Goalkeeper second touch question

To the letter of the law, you stop play and give an IFK to the opponents of the goalkeeper. However, in this case it was probably a trifiling offense and there would have been very little point to giving that kick there for such a minor infraction, plus you didn't see it, the AR on that side should have seen it though. With a score of 5-0 and if the keeper put it down for a second or whatever and quickly picked it back up, you can make the case that the keeper never really put it back in play.

What you did was fine. Still you and the AR should have seen it. You should always backpedal away from the goal when the keeper is in possesion of the ball.

 

It's definitely not a PK... and not to be harsh, but if you had the whistle in a BU18 premier state game, shouldn't you know that?

Key point: a PK may NEVER be awarded for a keeper touching the ball with his hands. It is impossible. If outside the PA, it's a DFK. If inside the PA, it's an IFK.

Opinion: on second touch, the only time it needs to be whistled is when the release may be played by an opponent. Example: keeper rolls the ball out in front of himself, not seeing an attacker to his side, the attacker comes over, and the keeper dives on the ball. The ball was released into play, and touched by the keeper a second time. If it was set down, accidentally dropped, etc., and picked right back up, no foul, play the game.

 

The OP didn't say that HE didn't know if it should have been a handling call or not, he said the other team was complaining that should have been a handling call (unless he edited his original post at my time of reading). And to be honest, I will make a simlar comment....shouldn't a U18B Premier team know what the correct call is?

Totally agree with the opinions posted here though, sounds like it was a trifiling offense. I hate it when teams complain for a "gotcha" call.

 

Jim Allen, on behalf of the USSF, has answered a couple of similar questions in the past. Here is one that was an official USSF interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a U14 boys game, the goalkeeper received a ball in his hands and was ready to release it. However, he noticed some problem with his uniform; he might have been tightening or re-fastening his gloves. Without any permission or acknowledgement from the referee, he set the ball down at his feet (in the penalty area), and proceeded to fix his uniform problem, which took him just a few seconds. There was no challenge for the ball by the opposing team. He then picked the ball back up and proceeded to release it back into play. I was the upfield assistant referee. Neither the center referee or nearest assistant made any call. They may have felt it was within the "spirit of the game" to let the play continue without call, and the goalkeeper was obviously very inexperienced. However, shouldn't the correct call be that the goalkeeper re-handled the ball after releasing it, and an indirect free kick should have been awarded to the opposing team?

USSF answer (April 30, 2003):
It's re-education time for all referees: Was there an offense? Yes. Could it have been called? Yes? Should it be called if, in the opinion of the referee, the infraction was doubtful or trifling? No. All three answers are "by the book."
The intelligent referee's action: If the goalkeeper's actions had no obvious effect on play and were accepted by both teams, consider the infringement to have been trifling and let it go. If it was not trifling, punish it.

 

If you have a team that complains for something like that when they are down 5-0 in a state cup match, they shouldnt be in the state cup.

And oh yeah...you missed the call. Big Deal.

 

The original question was that the keeper "put the ball down and then quickly picked it back up". How different was this then bouncing the ball? If it was so quickly that no one could have gotten to it, then it was less than trifling - it was allowed. The real question should be "was it at any time playable by an opponent?" If so, it should be considered giving up control and should have been called. That did not seem to be the case in this situation.

 

One more thought is why? Simple mistake, fine. But did he see someone down field all alone that he could nail with a punt/throw? Was he trying to waste more time? Remember, players at this level are smart and try to cheat. The lower the level, the more you trust it as a simple mistake and deem it trifling. Higher levels, be two steps ahead of them so you know if they're trying to pull something.

 

Since were talking about this topic...

I was watching a college match (I knew the refs) and it was going to be a good game as these teams had played in the final of their conference tournament the year before.

The match went into OT. During OT an attacker slid a ball through a seem towards a teammate who was running onto it near the side of the penalty area about 16 yards from the goal line. The goalkeeper was quick to react and charged off the line he picked up the ball just before the other attacker could collect it. The keeper then realized that his momentum was too great and he was about to carry the ball out of the penalty area, just as this was happening the keeper dropped the ball back into the box (at this point the attackers were claiming handling), now behind the attacker who had overrun the keeper, as he didn't think he would get the ball. Once he saw the ball dropped in and the keeper was out of the box he was trying to get to it but again just before he could the keeper pounced on the ball and took it into his hands again. The referee allowed play to continue.

When I asked the referee after the match what he saw he told me that the keeper never handled the ball outside the area and the players wanted that call and it just wasn't there. I then pointed out I thought the gave more protests when he repossessed it and I thought it was second touching. After I said this, his reaction was that I was right about that is should have been a 2X call - but he got so focused in on the handling issue due to the players argument that it never occurred to him.

