[Sport Billy]

Can anyone find a basis in the LotG to justify this?
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?p=1665

Originally Posted by Jim Allen

HANDLING THE BALL OUTSIDE THE PENALTY AREA
August 11, 2009

Question:
During a recent Men’s intramural game the Goal Keeper went for a low hard shot and collected the ball but due to his momentum running for the ball and a wet field, he slid outside the penalty area. In my opinion he was unable to stop and slid out by a few feet but did have possession of the ball when he slid out. Immediately the attacking team was calling for a “hand ball”. In my opinion he played the ball in the area and did not deliberately handle the ball outside the penalty area. I allowed him to get up and go inside the area and release the ball. After the match several players and referees approached me and disagreed with my call saying I should have awarded a DFK. Your opinion please.

USSF answer (August 11, 2009):
Our opinion, and it is strictly opinion, is that if the condition of the field caused the goalkeeper to handle the ball outside the penalty area, the referee COULD apply the common sense notion of a “trifling offense” and do as you did, allowing the goalkeeper to return to the penalty area and release the ball into play for others.

However, we must point out that the Law does not recognize weather conditions and the correct decision would be to award a direct free kick for deliberately handling the ball. Although we need to remember that the Laws of the Game were not written to compensate for the mistakes of players, that does not apply in this case.

There is no case to be made here for saying that the goalkeeper’s handling offense prevented a goal, so there would be no reason for showing a red card to the goalkeeper.

It's always been my understanding that players need to take the field conditions under consideration and adjust their play accordingly.

Apparently, refs can say "Oh, I know what he meant to do, it's not is fault it was raining."

Jim, get a clue! The "the condition of the field DID NOT cause the goalkeeper to handle the ball outside the penalty area" - the keeper's failure to recognize the field condition caused him to play the ball outside of the penalty area.

Jim's answer is complete bullshit!

[Ref Flunkie]

Here ya go, ATR. I also assume you didn't read the second part of his answer.

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
"The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law.
Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."

This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision 8) was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee's fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this
Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to. Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as
to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players. However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. Further, the referee may wish to talk to or warn a player regarding trifling infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

[Sport Billy]

Originally Posted by Ref Flunkie

Here ya go, ATR. I also assume you didn't read the second part of his answer.

5.5 TRIFLING INFRACTIONS
"The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law.
Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators."

This former International F.A. Board Decision (previously included in Law 5 as Decision 8) was removed from the Law only because it was felt to be an unnecessary reminder of the referee's fundamental duty to penalize only those violations that matter. The spirit, if not the words, of this
Decision remains at the heart of the Law. It is applicable to all possible violations of any of the Laws of the Game.

A trifling infraction is one which, though still an offense, has no significant impact upon play. A doubtful offense is one which neither the referee nor the other officials can attest to. Under no circumstances should the advantage clause be invoked for such “offenses.” The referee’s decision as
to whether a player’s action is trifling or not is affected considerably by the skill level of the players. However, the referee should remember to consider trifling offenses in determining persistent infringement of the Laws. Further, the referee may wish to talk to or warn a player regarding trifling infringements which, though considered trifling, may nonetheless lead to frustration and retaliation if they continue.

I know what trifling is and what he said.
But a direct kick going in just at the edge of the box vs. a keeper drop kick going out is hardly trifling. There would be a very significant impact on play.

What if he slid into the goal instead of out of the box? Still trifling?

[Ref Flunkie]

Originally Posted by Sport Billy

I know what trifling is and what he said.
But a direct kick going in just at the edge of the box vs. a keeper drop kick going out is hardly trifling. There would be a very significant impact on play.

What if he slid into the goal instead of out of the box? Still trifling?

Out of the box is a foul. Into the goal is a goal. A goal can't be trifling. Trifling has nothing to do with if the free kick would have an impact on play (if it did, then we would call it anytime a keeper stepped out of the PA right before he punted the ball), it has to do with if the foul in and of itself is trifling because the act had no impact on play. As the keeper already had possession of the ball and only slid out because of the wet field, the argument could be made that this was trifling. Of course, one would have to see the play in order to make this determination.

