We all know that you cannot kick a ball that is in possession of the keeper. But upon reviewing the strategy for dealing with this offense, the IGR states (p121): " A player must be penalised for playing in a dangerous manner if he kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it" But on the same page it states: "Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable with a direct free kick or penalty kick." When we go to the ATR is says (12.b.4): "When a goalkeeper has possession of the ball, any attempt by any opponent to charge, tackle, or otherwise challenge for the ball is prohibited. Such a challenge is considered to be a direct free kick foul" So I'm a bit confused as to why IGR recommends PDM, an IDFK foul, but we are also advised to award a DFK. My thinking is this... If an attacker kicks a ball that is in possession of the keeper, it should be a DFK going out for a kicking infraction. If attacker charges illegally in this situation, DFK for charging. Not sure how the PDM comes into play if there is physical contact. Opinions?
Well, setting aside the ATR for the moment ... we can say if the attacker kicks or attempts to kick the ball in the keeper's possession, and in so doing does not make contact with the person of the keeper, that's PIADM for which the IFK is awarded. But if he does make contact with the keeper, then it's a DFK foul. The ATR language can be (charitably) read to be consistent with this, I think — with the exception of the "otherwise challenge" part, which would seem to include both scenarios in my first paragraph.
Thanks for the reply but I have to get nit picky... Because even "attempting to kick" is still a DFK foul. So if the attacker takes a swing at the keeper in possession and misses with a kick, isn't it still a DFK violation even though no contact has been made? I guess my main problem is why this circumstance is considered PIADM. How do I justify a DFK if my reasoning for the foul is PIADM?
It might be interesting to figure it out, but seriously, it only makes a difference if the defense puts the ball directly into the other team's net from their own Penalty Area. So I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it (unless it shows up on a test).
Ya I thought about that too, but we read... "When a goalkeeper has possession of the ball, any attempt by any opponent to charge, tackle, or otherwise challenge for the ball is prohibited. Such a challenge is considered to be a direct free kick foul" So therefore I would think kicking at the ball would be covered under "otherwise challenge for the ball". Cinepro is correct, nothing to loose sleep over, but hey, a long FK could end up in the goal untouched, I've had it happen, and you could have a protestable situtuation. So in this exact situation, when attacker kicks the ball in possession, (not actual body part of keeper) do we award DFK or IDKF?
...which is exactly what I said. I would say, if you really want to get it right, award the IFK. If you want to follow the ATR, then DFK. And if you want to play it safe and otherwise make it easy on yourself, decide you saw contact with the keeper and give the direct kick. Who's going to complain?
A goal being scored or not does not make this protestable - the incorrect restart does. Granted no goal I don't think anyone would protest it, and highly doubt anyone would know it was incorrect anyway (except referee's - well, the few that care to read and learn and debate like us few here )
OK, thanks, that helps but I have to say the Laws are quite blurry here. But now I find something else that I'm having trouble with... "When not in possession of the ball, including any time the goalkeeper is controlling the ball using any part of his or her body other than the hands, the goalkeeper can be legally challenged by an opponent anywhere on the field." When I read this my first thought that came to mind in a scenario in which the keeper is huddled over the ball or covering it with his/her legs. In such a case it would be illegal for an opponent to challenge or kick at the ball in such a dangerous situation. (of course it would be PIADM on keeper if he persisted in covering the ball in such fashion without using the hands.) I think I understand what they are saying, but still it could be worded better. I've seen just this very thing happen when the keeper ends up on his/her back and is holding the ball down with the legs thinking they have possession when in fact they don't. I would think we would judge this just like we would any other player in that its PIADM on the keeper unless the opponent tries kicking at it right away.
O, you just wait, you may expect to have more trouble when you start counting 6 seconds, or other players help you count. Or, what most goalkeepers do when they parry the ball; parry is possession according to the laws. The IGR tome is just that, instructions, and guidelines. There is something called sticking to the wording of the laws, and the practical aspect of applying them. The idea is to keep things adequately simple. To take your assertion "We all know that you cannot kick a ball that is in possession of the keeper. But upon reviewing the strategy for dealing with this offense, the IGR states (p121):" No, not all of us know. Yes, one can kick the ball in possession of the goalkeeper, only that it will be ruled by Hawkeye as an offense and an entry into the little black book for being naughty. Now, with a situation where during a scramble, the ball lands between the goalkeeper body and the ground, that goalkeeper is still within the "normal" challenge mode, s/he is not playing in a dangerous manner. And being nit-picky is good, once you have already made up your mind that "attempting to kick" is a direct kick, then award it. Keep things simple, apply all laws correctly (incl L15), and do the same thing at the other end. Both teams will want to have you referee their matches from then on.
