Bluedevil pointed this out earlier. There is a difference. If the ball wholly crosses the goal line or touch line, tha ball is out of play. Not so if the GK carries the ball over the PA line.



So now an opponent comes forward to participate in that play the keeper can not dribble the ball back inside and use his hands nor use his hands there outside so he falls on top of the ball for an unreasonable length of time PIADM the frustrated attacker looks at you? You award an INDFK? :

Yes.

Was DOGSO realized?:

No. The offense is not commited against an opponent.

If one considers a slide out on the wet grass where the keeper first grasps the ball inside his PA as a incoming attacker was chasing the ball within playing distance and the handles the ball deliberately occurs as the ball is carried outside because the ball was now heading away from goal no DOGSO is present? No attacking opportunity lost??:

The call would be deliberate handling by the GK outside the PA, and since the ball would not have gone directly into the goal if not for the handling, no DOGSO.

[Janice]

First off thank you for those considerate replies!:)

If an opponent is in a position to play the ball if he releases it and the GK chooses to retreat back into PA still holding the ball, this is an occasion where the deliberate handling foul should be called. .

Does this assume he still has the ball in his hands or regrabs the ball? If it was a slide out and then a release as the doubtful foul we forgive how is a regrab not at least a caution? I get BC_Ref thinks the initial grab killed the first scoring opportunity but how is this not another scoring opportunity? WE consider fouls when an opponent goes through another player in an attempt to win the ball as having to be aware of what he is doing. It appears we are granting the keeper a lot more lattitude for making a mistake



No OGSO. See my previous post from the ATR.
The call would be deliberate handling by the GK outside the PA, and since the ball would not have gone directly into the goal if not for the handling, no DOGSO.

An attacker making for a loose ball stopped right in front of goal is impeded by a defender this allows the keeper gets there first. Impeding is punishable by a free kick, the attacker didn't have the ball, shower time, IFK,
YES or NO? :eek:


An attacker making for a loose ball stopped right in front of goal The defender handles the ball deliberately as the ball is swatted with the hand away from goal punishable by a free kick, the attacker didn't have the ball, shower time, PK,
YES or NO?:eek:

[gosellit]

First off thank you for those considerate replies!:)


Does this assume he still has the ball in his hands or regrabs the ball? If it was a slide out and then a release as the doubtful foul we forgive how is a regrab not at least a caution? I get BC_Ref thinks the initial grab killed the first scoring opportunity but how is this not another scoring opportunity? WE consider fouls when an opponent goes through another player in an attempt to win the ball as having to be aware of what he is doing. It appears we are granting the keeper a lot more lattitude for making a mistake:

If the GK released the ball and then dribbled it back into the PA and picked it up, this would be a second touch by the GK, assuming that the original "mistake" was considered trifling. Not sure why this in and of it self would be a caution.


An attacker making for a loose ball stopped right in front of goal is impeded by a defender this allows the keeper gets there first. Impeding is punishable by a free kick, the attacker didn't have the ball, shower time, IFK,
YES or NO? :eek: :

Yes, if all 4 D's are met.


An attacker making for a loose ball stopped right in front of goal The defender handles the ball deliberately as the ball is swatted with the hand away from goal punishable by a free kick, the attacker didn't have the ball, shower time, PK,
YES or NO?:eek:

PK, yes.
Send Off. NO, based on what the ATR tells us. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if I am not reading the ATR correctly.

[Janice]

[quote=gosellit;11046267]If the GK released the ball and then dribbled it back into the PA and picked it up, this would be a second touch by the GK, assuming that the original "mistake" was considered trifling. Not sure why this in and of it self would be a caution.

We are talking at least two different possibilities
(1)the ball is taken out of the PA under the arm pit say and then released outside as the keeper knows he can not keep control in that manner. WE cut him a break as we consider the carrying out as accidental, trivial or doubtful and his release of the ball by moving the arms away puts it back into play . Now if he regrabs the ball outside because an opponent is there ready to play it how is that not at least a caution if not a DOGSO?
(2) I tend to agree if the keeper managed to get the ball back inside his PA legally and then regrabbed the ball an INDFK for a second touch!
However, what if we did not consider the initial handling as controlled as in a save? Yes the ball was in contact with the arm say partially trapped between the arm and chest as it was forced outside by the slide out but not controlled as in say a punt out and trip ? Could we do nothing and be correct? As an opinion I think so.
I was trying to make a point that control of ball and playing distance with opportunity can still create DOGSO without possession if all 4 D's are met.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gosellit
PK, yes.
Send Off. NO, based on what the ATR tells us. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if I am not reading the ATR correctly.
Consider the last part of that ATR you quoted!
but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

A ball on its way into the goal that is stopped on its way is different how than

A ball at a dead stop 6 yards in front of goal waiting to be kicked in that as the kicker's foot is about to hit it into the goal a defender's hand pulls or pushes the ball out of the way the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling?

Is not the offence of handles the ball deliberately a DFK restart same as the rest of the penal fouls?

If a keeper did that just outside the PA how different is that action by the defender at 6 yards other than maybe 13 more yards away?:D

[DC Braveheart]

Last year I had a girl's High School Varsity keeper running to the back corner of the box and clearly stepped out of the box. Her heels were on the outside of the line. No attackers were close by. I was right there, but said nothing. Keeper looks at her feet, knowing that she was out of the box, and in disgust, throws the ball down and out of bounds for a corner. I wasn't going to call handeling, but rather a soft word to watch her footing. OK. Now we have a corner. Her coach was really upset with her keeper--play the whistle.

