This incident happened in a U-10 game, I'll try to describe it in detail. High bouncing ball in front of the goal, attacker and keeper are converging at about the six yard line. The attacker jumps to try to head the ball but misses, the keeper reaches up and gets two hands on the ball and is in the process of bringing it down to his chest. The attacker's momentum from his jump causes him to bump the keeper in the chest with his shoulder which knocks the ball free, the attackers teammate knocks the ball in the net. The referee awarded a goal. Was this a correct ruling? Thanks
It's hard to say. You had to be there. At the U-10 level, you're not always going to have very experienced referees. Maybe there was an infraction, but the referee didn't recognize it or know what to do. On the other hand, maybe the contact was the result of a fair challenge, so the referee let it go.
It sounds like the keeper had possession of the ball. If so, the attacker has fouled the keeper -- DFK going out. But as Billf said It's yahaddabethere.
Typically, whenever an attacker bumps a keeper and causes him to fumble the ball, a DFK is awarded to the keeper's team. But again, it's not 100% clear-cut.
From the FIFA Rule Book Decision 2 The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms. Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball, 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. The keeper in the U-10 game clearly touched the ball before contact and was bringing it down (it didn't rebound off his hands), the attacker never touched the ball, so according to Decision 2 the keeper was in control of the ball before the bump by the attacker. When could the contact ever be declared legal. In my view this is 100% clear cut DFK going the other way, but again I'm not a referee, just trying to understand the subtleties of this rule.
A coaching point. Have the young 'keeper watch tapes of the pros. You'll see that they catch the ball high and keep it high until they know it is safe to bring down. Regarding refs, many have never played in goal and do not understand that possession and control are easily lost by a dangerous or unfair challenge. They claim the resulting loose ball means that the 'keeper never had possession. The point has been made that the U10 match may be ref'd by someone without a FIFA badge. Yes, the young referee is still learning the game. But, I'm willing to bet that s/he made fewer mistakes than the U10 players.
Sounds like the keeper had possession so it probably should not have been a goal. Usually at that age, I try to protect the players more than anything, and you don't want players hitting the GK if they can avoid it. In my opinion, the hard part is determining if the hit caused the keeper to lose possession or if he simply fumbled the ball. Once he loses possession on his own, the attacker must be given a chance to play it, but the way you described it (again, had to be there probably), the hit caused the ball to come lose, which is a foul.
Red Herring Consider this. Ignore the question of posession and concentrate on the contact. The attacker attempted to play the ball but never touched it. The attacker then crashed into the chest of his opponent. Is this legal contact? Consider if it were two field players at midfield. Both go to head the ball, both miss but one of them runs over the other in the process. Is it legal to run over/into an opponent in an attempt to play the ball? Only in limited circumstances I believe
"Consider if it were two field players at midfield. Both go to head the ball, both miss but one of them runs over the other in the process. Is it legal to run over/into an opponent in an attempt to play the ball? Only in limited circumstances I believe" I think your reasoning is flawed. In your example neither player touched the ball. In the case I explained the keeper had control of the ball. The case you state is only relevent if one of the players at midfield indeed heads the ball and is then run over by the opponent in an attempt to play the ball. Sounds like a foul to me.
Since I am a keeper as well as a referee I'll give you my take on it. When trying to determine if the keeper has possesion of the ball look for the keeper applying pressure to the ball: i) Holding the ball in his/her hands ii) Applying pressure to the ball to hold it in to his/her chest or body iii) Applying downward pressure onto the ball (normally if the ball is on the ground and the keeper is stretched out of has fallen down onto the ball) If you believe that the keeper is applying pressure to the ball then 99.9% of the time the keeper has possession. In you example the keeper has two hands on the ball - this is applying pressure. The 10 million dollar question is whether or not you (as the referee) believe that the attacker fairly challenged for the ball. If the keeper takes the ball and a second later the attacker makes contact then you would be a brave man to call the foul unless: i) The attacking player used excessive force in his/her charge ii) The attacking player made contact with the legs of the keeper tripping him/her in the air iii) The attacking player made illegal contact with the keeper (use of elbow, feet, etc) iv) The attacking player made contact with the small of the back, head or other protected area of the keeper (and any other player) v) The attacking player was never going for the ball and just wanted to charge the keeper Most referees have a gut feeling as to whether or not the challenge was legal and as the other referees have said you had to be there. Crowdie
rather than qualify my answer with "you had to be there", i'll qualify it with "if everything happened exactly the way you described it". assuming that to be the case, i do not see how you do not call a foul. many of the posts have focused on whether the goalie had possession. i suppose this is helpful, but it's not the critical fact in this scenario. even if the goalie had bobbled the ball, and at the precise moment of the contact it was not in his possession, the offensive player cannot run into the goalie. and, the fact that the offensive player did not mean to (and that it was only the result of his momentum) doesn't relieve him of responsibility for the collision. whether the goalie has possession or not is generally going to come into play when the offensive player is trying to play the ball (you cannot kick it out of the goalie's hands, for example). however, whether in possession or not, you cannot run into the goalie, especially when the goalie is playing the ball. and, this doesn't really go to your question, but especially at the u10 level, i (if i were your ref) would be even more protective of the goalie. it's simply too easy in this kind of situation for a kid to get hurt.