[nonya]

well damn boy, who got your panties in a bunch?

[bluedevils]

Originally Posted by Sport Billy

I know what trifling is and what he said.
But a direct kick going in just at the edge of the box vs. a keeper drop kick going out is hardly trifling. There would be a very significant impact on play.

You are off target here. Ref Flunkie has already explained it reasonably well.

Where do you come up with "a direct kick going in just at the edge of the box" ?? The situation stated that the GK made a save and collected the ball outside the penalty area. It made no mention of whether any opponents were nearby. If they were not, then this could easily be considered a trifling infringement -- in the same way as a GK carrying the ball in his hands past the top of the box while punting the ball could be considered trifling. In either case, the restart would be a 'direct kick going in just at the edge of the box' but that doesn't mean the handling cannot be considered trifling.

[Gary V]

Of course players have to take field conditions into consideration. A player can't say, "Oh, I only slid into him and took him out because I slipped in the wet."

However field conditions don't change whether the nature of the offense was trifling or not. Clattering an opponent is hardly trifling. The keeper playing the ball a short distance outside the PA on an outbound ball is almost the definition of trifling. So he gets an extra 1/2 yard on his kick - so what? And in the case of the slip, the keeper is probably worse off because his timing is gone - he had to back up and try again. Assuming he didn't take over 6 seconds (total) doing the slip, backup, and kick routine, who has he harmed?

[Sport Billy]

Originally Posted by bluedevils

You are off target here. Ref Flunkie has already explained it reasonably well.

Where do you come up with "a direct kick going in just at the edge of the box" ?? The situation stated that the GK made a save and collected the ball outside the penalty area. It made no mention of whether any opponents were nearby. If they were not, then this could easily be considered a trifling infringement -- in the same way as a GK carrying the ball in his hands past the top of the box while punting the ball could be considered trifling. In either case, the restart would be a 'direct kick going in just at the edge of the box' but that doesn't mean the handling cannot be considered trifling.

The reason it's more than trifling is because the keeper should be forced to make a decision.

When he realizes he has misjudged the conditions and will leave the area with the ball, his only choice (if he wishes to stay with in t LotG) is to release the ball and risk the attacker recovering it or hold on to the ball and eat the foul. It's his choice . But he shouldn't get his cake and eat it too.

My biggest problem is this is now the USSF opinion. They have given an opinion contrary to the rules.

Clearly, if there is an attacker right on top of this keeper you are never going to call this trifling. But again, Jim doesn't explain this.

This all leads to the dreaded slippery slope.

The keeper's misjudging of the conditions sends him out of the box. Where does trifling end. 2 ft, 3, 5, 10?????

What else is a good excuse? Losing his balance? Avoiding a teammate?

Jim may know the game well, but he is a poor writer IMO and he often fails to look beyond the immediate scenario and realize the precedent he is establishing for other scenarios.

The laws are there and it seems the USSF is always trying to find ways not to apply the laws.

[PVancouver]

"They have given an opinion contrary to the rules."

No, "they" have not.

Allen only said that the referee COULD judge the offense to be trifling. He didn't say that the referee MUST judge the offense to be trifling. I think we can all agree that it would depend on a number of factors, one of the most important being it was an intramural match, FCOL. How do we even know that the penalty area is clearly defined? Maybe the line is difficult to see. If no attacker is within 30 yards, should it really matter if he failed to release the ball in time and handled the ball two inches outside of his PA?

If a defender slightly pushes or holds an attacker in his penalty area, do you clam that a PK must be called because under no circumstances can you say the contact was trifling?

[whistleblowerusa]

Sporty Billy has got this wrong, way wrong and can not back up what he insists is correct. Nothing new with Sporty on arguing the Laws and apllication of them.

You truly beleive that teh keeper wanted to cheat and slide out of his area after already making the save or collecting the ball? Come on now, get a clue yourself. Listen to the good advise already posted on this.