You Make The Call - PK or Not?

[ClevelandFC]

White goalkeeper picks up and holds ball to his chest and pauses briefly for the immediate vicinity to clear. As blue attacker jogs past him the white goalkeeper strikes or attempts to strike him. Not clear if he actually hit him, but I think that's irrelevant. The blue attacker was simply jogging past. He made no attempt to play or challenge the GK with the ball.

CR blows whistle. Long discussion with AR ensues. What do they decide?

(1) PK. The foul occurred within the penalty area and, according to Law 12 it's one of the 10 that result in a PK "if the ball was in play". Is it in play? Remember, the GK was clutching it to his chest. White GK is cautioned.

or

(2) IFK for the blue (attacking) team from the spot of the foul (inside the penality area). White GK is cautioned.

Which is the correct call? Or is it neither? It seems to me that the definition if "in play" is at the crux of the decision. Is the ball in play when the GK is briefly clutching it to his chest after making a save?

[PVancouver]

Yes, the ball is in play. If the keeper had walked into the goal, would you count the goal? Assuming the strike would be called as a foul at any other time that the ball is in play, this should have been called as a PK.

Unless the attacker was deemed to have interfered with the goalkeeper before the strike, guilty of preventing the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands. In this case an IFK would be awarded to white. This seems unlikely the way you have described it.

Either way, the goalkeeper could be cautioned or sent-off for the strike or attempted strike, depending on its severity.

[code1390]

Seems pretty simple to me.

Is striking a DFK foul? Yes. Did the offense occur in the penalty area? Yes.

Was the ball in play? Yes. Law 9 says

The ball is out of play when:
• it has wholly crossed the goal line or touch line whether on the
ground or in the air
• play has been stopped by the referee

[Tarheel Ref]

Gotta see the video...that'll stimulate the debate....

Otherwise ITOOTR....

[Wreave]

Which is the correct call? Or is it neither? It seems to me that the definition if "in play" is at the crux of the decision. Is the ball in play when the GK is briefly clutching it to his chest after making a save?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you're not a referee.

When the goalkeeper is in possession of the ball, it is absolutely, positively, no question about it, in play. That no other player may legally challenge for the ball or prevent the keeper from releasing the ball does not make the ball "out of play" in terms of fouls.

The ball is out of play when it leaves the field of play, or if the referee stops play (e.g. for a foul/misconduct, injury, offside, etc.). If the ball is in the field of play, and the referee has not stopped play, then the ball is in play.

Therefore, this is definitely a PK (and a send off for the keeper). Sending off the keeper for VC and awarding an IFK is grossly wrong.

[Wreave]

I should add - if the question is whether or not the keeper's action rose to the level of striking (a DFK foul, which would result in a PK), or was just Unsporting Behavior (misconduct, caution/IFK), then that's ITOOTR. However, if the striking is a given, there is not question as to whether the ball was "in play". It was, and it's a PK.

[ClevelandFC]

FYI... the referee chose option 2 from my original post...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you're not a referee.
Nope. Just watching the game when this happened at the US Club Soccer regionals in Indy. Sparked a bit of a debate from those watching so I thought I'd go to the experts for the answer.

Therefore, this is definitely a PK (and a send off for the keeper). Sending off the keeper for VC and awarding an IFK is grossly wrong.
What is even more grossly wrong is that the GK was only cautioned.

Disappointing in that I would expect the officiating team (the CR consulted at length with her AR before making the decision) at this level to get the basics right. Zero room for ITOOTR on this one.

I may be completely full of it, but my sense was that she didn't want to make a game defining decision. This happened literally at the death of the game. About 5 min prior the GK's team had went up 1-0. I just wonder if she didn't want to be the one who decided the game since you have to assume the PK would have been made.

[roby]

FYI... the referee chose option 2 from my original post...




I may be completely full of it, but my sense was that she didn't want to make a game defining decision.

Ouch!

Play on...........