I had a very similar situation (as a coach) this weekend. GU-9 travel (ostensibly the 'top' division - like you can tell at this age). We're 10 minutes into the second half at 0-0 on a field that has no grass so of course the lines were already disappearing despite this being only the third game of the day. Blue keeper makes a save and trots out to the edge of the penalty area to punt the ball and suddenly finds herself a good 3 feet past the (almost non existent) line. She stops and steps back ... trifling you'd say ... but referee says otherwise and calls the DFK. He then incorrectly spots it where the keeper stopped - surely it should be spotted immediately outside the area?. I asked several refs throughout the tourney what they would have done in this case, every one said for a first offence (particularly at this age) they would have considered it trifling, warned the player and let play continue (though one pointed out he'd have to contend with the howls of protest from the opposing coach:D ).

In this case, I 'fixed' the refs call for him and had my player (I was the White coach) play the DFK backwards to where the punt would have landed (made sure we kept possession though). The Blue parents were most appreciative, and I think it taught my White players a lesson in sportsmanship (now I just have to hope the White parents forgive me ... White ended up losing 1-0:( ).

[USSF REF]

I had a very similar situation (as a coach) this weekend. GU-9 travel (ostensibly the 'top' division - like you can tell at this age). We're 10 minutes into the second half at 0-0 on a field that has no grass so of course the lines were already disappearing despite this being only the third game of the day. Blue keeper makes a save and trots out to the edge of the penalty area to punt the ball and suddenly finds herself a good 3 feet past the (almost non existent) line. She stops and steps back ... trifling you'd say ... but referee says otherwise and calls the DFK. He then incorrectly spots it where the keeper stopped - surely it should be spotted immediately outside the area?. I asked several refs throughout the tourney what they would have done in this case, every one said for a first offence (particularly at this age) they would have considered it trifling, warned the player and let play continue (though one pointed out he'd have to contend with the howls of protest from the opposing coach:D ).

In this case, I 'fixed' the refs call for him and had my player (I was the White coach) play the DFK backwards to where the punt would have landed (made sure we kept possession though). The Blue parents were most appreciative, and I think it taught my White players a lesson in sportsmanship (now I just have to hope the White parents forgive me ... White ended up losing 1-0:( ).


Some coach you are... giving the ball back to the other team when you could have taken a shot on goal - you must not like winning very much. :p

Honestly, I'm very happy to see this sort of thing. I have met far too many U9 coaches in my time as a referee who would not even bat an eye at trying to score a goal on a situation like this.

You taught everyone, including the referee, a lesson in the spirit of the game on that day. I personally commend you for that and I will issue you some rep accordingly. Keep up the good work and continue to be a positive force that supports sportsmanship and the spirit of the game. If there were more coaches like you, maybe we could clean up some of the nonsense that goes on in the American club soccer systems.

[bluedevils]

You taught everyone, including the referee, a lesson in the spirit of the game on that day.

Yes, he did -- I just hope the referee picked up on the hint! Considering he called the handling in the first place, I am not too optimistic. Hopefully the passback got the point across.

[LoewenBoy]

In this case, I 'fixed' the refs call for him and had my player (I was the White coach) play the DFK backwards to where the punt would have landed (made sure we kept possession though). The Blue parents were most appreciative, and I think it taught my White players a lesson in sportsmanship (now I just have to hope the White parents forgive me ... White ended up losing 1-0:( ).
TOTAL RESPECT!!!!

Your players will LONG remember the lesson you taught them in sportsmanship FAR longer than they will remember some meaninless 1-1 draw. THAT type of coaching/parenting is in such short supply these days. Thanks for being a positive role model for your kids. Well done, my friend, well-damn-done!!!!!:D

[LoewenBoy]

If there were more coaches like you, maybe we could clean up some of the nonsense that goes on in the American club soccer systems.
Cloning kits anyone?:D

[macheath]

TOTAL RESPECT!!!!

Your players will LONG remember the lesson you taught them in sportsmanship FAR longer than they will remember some meaninless 1-1 draw. THAT type of coaching/parenting is in such short supply these days. Thanks for being a positive role model for your kids. Well done, my friend, well-damn-done!!!!!:D

Amen, brother. I coached for ten years, now only ref. As LowenBoy says, you are teaching your kids the right lessons, not just about soccer. That is much more important than any single game result, and that type of coaching will have a positive impact on their lives. Which is, of course, the point.

[DerbyRam54]

If there were more coaches like you, maybe we could clean up some of the nonsense that goes on in the American club soccer systems.
The sad thing here is that we find DC Braveheart's action remarkable. Not taking anything away from it, it's the right and honest thing to do, full marks to Braveheart, but how often do we see it these days?
And yet, I honestly think it's what the kids are, for the most part, wanting from the adults in their lives/games. I remember running the line in a U-12 boys game a couple of years ago when I had an opportunity to do a bit of instruction in the tradition of returning possession when the ball had been kicked out to stop play for a minor injury. You could sense that the lads were keen to learn this bit of the game's etiquette.

[LoewenBoy]

Seems someone started a thread (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11067134#post11067134) on this very topic (parents, sports and sportsmanship). :D

[Gary V]

I agree. He should just release the ball and then play it off the ground (with his foot). And the 6-second clock continues to tick.Sorry for the confusion. I combined two thoughts into one paragraph. I meant to say that he should just drop the ball and kick it. If he continues to hold the ball, and you as referee have decided that his infringement was trifling, then the 6-second clock continues to tick as he backs up into the PA to punt it properly.