keeper handles his own errant clearance

Re: Re: Trifling (and other LOTG) are not static?

This is an excellent post for more than one reason. You hit upon something taught in advanced referee clinics about managing a game -- call things relatively tight for about 10-15 minutes or until you deem the game flow established. Then let the game proceed along its logical course, keeping a watchful eye and tightening up the last 5 minutes of the half. Start off the second half for 5 minutes calling things a bit tight to get everybody back in the flow of playing, then let the game flow until the final 10-15 minutes. It's a good template to use for establishing authority and control early on while still allowing the players the ability to bring the game to its natural conclusion. Easy way to remember -- 10 minutes at the start, 10 minutes at the half, 10 minutes at the end.

The second point about consistency is also important. Most announcers errantly discuss the topic, but sometimes their complaints do have merit. During these "time zones" of control, the referee should make consistent calls for both teams. It's fine that in the first 10 things are tight and the next 30 things are less tight, so long as all calls made within those time zones are fair to both teams. Too often I'll see an MLS referee not award a caution for a challenge, only to book an opposing player for the same challenge a bit later. It's ok to tighten up the game based on the "temperature," but only if you do so for both teams.

Finally, a note about consistency is how it affects competitive games across the same division. The referee may call the game consistently between those two teams, but not consistent with how the other games are being handled. For example, a player may be sent off for DOGSO in one game, but the referee chickens out in a concurrent game for the same offense. So now one team is punished and the other team gets off scot free, and they may be facing each other next week. This is also why more must be taught on the idea of "discretion" and how to apply the laws. Although every game is different, some decisions ARE the same and need to be treated as such. When a referee fails to do so in a competitive league, it hurts not only the current game, but future games as well.

That is one thing the EPL and other high level European leagues have over the United States -- most of their officials approach the game with similar notions of fair and foul, and how to deal with certain situations. The U.S. is too focused on referee individuality and discretion when sometimes it may be better not to. I think it would be better to have the entry-level referees be more like robots on the recreational level ("if this happens, this is what you do") and have every single game called like clockwork. Then when the referee becomes more experienced and knowledgable of the Laws, they can upgrade to grade 7 and start being more individualistic on the field.

 

Re: semantics

Actually, the referee has called a foul, specifically one of the 10 penal fouls that if commited within the players own penalty area result in a penalty kick for the opponents.

But enough semantics. I just read the entire 6 pages of this thread and am baffled by some of your comments.and those of others. Your original question had to do with a backpass to the keeper which was subsequently played by the keeper who then touched the ball with his hands before it was played by another player. No foul was called and you asked why.

Statesman, Massref,Alberto and others have pointed out that the Law is very clear on this. IF the ball was deliberately passed back to the keeper by a teammate with the foot, the keeper cannot touch it with his hands until the ball is played by another player. Period. This is true if he miskicks it, dribbles it, heads it or whatever. ATR 12.12 is very clear on this. "The goalkeeper has infringed the Law if he handles the ball after initially playing the ball in some other way (e.g., with his feet)", which is exactly what this keeper did.(I know German referees aren't bound by anything written in ATR but I'm pretty sure the USSF interpretation of the passback rule is universal) You go on to argue that the keeper didn't infringe the Law when he surely did. But...you asked WHY no call? Only three possibilities
1. The referee blew the call (happens at all levels)
2. The referee thought it was trifling
3. The referee thought it WASN'T a deliberate passback in the first place.
I'll cheerfully pass the question to Jim Allen just as you asked it.

The rest of the thread has centered around referees ignoring fouls due to game circumstances such as score and time left. Again, Statesman is absolutely correct. Yes, we do tend to call things tighter at the beginning and ends of halves but to ignore a flagrant foul in the penalty area because the score is 11-0 with 5 minutes left is not Common Sense or good game management. It's simply wrong. Unlike Statesman, I still continue to do youth games, many at the rec level and the last thing you want to teach these kids is that it's all right to foul just because the score is lopsided or the game's about over. I'm amazed that any referee at any level thinks this is a reasonable thing to do. We are to enforce the Laws of the Game. While we are given the power to decide some fouls are trifling and to decide what constitutes a foul in the first place, we certainly aren't supposed to ignore flagrant fouls or refuse to call them based on score or time left

 

Hey Collins. Should have identified myself. My bad. Names keith contarino and if you check any of my posts when I mention Mr Allen, you'll see I always give his reply if he gives me permission to. I have his reply and am awaiting his permission to give it on this thread. Also, I'm not trying to insult you or assume you've not read LOTG and other printed material. I just think, as do almost everyone else on this thread, that you're wrong and the Law is clear. But...when in disagreement, the smart thing is to go to someone we can all agree on knows what's correct. Since Jim basically wrote ATR and has Mr Kleinaitis's ear I go to him directly. I will cherrfully give you his response upon obtaining his permission

 

I wonder if Jim every gets tired of answering the barrage of questions on interpretation and language produced by this board? I know I sure would. Perhaps we should have collectively sent him a Christmas card? Maybe next year...