[whipple]

This is not only a situation of "you had to be there", but also that you probably should have been there from the beginning. What level was this game and what led up to this incident? Keepers may be a strange breed, but they rarely go out and strike opponents without cause since it might result in a send off, and this could be an unforgivable loss to their team.

In other words, it is possible that no call, just a few words to calm the players down, might be the most productive and fair way to deal with the actions of the keeper.

If one were to make a call, it is more likely to be misconduct than a foul, therefore, the caution was, in my opinion, the better call.

Why not a foul?

Well, yes the ball was still in play while in the keepers posession, but it was not playable, and, therefore, the strike or attmept to strike is unlikely to have unfairly disadvantaged the opponent or created and unfair advantage for the keeper's team. As a foul it would have been trifling.

SW

[Wreave]

What is even more grossly wrong is that the GK was only cautioned.

Disappointing in that I would expect the officiating team (the CR consulted at length with her AR before making the decision) at this level to get the basics right. Zero room for ITOOTR on this one.

I don't understand from your post... what exactly happened?

It sounds like you're saying the keeper was cautioned and there was an IFK restart, and you're trying to either figure out why or prove that the ref was wrong.

If you're talking about an actual event, you're asking us to overrule the opinion of the referee on the field by how you described the event, which may get you the answer you want, but not necessarily the correct one.

If the referee did not send off the keeper and award a PK, then I would assume the referee did not believe that the foul of striking (or attempt to strike) had occurred. See, your example says that's what happened, but the referee is the one on the field to make that determination. If the referee (in discussion with the AR) determined that what happened was not a strike or attempt to strike, but was Unsporting Behavior, then the proper action is a caution for the keeper, and an IFK from the spot.

There is never "zero room for ITOOTR". First, you aren't even sure what happened - was there or wasn't there contact? How can you not know what happened and say "zero room for ITOOTR"? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Second, the referees' angles, the game up to that point, other factors on the field of which you may not have been aware, etc. could have been in play. The opinion of the referee *always* matters.

If the referee determined that there was striking/attempt, then gave an IFK and a caution, that *is* an error.

However, it sounds like what really happened is that the referee team didn't agree with your assessment of the events. As you note, you'd expect them to get the basics right, and I imagine most 9s fresh out of training would be able to recognize that as a PK.

It further sounds like you've made the assumption that the whole discussion was about whether or not the ball was in play (due to keeper possession) and that's what the decision was about. I would be extremely surprised if that is the case.

[campbed]

Why not a foul?

Well, yes the ball was still in play while in the keepers posession, but it was not playable, and, therefore, the strike or attmept to strike is unlikely to have unfairly disadvantaged the opponent or created and unfair advantage for the keeper's team. As a foul it would have been trifling.

SW

Yikes. When is a strikes or attempt to strike ever trifling?

If we take the poster at his word that it was a clear strike or attempt, how could there be any other outcome than a send off and a PK?

I must be misunderstanding your point.

[whipple]

Yikes. When is a strikes or attempt to strike ever trifling?

If we take the poster at his word that it was a clear strike or attempt, how could there be any other outcome than a send off and a PK?

I must be misunderstanding your point.

Possibly you have misunderstood.....

What makes striking any different from any other offense? In the normal course of play arms and hands strike opponents all the time. If this has no effect (is trifling), do you still blow your whistle and award a restart to a team who was never disadvantaged in the first place? Wouldn't that be kind of tickey-tackey?

If it wasn't clear and deliberate (or the result of deliberate play) it wouldn't be anything at all. If there is doubt then it is nothing.

So let's get back to the situation posed by the poster.

What happened before the save? Is the keeper's action the result of a cheap shot by the attacker, some words, a little late contact? Or what the keepers action totally out of the blue and unprovolked? Are we seeing street justice which will work itself out, or injustice where we must intervene?

The problem is that we don't know. We were not there.

But let's say that the misconduct was totally initiated by the keeper with absolutely no provocation by the attacker. Sure, we could call this violent conduct, send off the keeper and restart with a PK.