Whoa, wait. Does that mean when the keeper parries the ball, and then an attacker tries to kick it, it's PIADM and an IFK coming out? My head hurts.
Yep, parrying is possession (pp 120), an accidental rebound is not, and play continues. So the opponent kicks the ball that is parried by goalkeeper, no offense by opponent. A parried ball is in possession, and then the goalkeeper grabs the ball, IFK to opponent. But do this only within the warm confines of the home, or in a dream, not on the pitch. The same reason I will also permit the goalkeeper to bounce the ball, grab, and then punt, but only once, me or my buddy will have had talked to the goalkeeper about "You know that is handling after releasing possession, right?" type.
Nto really. That tome is the official interpretations of the LOTG. They are as binding as the LOTG. But, like the LOTG, they aren't always crystaline in their clarity. I don't see anything that gets close to a protestable issue here. If, ITOOTR, a kicking or charging foul occurs, the referee will call it. If, ITOOTR, a PIADM foul occurs, the referee will call it. Just like any play on the field in which the R may decide there was a kicking foul, charging foul, or PIADM.
Exactly. You can't protest an incorrect restart if the referee called an IFK and restarted with an IFK. If, however, the referee called a DFK foul and restarted with IFK in the PA, yes, that might be worthy of a protest. As we've said before, the chances of someone catching a subtle thing like that AND the committee being willing to take it up as a protect aren't good odds, anyways.
Point taken, and I know this is minutia, the reason I found this is that I saw a website that describe a situation where physically challenging the keeper with possession was PIADM and is restarted with a DFK, and I thought he was wrong. Turns out that going by the ATR and IGR he was probably correct.
If that's literally what it said, then yes it was wrong. PIADM is always an IFK foul, so it can't be PIADM and restart with a DFK. Challenging the keeper in possession and making physical contact is not PIADM; it is a DFK foul.
As far as I know and unless something has changed, bouncing the ball is perfectly legal and he is still considered to be in possession of the ball. An intentional parry as a time wasting technique shouldn't be permitted. I will normally give a verbal warning tot he GK the first time I see it and then award the IFK if he does it again.
Well ya I agree 100%, but this was my original confusion (see first quote from IGR) since IGR recommends PIADM even though there is physical contact, (kicking the ball while in possession of keeper), even though it may be kicking the ball I would still consider that physical contact and would call a "kicking" foul and not PIADM. I guess that's my main question here... If we are to call a DFK, rather than PIADM, then which of the 10 DFK fouls do we call? Wouldn't it be kicking? Hope I'm not causing to much cephalic explosions here. As a ref I don't really care how many times he bounces it (within 6 sec.) since it is clearly allowed in the ATR and IGR. As a coach I have a big problem with my keeper bouncing the ball on the ground unnecessarily. Bouncing the ball gains no advantage to the keeper, only the possible disadvantage if the ball takes a bad hop to a lucky attacker, so if he wants to take that unnecessary bounce, I let him. I'll let the coach yell at him/her.
The DFK foul is not "kicks or attempts to kick." It's "kicks or attempts to kick an opponent." Were it otherwise, it would be quite a different game.
LOL! ya, good point. I think that in a round a bout way the ATR and IGR is suggesting that kicking the ball in this instance is PIADM with IDFK restart, and if there is physical contact with the body, such as charging, tackling, or kicking the body, then we go ahead with DFK. That's what I'm going to do.
Wow. I always thought challenging the gk release was UB, and since you stop play for misconduct, it's a idfk. Another thing I've learned on bigsoccer!
Actually, "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands" is called out as a separate "technical" infraction that just gets an IFK. No need for a yellow card. Although if a player is being enough of a fool to harass the keeper like that, we will often oblige him with some plastic. Still an IFK restart, but for the original "preventing release" offense, not for the YC.
This forum is always making me think about stuff that I never thought of. So if keeper parries the ball, doesn't he/she technically have possession at that point, so... wouldn't that still be perfectly fine under the LOTG to do so AS LONG as he/she gets rid of the ball within the 6 sec. limit? I have to question where you get that from, not that I'm saying you're wrong, its just that as I have been reading this section of the laws over and over again, it seems pretty unclear as to exactly what we are supposed to call here. All the ATR and IGR seem to say about this particular subject is that "it is an offense..." or "it is not allowed...", I can't find anything concrete as to exactly how we apply justice to this infraction in terms of punishment or restart. What do they mean when they say it is an "offense"?? If its a foul then you would be correct and we award a FK, if it is a misconduct then we would be abliged to show a card if we stop play for such an "offense". Agree that if I have to stop play for this infraction, that I will be itching give a caution, since I have now forced the keeper to put the ball on the ground and have taken away his ability to punt the ball.