Perhaps this is an old question but.... I have always been under the belief - right or wrong - that if the keeper has a hand on the ball, she/he is considered to be "in possession" of the ball. So, here's the seen: U19 Girls Tournament Team A leading 2-1 Team A Keeper stops a shot/pass and is in contact with the ball with hand or hands (though arguably not in definite control of the ball) about waist high. Nearly simultaneous to this hand/ball contact, Attacking Player B1 runs squarely into the keeper with the ball very briefly sandwiched between them but keeper now definitely has hand or hands on ball, ball gets loose, attacking player B1 passes loose ball to attacking player B2, B2 puts the ball in the net to tie the game. Does the goal stand?
Break the play up: 1) Team A Keeper stops a shot/pass and is in contact with the ball with hand or hands (though arguably not in definite control of the ball) about waist high. 2) Nearly simultaneous to this hand/ball contact, Attacking Player B1 runs squarely into the keeper with the ball very briefly sandwiched between them but keeper now definitely has hand or hands on ball, ball gets loose 3) attacking player B1 passes loose ball to attacking player B2, B2 puts the ball in the net to tie the game Part 1 is fine. The key to this play is part 2. If the referee believes that the challenge on the keeper was legal and the attacking player did not deliberately try to remove the ball from the keeper's possession then it is play on. If not then it should be a free kick to the keeper.
You say the keeper may not be in definite control. What does that mean? If he's bobbling it, then no control yet. Next, you seem to say the keeper now has control and the keeper has been charged while in control which is a foul and the restart is a DFK to the keeper. If the referee believed the keeper was not charged but dangerous play occured, IFK. If referee believed the opponent did nothing to cause the keeper to release the ball, play continues, goal is good.
Generally speaking, if the keeper handles the ball and there is a simultaneous, or even near-simultaneous touch by an attacker, it will be play on. Personally I don't like the way the law is worded, because strictly speaking a keeper can be lying on the ground with the ball just touching the outside of his elbow and he is in control, according to the way the law is written...
There is a 2nd part (as I understand it) to the "hand on the ball=control"...it must be against something (their body, their other hand, the ground, etc). Just because the hand makes contact with the ball does not mean it is under control. An attacker has every right to challenge for a ball that is not under control. Of course this is where we as referees come in (and why we had a multi-page thread on protecting the keeper). I tend to give the benifit of the doubt to the attacker if it is a 50/50 ball and there is no excessive force/reckless play on the part of the attacker. From your description, it sounds as of in part 1, the keeper caught the ball and then started bobbling it at her waist?? If the keeper did not have control (in the opinion of the referee), then the attacker has a right to challenge for the ball. Now I assume the ball was being bobbled around the girls waist as she stood upright. The attacking player runs into the keeper (not hard enough to knock her down obviously), sandwhiches the ball between them, where the keeper then puts her hands on the ball in an attempt to control it. This is where key #1 is...if the attacker commits a fair challenge on the ball (ignoring the fact that this is a goal keeper), then there is no foul (IMO). The attacking player (B1) then seperates herself from the keeper (??), at which point the ball falls to the ground, and she passes it to B2 where B2 scores. Is this accurate? Here is how I read the situation. The only point where the keeper seemed to have some sort of possession was when attacker and keeper where making a sandwhich with the ball. Key #2: If, during the seperation of keeper and attacker, the ball simply came loose without any intentional action by the attacker, then in my opinion, there is no foul. If the attacker tried to hit the ball away or do some other action to remove possesion of the ball from the keeper, then it is a foul. Of course all my assumptions on the situation could be wrong, but this sounds like "you had to see the play" in order to tell if (A) the ball was challenged for fairly when the keeper did NOT have possesion, and if (B) possession of the ball was taken from the keeper by an intentional or unintentional (if reckless or excessive force, blah blah) act. In my opinion, if (A) the challenge was fair, and (B) possession was NOT taken by the attacker with an intentional act or a reckless unintentional act, the I would count the goal. Of course, if I had to guess, everyone at the game was shouting bloody murder because the keeper was touched when she was trying to gain possession of the ball. Hopefully others will chime in, but this is how I view the situation.
