Control is the key word. I'm sure that if the evolution of the rules concerning the keeper's handling of the ball didn't followed the bouncing to the running with it for a limited time, the bouncing part wouldn't be a vestigial repertoir of the allowed moves or capabilities of ball movement by keepers in the modern game. I say that because bouncing in my view is really no different from droping the ball,saving a shot, or touching it and then pick it or "second" touch it again.
Well, you're entitled to your view, but it isn't the view of the Laws, or FIFA, or USSF. Bouncing the ball in a controlled manner is different, as is tossing the ball up into the air slightly and catching it again. Both of these are continuous control by the keeper, and not second touches. With the introduction of the six second rule, we hardly ever see bouncing or tossing anymore, but they are allowed.
Can't blame you for missing it. That was the AR's job to pick that one up. I would be likely to call that one. The keeper knows what he's done. At what point does it not become trifling? Seriously, 'double handling' will never affect play - at worst it'll give the keeper an extra 6 seconds to play with. Ok, occasionally he may pick it up when an attacker's running in, but most of the time he won't. So most of the time it doens't affect play - but should still be called. Just a tip - not to criticise, but if you're not sure of something that you would expect to be in the law then the best way to learn is to look it up yourself. I always tell that to juniors when they ask me a law question - look it up yourself. I don't say that harshly - I tell them that the best way to learn the laws is to read the laws yourself and become more familiar with them. Although you could be asking if that situation should be trifling or not too.......
I don't have any idea how Australian rules officials might judge the original situation. But I do know that the USSF, via Jim Allen, says in writing that it should be ignored because it is trifling and has gained the goalie no advantage.
But as I said, A keeper can hold the ball for a few seconds, drop it, run around the box for a few seconds, then pick it up again. IF no attacker's moving for it then there's no advantage. There's a few seconds wasted, but really this is inconsequential - and doesn't actually affect play. So like I said, almost any case of double handling gains no advantage and does affect play (the general definition of trifling) - which is where I think JA's argument falls short.
This is potentially trifling IFOF the six seconds continues to run; no resetting of the six second clock with the second pick up, right? Otherwise, great potential for time wasting, which is what the six seconds is supposed to avoid.
-- I disagree with the NEVER in your Key Point, if the second touch denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, the goalie would be red carded and the restart would be a PK.
I disagree, a double touch or any other handling infraction comitted by the goalkeeper in his own PA can never be DOGSO or a PK. Wreave had it right 9 years ago and still stands correct today.
Part of me fails to see how an infraction committed around the penalty area by a team that is leading a game is trifing.
I was debating about whether to reply here, but your response was spot on and I just have to echo it. First, as the OP said that no-one on the ref team saw it, I agree 100% you can't call it. Great job. As and aside, I hate it when posters here try to make someone feel dumb/stupid/un-knowledgeable for asking a question - I thought that was EXACTLY what this forum was all about. As for some who want to refer to the score at the time to make it sound like a team or part of a game is trifling, I can only respond that it isn't a ref's job to determine trifling based on the score. Sure, trifling is fine to call, but not because you as a ref feel the game is out of line as far as the score is based. Tournaments and leagues use goals scored against as a top tie-breaker, so that is an issue. More importantly, if you use a score to justify not making a call, you are doing a dis-service to the game you are calling and the teams playing there.
Sure. I would venture to guess that this type of action has happened in the last 9 years, so discussing it is fine.
You're a new guy here, so I want to say this as kindly as possible,but there are so many things wrong with this. First, a restart is not determined based on misconduct - it is only based on what the offense was. Most red card offenses also happen to be one of the 10 fouls listed in Law 12 that are DFK restarts, so inside the penalty area they would be PK's. But a goalkeeper's second touch is not one of those 10. Second, goalkeepers are expressly exempt from any misconduct related to handling the ball in the penalty area. See page 121 of the Laws of the Game (2015-16): So even if a second-touch inside the penaltye area denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it would not be a red card. It couldn't even be a yellow card. It would just be an indirect free kick restart. Now if that second touch was outside the penalty area, it becomes an normal deliberate handling call, and the keeper could be cautioned or sent off. But in that case, the restart would be a DFK, because the incident happened outside the PA.
This was discussed here, not nine years ago, but nine days ago. OK, a month ago. The key element from the I&G is this section: Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player. Inside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball. He can, however, be guilty of several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick. I resisted the urge to look stupid last month, but now that is comes up again, I just have to ask: Was this parsed out many years ago, and been taught this way since time immemorial? Because, if you just read this paragraph, you would not necessarily come to the conclusion that the GK is immune to misconduct (or expulsion) for handling offenses that incur an indirect free kick. Clearly, if the keeper cannot be guilty of handling, he cannot be guilty of misconduct derived from handling. But, just from reading what is written, IFK handling offenses, being different from handling per se, and being mentioned separately from handling per se, would not seem to be necessarily governed by the handling-misconduct exclusion. Second, if it has always been thus, what is the rationale? As seen with the thrown boot or held shin guard scenario, or fairly easy to imagine back-pass or second touch DOGSO scenarios, giving the GK a free pass here does not really make any logical sense.