It is, however, more likely that this is just the most recent event in a series of events which hopefully we and our crew observed and we realize that now is the time to deal with it. We don't want to overcompensate, but we need to do something to stop the nonsense while maintainng fairness.

Since the keeper already had possession, even though the ball was still in play, it is highly unlikely his actions will disadvantage the opponent. Therefore, it may not be necessary to stop play at all. If a caution is in order, the ref could wait until the next stoppage or not, depending on the game. I would probably stop play and get in the face of the keeper with such phrases as "Are we done here? Is this the last of it?" Possibly caution, show the yellow and restart with an IFK for the opponent, or maybe just the words and restart with a dropped ball for my inadvertant whistle.

I usually try to give the players the benefit of the doubt and try to avoid being dogmatic in my officiating.

SW

[MassachusettsRef]

Since the keeper already had possession, even though the ball was still in play, it is highly unlikely his actions will disadvantage the opponent. Therefore, it may not be necessary to stop play at all.Slippery slope here. If the keeper handed the ball to his defender and then the defender held the ball with his hands... would you stop play for deliberate handling? I hope the answer is "of course," but if you follow your logic, whipple, you could reason that since the keeper already had possession, the actions don't "disadvantage the opponent."

If a caution is in order, the ref could wait until the next stoppage or not, depending on the game. Again, if the ball is in play, why are you waiting until the next stoppage? I know you say you're not trying to be dogmatic, but this seems like a cop out. Either there was striking in the area or there wasn't. Yes, there absolutely are gray areas: was it trifling? was it just reckless? was it violent? But once you make the affirmative determination that it rose to the level of misconduct, then it's also, inherently, a foul (since the ball was in play). And if it's a foul, then it's a penalty kick. There's no justification at all to wait until the next stoppage to mete out the appropriate card.

I would add my usual caveat with "striking"--which you thankfully imply. Those that say striking is an automatic red card are feeding into a great myth. Like most of the other penal fouls, striking can be careless, reckless, or with excessive force. Perhaps more than most fouls, the "excessive force" label applies. But there is no rule that "striking = red card." That's completely false.

Also, as others have said to the original post, you did have to be there to render judgment on this particular case. But in a vacuum, if the keeper is holding the ball and strikes his opponent inside his own penalty area, then the restart should be a penalty kick. The color of the card essentially depends on the severity of the strike.

[whipple]

Slippery slope here. If the keeper handed the ball to his defender and then the defender held the ball with his hands... would you stop play for deliberate handling? I hope the answer is "of course," but if you follow your logic, whipple, you could reason that since the keeper already had possession, the actions don't "disadvantage the opponent."

MR... you would take the one example where an opponent need not be involved, but think about it. If we define a foul as an act which disadvantages and opponent, on the field, etc. then if the opponent is not disadvantaged, then while it may be misconduct, it may not be a foul, even with the ball in play and in close proximity. It was this concept which so intrigued me about the post.



Again, if the ball is in play, why are you waiting until the next stoppage? I know you say you're not trying to be dogmatic, but this seems like a cop out. Either there was striking in the area or there wasn't. Yes, there absolutely are gray areas: was it trifling? was it just reckless? was it violent? But once you make the affirmative determination that it rose to the level of misconduct, then it's also, inherently, a foul (since the ball was in play). And if it's a foul, then it's a penalty kick. There's no justification at all to wait until the next stoppage to mete out the appropriate card.

The other point, and justificiation possibly, is the context of the behavior. What brought it to this stage where the keeper felt it was necessary to take justice into his own hands? Since he had possesion of the ball, he had to know that people might observe his behavior (maybe even the blind guy in the yellow shirt) so it is unlikely that there is anything cynical, but rather something justified or, at least, rationalized. If the ref crew doesn't know why then they probably have not been paying attention.