I would say yes, the goal should stand, assuming B1 didn`t use her hand to knock the ball away from the keeper, given the ball was waist high. If the keeper had control of the ball when it`s off the ground they should be able to hold onto it. Having two hands on the ball is significant, when a keeper holds the ball in two hands it`s their ball no question.
The key to me is that the keeper had her hand or hands on the ball and therefore any contact - intentional or unintentional - by the attacking team results in a free kick to the defending team No? I don't believe that the rules state that the keeper must be in true "possession" of the ball. Certainly a 'hand on the ball' can not constitute possession in many, if not most, cases. But ...I may be wrong...again. Either way, I think it's a a not-so-clear area and the advantage goes to the keeper = no goal
In U-19, I do not believe it is this clear cut. And nowhere in your description did I see clear evidence of possession (...you said she was bobbling it and didn't put a hand on the ball until AFTER the attacker sandwhiched it against her body). So if the attacker simply stepped away from the keeper after this at which point the keeper lost possession, where is the foul? What exactly did the attacker do wrong in your opinion? See I feel in not-so-clear areas, especially at higher levels and ages, the "advantage" goes to the attacker. Of course, this is coming from someone who played a forward/striker position back in his youth .
This is one part that nobody has touched on, exactly what does "run squarely into the keeper" mean? Was it a legal challenge or not.
Law 12 Decision 2 says: This is talking about possession in terms of whether the keeper can make a second touch on the ball. It doesn't address the question of whether an opponent can challenge for the ball. If it did, then whenever a keeper parried the ball opponents would be prevented from running after it! The simple fact that a goalkeeper's arm is in contact with the ball does not mean that she has control of it and cannot be challenged. I too subscribe to the principle that control means the keeper's hand/arm is physically holding the ball against something, such as the ground or the goal, trapping it so it is stationary. If the ball is between her two hands or between her hand and her body, it doesn't necessarily have to be stationary as she might be in motion herself.
Law 12 Decision 2- ".....but does not include the circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper, for example after he has made a save." Thank you! That's what I was looking for. Not really the answer that I was looking for ( I was coaching Team A). I would have to say that the "rebounding accidently" applies here so the goal stands - it did anyway :0).
The case, of course, is yahaddabethere. Keep in mind certain elements of the law. #1. The GK can be legally charged, subject to the standard conditions: A. Approximately shoulder to shoulder, B. Both players with at least one foot on the ground, C. Attempt is to IMMEDIATELY play the ball (not the opponent and then the ball). #2. Once the GK has complete possession, any contact of the person of the GK or the ball in her hand(s) that is initiated by an opponent is a penal foul. Thus charging the GK through the ball is a penal foul because it is not shoulder to shoulder. My reading of the case is that the GK was contacted through the ball (not a play on the ball, but a "little help" for the GK to drop the ball). Foul!
I don't understand why not. Decision 2 clearly states that "The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms." It doesn't say holding against something. It says "touching it". By your theory, the goalkeeper is fair game if he's holding the ball with one hand over his head. If the keeper is lying down with his hand on the ground, palm up, with the ball stationary on top of it, he has possession, even thoungh the ball isn't "against something". An attacker can't kick the ball with the keeper's hand acting like a tee. I'd say the "against something" idea a good guide to figure out if the ball is an "accidental rebound" or not, which means there is no keeper possession. But don't say that it is an implied part of the decision from the IFAB, because it clearly is not.
Well, looking at the new Q&A (12.22), I guess this isn't true: "After taking possession of the ball, a goalkeeper allows it to lie on his open hand. An opponent comes from behind him and heads the ball from his hand. Is this permitted? This is permitted since the goalkeeper does not have full possession of the ball and the action of the opponent is not dangerous. " Seems contradictory to me when the Law says touching the ball with the hand means the keeper has control. Oh well, what do I know...