That’s my point, if you’re gonna call THIS a foul against the GK, then you might as well just tell attackers on every corner to not even get near the GK. Where is the foul here? People saying she got “tackled” into the goal? What am I missing? I see the attacker and GK jumping up straight for a ball and the GK flails backwards trying to reach it.
Because then you'll get that one player who will get near the GK just to spite you. What are you going to call?
I saw this the other day. I have no foul. The GK came forward a step to clear space and then everyone jostles and steps back. Her step forward makes her stumble back and keeps keep from jumping. There is contact but everyone going up has a right to that ball. Which by the way looked like an Olimpico. I think it’s in before the header but I’m not certain. The R is helpless here. Time is running out. The players are scrambling. She’s trying to get in position but it’s a scrum. No way they can see any backside contact. If there is a foul here they have no chance And as noted you can’t stop the clock to lecture players.
Leaving aside the discussion of the merits on foul v no foul, this seems patently false from the video. In the clip shown from inside the goal, she never moves an inch. If anything, that might be a lesson to glean here. I think a lot of referees (myself included) are guilty of ball-watching on corner kicks and getting their feet stuck in cement. There are occasions where it reaches a point where movement is required. This would seem to be one of them. The defending goalkeeper is up. There's nothing to lose for the defense. All the action will be in the goal area. You can both start closer and get closer on a play like this. Every human on the field is in motion during that clip except one.
Seems my hypothetical was dumb. Basically I’m just saying that in my opinion if you’re going to call this incident as a foul by the attacker on the goalkeeper, then we might as well just say that an attacker can’t be near a goalkeeper because any contact on a keeper we will just call a foul. I really struggle to see where a foul could be garnered here.
I have more foul than not. The forward is extremely close to the ball and makes no attempt to jump for it? While any contact with the ball will surely put the ball in the goal? That tells me that she's likely there for one reason only, and that is to make contact with the GK. Regarding the GK's movement: The GK pushes the attacker away as the kick happens (as all goalies do), then adjusts for the actual kick once it's taken. And during that phase, while the ball is in the air, the forward moves toward the GK, bodies her far enough to go into the goal, and the forward doesn't jump for a ball that's right there. Also, the GK can't jump because she's been knocked off balance here by the forward. Regarding the Referee's position: there is simply no reason to be out near the top of the PA here (and especially no reason to be so far out that you're actually out of the frame of the camera). There were 25 seconds left when the corner kick was called. The ball is never, ever going the other way with enough time to matter. There is one position you should take here, and that's the one that puts you as close to the key group of players as needed. Those of us who used to go off of the field on corner kicks in (many) years past would know this, but a position near the end line is not anything that referees think of now. With no risk of a counter attack, and no Video Review, the place to be is just off the field where you can clearly see everything at the face of the goal - potential foul, potential defensive handball, etc. Also, if you're taking a position at the top of the PA, then at least move toward play as the ball is in the air. Standing still here is simply not acceptable. This conversation could easily be the opposite - a defensive handball that wasn't called and maybe was or wasn't a handball. When your position sets you up for failure for potential calls both directions, it's not where you should be. I'll sum up my thoughts this way: If there was a foul called on this play, no one would be talking about it. If UCLA had brought it up, they would have been laughed out of the conversation. While this is not "stone cold" and takes some analysis to get to the right answer, the best answer here is a foul coming out.
After seeing it a computer rather then phone screen I guess it does look more like a foul on the attacker. Looked to me like the keeper had been pushing too so it was just jostling but yeah I guess the attacker just keeps moving inwards toward the goal into the keeper without really making a play on the ball. for the ref position would the best place actually be on the AR side of the corner of the PA, then moving inwards diagonally towards the GK scrum as the ball comes in? Seems like that would be the best place to see the entire middle mess. I don’t see where you could be off the field and get the best view?
My mentor assessed me on my first state tournament middle. “Moving on corner kicks” was his first and strongest comment. He said if we stay in one spot, we will lose visibility as players move. I would disagree about moving on the goal line. From personal experience, you lose a view of incidents. At this point in the game and with what was being done on set pieces, a position closer to the near post would be a good starting point.
Men's final tonight. Nothing nearly as dramatic as the women's final. Although the tiebreaker had the most kicks in College Cup history according to the announcer. There was an interesting play at 17:19 to go in the 2nd half. IU sends in a cross, it hits a player, and then a subsequent SU defender shanks it back up off the cross bar which bounced down to the goal line and the keeper managed to keep it out. The GK holds the ball for a while and then the referee stops the game, and I thought he was going to signal a cursory video review you know "just because what harm does it cause?" Replays show it was never a goal. However, Matt Thompson (R) goes to speak with Salma Perez (AR) and then after a quick chat with the coaches, indicates IFK. On the replay of appears that Perez correctly spotted an IU player in OSP but the flag never went up, so my supposition is she couldn't tell which player hit the cross as it approached the goal. This is an outstanding offside pickup in real time by the crew and the teamwork used to get it. At the same time, the keeper caught the ball before the game was stopped so I think Thompson probably figured he didn't need to sort the offside and could let it play. But, after (probably) a lot of pressure from IU to do a VR, he ends up stopping the thing. I am really glad he then sorted the offside out before going to a review, because it makes it so people can't assume you spotted the offside on the video and it keeps the door closed on a review that you don't end up needing. But, for the few games that have VR using this system, here was an interesting example of VR (not VAR) mechanics done well.