 

I suspect that this board is but one of many millstones which Jim Allen carries around his neck. I do know that he does try to answer nearly every sincere inquiry he recieves. This, itself would be a daunting task, requiring far more patience than most of us would have.

Sherman

 

Hey Collins! Here's Jim's answer in toto. It's possible that the instructor's you questioned misunderstood your question or maybe I did. I can't imagine a National level instructor saying the keeper is free to handle the ball before it's played by another player if the referee thought it was a deliberate passback. Anyway,here's what I sent to Jim, and his response,and he gave me permission to post it . If I misrepresented your question or interpretation, please let me know. And call me Keith. Nothing formal here.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Allen" <allenj@drix.net>
To: "keith contarino" <jkc313@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: Yup. Another question


> >Apparently this occurred in a game in Nov Dortmund vs Bayern.
> >
> >Dortmund defender deliberately passes the ball back to his keeper
> >(kicks with the foot). The keeper miskicks the ball straight up into
> >the air and then catches it with his hands. No whistle. Question was
> >why.
> >
> >my answer,and most others
> >1. Referee blew call
> >2. Referee decided it was a trifling offense
> >3. Referee decided it wasn't a deliberate passback in the first
> >place so keeper free to do whatever he wants.
> >I really don't think I'm missing anything here yet the original
> >poster, and a few others have gone to great lengths to state what
> >the keeper did was legal. The reasoning is that once he miskicked
> >the ball, he was free to touch it with his hands. In fact,here's a
> >quote
> >
> >I say "play on" - no intent on the SUBSEQUENT FOOT CLEARANCE BY THE
> >GK. Remember, the INITIAL back pass was NOT handled, the GK handled
> >the ball AFTER he cleared, ERRANTLY, with his foot.
> >to me that's an new play and an unintentional back pass to himself.
> >Wierd but unintentional.
> >
> >Would appreciate your response.
> >
> >
>
>
> I cannot agree with the peron who said "play on." That is totally
> counter to the letter and the spirit of the Law, which will not allow
> the goalkeeper to handle the ball under these circumstances. Either
> of your first two choices would be better than that, and one or the
> other is probably correct.

 

By the way, since we are on the topic, I've found the best way to get a quality answer from Jim is to simply describe a scenario and ask for his interpretation. Leave out the options or your own leaning towards an answer and he'll be more likely to elaborate fully on a topic. If you give him options or your own answer he'll just pick one or say you are totally wrong Food for thought!

 

I'd agree with you but I wanted to make sure he was answering the same question posed by Collins so I pasted the thing to him to avoid any confusion. I sometimes think we are answering different questions, accidently. For example, Collins has said he has had higher ups side with him on this matter but did they get the same question posed to them in the same manner that Jim did? I don't know. But your point is well taken. Mr Allen will go into more detail if given a scenario.

 

So, what you folks are saying....

If a ball comes rolling into a keeper, and - instead of reaching down to pick it up - he pops it up to his hands with his foot, that would be considered and intentional backpass?

Yikes.

 

No. The scenario described is that the ball was passed back to the keeper by a teammate with the foot. The keeper tried to clear it, made a mess of it, and decided he could just grab it and punt it to safety. The call was missed, and the original poster thinks that this was the correct thing for the ref to do.

 

Gee! Didn't mean to make this confusing. What Jim Allen's answer to Colins question was, if there's a deliberate passback to the keeper, and the keeper misplays it with his foot, he CANNOT handle it. Apparently this happened in Germany in Nov and no call was made. Colins asked why but went on to say later that he thought the keeper was allowed to pick up his errant or misplayed kick with his hands. Some others agreed with him that this was legal. Most of us didn't. Neither did Jim Allen. I tried to answer why I thought no call was made. I posited 3 possibilities. Jim Allen thought one of the first 2 was probably correct. Referee blew call or thought it was trifling.
By the way, Yes I did send him a Christmas card and he certainly has the patience of Job for putting up with the likes of me.