My sense is that, unless it was absolutely the unprovoked action of a sociopath, where the send off and PK are totally in order, then the referee should seek to find a resolution to the matter with the least interference or impact on the game. Depending on the situtation we may not need cards or penalty kicks at all. But if we do, we have them.



I would add my usual caveat with "striking"--which you thankfully imply. Those that say striking is an automatic red card are feeding into a great myth. Like most of the other penal fouls, striking can be careless, reckless, or with excessive force. Perhaps more than most fouls, the "excessive force" label applies. But there is no rule that "striking = red card." That's completely false.

Also, as others have said to the original post, you did have to be there to render judgment on this particular case. But in a vacuum, if the keeper is holding the ball and strikes his opponent inside his own penalty area, then the restart should be a penalty kick. The color of the card essentially depends on the severity of the strike.

[Gary V]

If we define a foul as an act which disadvantages and opponent, on the field, etc. then if the opponent is not disadvantaged, then while it may be misconduct, it may not be a foul, even with the ball in play and in close proximity. It was this concept which so intrigued me about the post.Why would we define a foul that way? Here's an example. Red goalkeeper is holding the ball in his penalty area. Blue goalkeeper, in his own PA, strikes a red attacker. Foul or no foul? The ball was in play, the action was against an opponent, and it occurred on the field. So all you need to look for is how hard was the strike? Was the action itself trifling, careless, reckless, or excessive? That will give you the answer to what you call (or don't call), not whether or not the opponent was disadvantaged.

[whipple]

Actually Gary, in the ATR 12.1 USSF defines a foul as "an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play." They go on to say "If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul, however, the action can still be misconduct."

So, while we are not to judge intent, we are to judge the fairness and safety as to whether it was a foul or not. So in our scenario, if the keeper takes a swipe at an opponent and it is neither unfair or unsafe in our opinion, it is not a foul, therefore no PK, but it could still be misconduct. Caution or send off, show the appropriate card and restart with an IFK.

[refontherun]

Actually Gary, in the ATR 12.1 USSF defines a foul as "an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play."

So in our scenario, if the keeper takes a swipe at an opponent and it is neither unfair or unsafe in our opinion, it is not a foul, therefore no PK, but it could still be misconduct. Caution or send off, show the appropriate card and restart with an IFK.

....but in the definitions on penal fouls, the LOTG states "strikes or attempts to strike". This idicates to me that, although the action was neither unfair nor unsafe to the opponent, it still meets the criteria of a foul.

In regard to the posted scenario, I am not saying that is what the referee team saw. In the eyes of a biased spectator, it may have appeared to be an "attempt to strike", where the true intent may have simply been a friendly gesture of sportsmanship between two players who were familiar with each other. That could very well be what the referee team saw.

[Wreave]

In regard to the posted scenario, I am not saying that is what the referee team saw. In the eyes of a biased spectator, it may have appeared to be an "attempt to strike", where the true intent may have simply been a friendly gesture of sportsmanship between two players who were familiar with each other. That could very well be what the referee team saw.

The OP states there was a caution to the keeper with an IFK restart, so they saw something they didn't like, but felt it didn't rise to the level of a foul.

[whipple]

....but in the definitions on penal fouls, the LOTG states "strikes or attempts to strike". This idicates to me that, although the action was neither unfair nor unsafe to the opponent, it still meets the criteria of a foul.


Maybe to you, but the ATR suggests that if all three criteria are not met, then it is not a foul, but still may be misconduct. This is also the spirit of the Laws. We only interfere or restart to restore fairness. Basically we try to do the least necessary to maintain control.

[MassachusettsRef]

Maybe to you, but the ATR suggests that if all three criteria are not met, then it is not a foul, but still may be misconduct. Curious, but to which "three criteria" do you think the passage is referring?


"an unfair or unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play... If any of these three requirements is not met, the action is not a foul, however, the action can still be misconduct."

The three requirements, to me, are:

1) against an opponent or the opposing team
2) on the field of play
3) while the ball is in play

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you seem to be implying that one of the requirements is it's an "unfair or unsafe action."