Would have been nice if the same AR had spotted the Syracuse keeper off the line on the game-winning KFTM save, but you can't get them all I guess.
Just looked at it again. It looks like he did leave the line. Less than a foot and less than a half second before contact. It would be a really tight decision without replay. A truly difficult decision to make of you're not positive. (Also, the kick was way too close to the GK.) That said, from a technical standpoint, you're right. He did get a slight jump, so by the rules it should have been retaken even if the infraction would have had no tangible impact on the kick. Probably the fair outcome from a practical standpoint but not from the technical one.
Not difficult at all given that you are right on the line. Should be well within what an AR is able to detect and properly call.
I said it is a difficult decision to give if you're not sure. Meaning, do you have the courage to make such a massive decision if you're say 75/25 on a close call like this? Which is different than saying the decision is difficult to make... But you piqued my interest in suggesting this is a routine one. I tracked it on youtube just now. The video is uploaded here at 60 frames per second. (Using the YT frame-by-frame feature, at the point most generous toward the IU player from this angle) I'm willing to say that both of his feet could be off the line at most 6 frames before the ball starts to move (it's probably closer to 4 frames, you can't tell from this view). That means it was legal until 1/10 of a second before the ball was kicked. If you're focused on the line and listening for the ball in a loud setting, I will venture to say that 1/10 of a second between fair or not is a little closer than routine. Maybe if the GK was further off the line, or more like 1/2 a second before the kick or earlier, then I would say this is a routine call and bad miss. But, at 1/10 a second, I would at least give the AR credit for the decision being more difficult than a routine one. Yes, we strive to get it right, but if you're asking her to stick her neck out on a National final where the GK is off the line 1/10 of a second too soon, it's no wonder why she might not have the confidence to give that decision. If we want this level of scrutiny of GK position, there is an easy solution for that, expand the VR. Otherwise, I think we'll have to be OK with living with these close-timing decisions.
Here You can see the unusual offside play I described. If you look at the left-most white attacker in the goal area, you'll see that he is just OSP (you can tell from a broadcast angle they show but don't show in the highlight package). He comes back to head the ball and kind of hides in behind a defender and with multiple bodies between Perez and the header, you can see why she needed info from Thompson before raising the flag. It's a really good decision which is just compounded by the mechanics of the VR system as noted above.
Keepers don’t have time to move a foot twice when diving. On the game winning save the keepers plant foot is clearly not on the line after the kick, which means it was 99% likely not on the line at the moment of the kick.
I agree with you. The video during the game with the in-goal camera clearly showed the GK had neither foot on nor over the line at the moment it was kicked. Of that, we can be sure. I'm just talking about the fallibility of the human perceptual systems relative to the difficulty of the decision in this play. I think 1/10 of a second for this decision is harder than you do, I think.
I wasn't aware of this thread or the discussion happening here about the UCLA UNC no call otherwise I would have poked my head in earlier. I'm glad to see there's been a reasonable leaning towards my own thoughts of the situation where, A) it's probably a foul B) it would have been hard to see, and C) the official should have done better to put herself in a better position to try and see it. I have a more nuanced question about the implied privilege that is extended to keepers in the rule book. Would any kind of "normal jostling" that inhibits the goal keepers ability to raise their arms to play be given special consideration for a foul that would otherwise not be considered for said jostling between field players?
I'd frame it differently. Jostling of an opponent that may be trifling when the opponent is a fieldplayer may not be trifling when the opponent is the GK.
It’s a way of thinking about the call. A trifling foul is still a foul. It’s a foul we choose not to call because it doesn’t have an impact on the game. The same contact on a GK may have an impact that it wouldn’t have on a field player, I. Which case in may create an unfair advantage such that it is no longer trifling.
When a goalkeeper dives at an opponent to make a save aren't they committing dangerous play? But we don't call it.
you don't? Pretty sure if a goalkeeper makes a movement to play the ball and doesn't get the ball / or does get the ball but also gets a lot of the player, it's called a foul. I'm also not sure what this is supposed to address ... what does fouls committed by a goalkeeper having anything to do with whether or not interfering with a goalkeepers arm is a foul in a way it wouldn't be against a field player. Please don't bring whataboutism that reeks of annoyance about the privelages extended to goalkeepers into the conversation.
yes but I was hoping more about the specific idea of arm checking and interference with the arms, not significance of the contact There's a lot of jostling between field players that involve arm checking where it's not called even if it gains an advantage and is in the "normal" run of play. Normal as in not in a scrum like on a corner.
Here's a good way to look at trifling vs non-trifling in this case - goalkeepers are allowed to use their hands and arms legally to play the ball, so "handsy" contact between two field players may be trifling compared to an attacker doing the same thing to a goalkeeper and not allowing the keeper to use his/her arms and hands legally and make a fair play on the ball. I know the whole "trifling" thing is subjective and "squishy". That's why discussing soccer officiating is so difficult at times. There's a lot of subjectivity in many foul calls. Plus, whether explicit or implicit, goalkeepers often are perceived as being protected. I wish there was a more clear and objective way to discuss this, but it's tough. As you can see on here, one person's trifling is another person's foul. For me, on this particular play, I probably would have called a foul if I had a good look at it. In my opinion, I felt like the attackers initiated the contact that ultimately impacted the keeper's ability to play the ball. However, a no-call with all of the activity going on is at least defensible (if not the preferred call).