Admittedly English isn't my first language but even so, I don't think I've ever seen anyone come to the conclusion you are in a discussion about this. IMO where you go wrong is that you assume some sort of conditionality of the "or any misconduct related to handling the ball" that isn't there. What I take from reading the passage is that both the "cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick" part and the "can, however, be guilty of several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick" part refer to what kind of FK offence it is while the "or any misconduct related to handling the ball" part doesn't and thus covers both. While I agree that it isn't written as well as I'd like one has to remember that the LotG is written by committee and rolling over the years. Well the passage didn't show up in the LotG until the 2007/08 edition when they started to tidy up the old "additional instructions & guidelines" and discontinued the Q&A but yea, it was parsed out at the time. It's of course hard to know exactly since I'm not on the IFAB but AFAIK the idea was that second-touch, backpass and TI backpass situations are all technical restrictions that are imposed on keepers to fix time wasting issues and not because those acts are inherently unfair and thus they didn't want keepers to be too harshly punished for doing those things in situations where they "needed" to. Basically, punishing a keeper with an IDFK when he's being an ass is OK but punishing him with a red card when he's trying to stop a goal is over the top. Of course there are some situations, like using an object (as you mentioned) or hanging from the crossbar or similar, where this doesn't work well but that's just the IFAB being its usual inept self and unfortunately the referees of the world will just have to live with that (and the long discussions/disagreements that follows) until such a situation takes place at a WC and the widely publicised fall-out forces the IFAB to deal with the issue.
I think the main point is that the questions of "which team" or "what's the score" are irrelevant to the determination if an offence is trifling or not, all that matters is how the offence affected the match situation it took place in.
Ok. Help me understand: When we talk about a match cricitcal decision, are we not implying the significance of the context of score and winning team? Absent a score and leading team, how would we assess what decisions were match critical? Thanks.
Apples and oranges. The ATR (may it RIP) explained trifling this way: Trifling *is* affected by how much the violation will affect the teams involved -- it is measured by the nature of the violation, not by the impact of making the call. (If a minor kick to the shins is trifling, we don't change that result by saying the punishment is a PK.) And a trifling offense does not become one that should be called because it would benefit the team that is losing. A match critical event is a completely different concept. It is a moment that can turn a game if not handled properly by the referee. It could well be that the proper way to handle a particular match critical event is for the referee to determine that the offense was trifling and hold the whistle.
So as long as we're dredging up a nearly decade old thread here… I would submit that a lot of the time, enforcement of Law 11 seems like a “gotcha” call. The idea behind offside was to prevent players hanging out near the goal, but the vast majority of offside calls are determined by a matter of a few feet, if not inches. And yet we have two assistant referees dedicated to calling off seemingly legitimate goals based on a nearly imperceptible positioning infraction. I can hardly blame them for feeling like a lot of the LOTG are indeed there to catch unsuspecting players, and wanting to claim every advantage granted to them by the book.
So I'm kicking myself for a decision I just made in a U9 rec game. The keeper, obviously new to the job, gained possession. He put the ball down (a lot of these guys seem to think it's a goal kick every time they get the ball). Then after some thought, he picked it back up. I whistled an IFK for the opponents to be taken at the top of the 6 (or 4 or 5 or however many yards it is on this field). They scored, of course, which made it 6-0. The coach was upset and said I should've discussed it with the keeper. I think he was right. I was going too much "by the book" when I should've used common sense in a U9 rec game. But am I correct in getting the impression from this thread that such an offense is trifling no matter the level? (Also, one coach -- a young kid who refs within the same club but hasn't reffed this season -- told me he thought the club rule was to take such IFKs at the edge of the penalty area, not the goal area. I can find no such rule. But I'll obviously need to ask our assignor about that.)
Yeah, it's trifling in a U9 rec game. (Almost everything is trifling in a U9 rec game.) But no, not at every level. Yes, explanation and a re-do would have been better. But stop kicking yourself. You're a referee, not a ball.
Now that I've had time to think about it, part of me wishes I'd told the coaches to teach his own damn players how to play. But it's OK. And it was just one of six goals, at least two of which were scored while the defenders and goalkeeper were having a conversation, oblivious to an onrushing wave of attackers. Ah, U9 rec ...