Re: Re: question for the refs I really don't follow this post. If the goalie gets the ball and a second later the attacker makes contact, it is a foul. Now, you might not call if the goalie retains possession on the basis of advantage or triviality, but it is a foul. In my mind, each of the factors that have been identified might go to whether to issue a card, but there was nothing in the question that started this thread that suggested that this "contact" was legal. The offensive player is certainly not excused simply because he was trying to head the ball. If he goes in for the challenge and fails to get the ball, he's responsible for the subsequent collision that is caused by his momentum carrying him into the goalie. There is nothing legal about this challenge. What am I missing? I don't see this as a hard call at all, nor is it one that should require any significant amount of "bravery". (Again, I am accepting that everything happened the way it was described in the original post. I appreciate that there may be other scenarios which are different, and, for example, where the goalie rather than the offensive player may have initiated the contact).
Re: Re: Re: question for the refs At under 10 you are probably right. At under 21 would you still call it as a foul? If not what factors would you now take into account given the age difference? If a referee calls every foul then the game becomes very stop start and the players will get frustrated. This is probably OK for under 10s but if you, as a referee, get into this habbit it can be a hard one to break when you start taking under 21 games. Crowdie
Re: Re: Re: Re: question for the refs Although I made the statement about protecting the goalie even more at the u10 level, that was as an aside, not a critical factor in my response. I don't think that the age level is particularly significant in this case. I'm not talking about calling every little ticky, tack foul. But this isn't the type of situation which goes to the kind of game management to which I think you're referring. Specifically, in the original post, dban said: "The attacker jumps to try to head the ball but misses, . . . . The attacker's momentum from his jump causes him to bump the keeper in the chest with his shoulder which knocks the ball free, . . . " If without getting the ball the attacker bumps the goalie in his chest with sufficient force to knock the ball free, I wouldn't hesitate to call this at any level. In my mind, what's important is that he didn't get the ball, he made contact with the goalie, and he caused the ball to come free. There's clearly nothing trivial about it when it results in an immediate goal. [Of course, as I'm guessing you know as a goalie, it's worth noting that this situation is less likely to occur at an older age group as a more experienced goalie is more likely to protect himself in the first place (i.e., one knee up)]
Red Herring I think that you didn't read my entire post. My point, like blech's, is that possession is a red herring in this equation. Concentrate on the contact. Draw analogies from the known and easy decisions to guide you in the grayer areas, simplify and ignore extraneous information. Based on your answer it is okay to run over opposing players as long as no one touches the ball? I am sure that is not what you really mean.
Re: Re: Re: Re: question for the refs Let's see, we'll make it a U19 Classic game, keeper goes up for the ball, gets 2 hands on it, is run over by the attacker, ball is knocked loose, other attacker scores. How is this any less a foul in players 9 years older? Keeper clearly had possession so there can bo no "fair"charge, nevermind simply running him over. Is the keeper somehow not to be protected simply because he aged?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: question for the refs Age becomes a factor in all fouls because younger players are less able (mentally and physically) to handle the small fouls. A tackle that results in a free kick in an U10 game may not result in a free kick in an U19 game, for example. A "charge" is different to a "challenge". There is no such thing as a fair "charge" but I know what you are getting at If a keeper and attacker both go up for a ball and the keeper gets to the ball first but the attacker makes contact with the keeper how much time has to occur between the two events for this to become a foul? Crowdie