So in a case like this, a second touching decision is appropriate -- its not something that we see very often at all and most of the times we do it's trifiling, so I wanted to bring up an actual scenario where it should be punished.

 

Wow, an actual example of a second touch offense. It really is (or should be) a rarity. No surprise the ref missed it in dynamic play. Thanks for sharing.

 

I agree the original post was probably trifling.

However, even though the score was 5-0 with only a couple of minutes remaining and the winner was all but determined, we shouldn't shy away from a non-trifling call. Many tournaments give extra points to a team for a shutout. So if there is in fact an infraction, and a call will not change the winner of the game, (ie, 5-0) a goal by the loosing team could affect the standings since a goal would eliminate the shutout. Thus, the foul is trifling in itself, not in the determination of the outcome of the game.

 

If that's a second handling by the goalie, then it goes unpunished even at the professional level because I've watched similar plays on several occasions.

 

Well, but that's in relation to the rules of the competition, not the game itself. I think the latter is what "trifling" refers to--a bit of brain strain to have to think about whether a foul, which is otherwise trifling in terms of the match, might somehow have some impact on league standings or competition standings. And the game we're reffing is our point of reference.

 

Why shouldn't that be punished as second touching? That is effectively what has happenend and it affected an opponent.

 

The problem about it , as I see it, did the goalie have complete control of the ball or did he only struggled for it before releasing it in the PA as he leaves it, and then struggled back for it after regaining his composure on his way back into the PA .

 

Lets not confuse this with the act of making a save. It's not the same thing, the keeper used his hands to take possession of the ball so the opponent could not have it or challenge him for it. He then released the ball so that he wouldn't violate law 12, and then picked it up again so the opponent couldn't again have a chance at it. This is more than a "deliberate parry" this is a full catch/possession and release prior to retouching.

I asked Jim Allen about this and he said it was a second touching. I further went on to ask him this question:

If a keeper sees a high flying shot come towards him in his area and he comes out to catch it but misjudges it and it bounces over his head - then he tracks backwards and catches the ball about 2 yards out of the goal but he stumbles back and throws the ball into the field to prevent him carrying the ball into the goal. Then an attacker reads it and charges the ball and the keeper runs back out and picks it up before the attacker can grab it. Is this also second touching?

I then stated that I thought in this case it was more like the keeper was just making a save and it wouldn't be 2nd touching.

Jim's response to me was to say that they were both second touching. That in the 2nd scenario a save would have meant that the keeper wouldn't have actually caught the ball that it would merley have just been swated away and without a deliberate parry.

These situations are so rare, but I think they are important to recognize them when they harm the opponents who have a right to the ball. Otherwise, when do we enforce this aspect of the law?

 

I'm sorry but I don't see any difference between the two situations. As long as the goalie doesn't place the ball in play by droping it and move it with his foot or holds on to it too long, the time between touching the ball from the original touch until the second is arbitrary isn't ?

 

The law makes no requirement that the ball be played with the foot to be in play from the keeper. Both situations are the same, you're right. They're both violations of Law 12.

I thought they were different but Jim corrected me on it.

Lets look at it this way, if the keeper who was falling in the goal after having caught the ball drops it into the pitch to prevent carrying it into the game, and the opponent does get to it and puts it in the net would you allow the goal?

If you would allow the goal, then it's because the ball has been put back into play by the keeper and the opponent is entitled to it. If you don't allow the goal then you are presuming the keeper still has possesion of a ball he is no longer holding on to.

If you do agree the opponent can play it, then the ball is in fact released back into play meaning that the keeper is now at risk for "second touching".

 

I haven't seen one called yet, so I guess I'll be watching for my first secondary touch call from now on .

 

Thats is because it nearly NEVER happens. I've only called it once ever and I've only ever seen it one other time in the game I talked about above.

Don't hold your breath.

 

What do you mean it never happens ? Unless we're not talking about the same thing. Goalies handling the ball in a save such as from a penalty kick without holding on to it and then rushing to the ball in an effort to beat any attacker and finally grabbing it usually just before anyone else touches it, happens often.

 

The difference in this example is that the GK never had possession of the ball (he "only" saved the PK) so he allowed to take possession and it is not considered a second touch.

On the other hand if the GK catches the PK (now he has possession) and then he drops the ball (for any reason) he can't pick the ball back up (it will be a second touch). The key is possession vs. no possession on the first touch.

 

Does the keeper bounce the ball legally then, as many do, before kicking it back into play ?

 

Yes bouncing the ball (under control) is considering keeping possession, if an attacker tries to challenge the ball it will be called the same way as if the GK was still holding the ball.