Should GKs be called for PIADM more often?

I think GKs should very rarely be called of PIADM. Garner may not like it, but a GK putting himself at risk, to a degree, has always been part of the game. Soccer definitely does not expect a GK diving to get a hand on the ball to be called for PIADM.

But I do think that GKs are not called for DFK offenses as often as they should be.

 

Or get “protected” far too much when they are contacted.

 

I disagree. When two outfield players are challenging for the ball, they can use their arms to fend off an over aggressive opponent (sometimes they do this too much but that's a different discussion). When a goalkeeper goes to catch a high ball they usually have their arms extended upwards, leaving their upper body and especially their rib cage unprotected and making it all too easy for an unscrupulous opponent to bundle into them, knock them off balance, dig a sly elbow into their ribs, etc.

Goalies need protection from the law because the requirements of playing their role often leaves them vulnerable.

I still remember when forwards were allowed to challenge keepers as they caught the ball. It wasn't uncommon for goalies to suffer serious injuries - broken ribs, jaws, dislocated shoulders etc.

Bert Trautmann famously once played the last 25 minutes of an FA Cup Final with a broken neck sustained in a collision with a forward.

 

Have a look at the second goal in this clip, starting around the 1m 40s mark. That's the kind of challenge you used to get when keepers weren't protected the way they are now.

 

I had a varsity ladies’ game last night, not the best level but had several skill players... two of whom are the visiting striker and home gk.

1v1 and visiting striker enters the pa at the left corner, controlling it well she cuts right and touches the ball straight lateral. Onrushing gk is moving straight out , gets wide and gets the slightest touch on the ball (which doesn’t change its lateral vector) but absolutely bulldozes the attacker.

I called the pk. Of course I heard it from the coach and the gk, who evidently has been trained that a play on the ball absolves you of any responsibility.

 

The keeper is just like everyone on the field. They are entitled to no extra protection or leeway than any player.

If we go back some years I bet we find a lot more instances of keepers getting away with attempted murder than we find keepers getting hurt by field players.

Not saying keepers don’t get hurt but there’s still far too many people within the sport that think playing keeper is second only to sainthood.

 

Well according to the law, they are. The law specifically says that:

I'd take that bet - I'll go out on a limb here and say I guess you probably weren't playing in the late 50's and early 60's before things changed? I was, and I can tell you based on my recollection, keepers were much more often on the receiving end, than the other way round.

Once referees started protecting goalies (as they absolutely needed to do, to avoid incidents like the second Nat Lofhouse goal shown in the video above) then obviously the balance shifted somewhat the other way and (again, as was clearly needed) forwards were no longer allowed to make such challenges, the number of injuries to keepers started to drop.

 

You want players to be able to try and challenge the keeper with the ball in his hands? How should an opponent be able to challenge the keeper with a ball in his hands? Kick at the ball? There is no practical way for this challenge to be made.

 

With regard to not challenging the ball while in the keepers hands that’s a pretty clear given, and not what I’m referring to.

I’m talking about the 50/50 balls where the level of contact wouldn’t even get a glance between two field players but if the keeper is involved people are setting up a firing squad for the player that dared challenge the keeper.

 

No, I was responding to the contention that goalkeepers are not entitled to any extra protection. I was pointing out that they are in fact entitled to a level of protection not afforded to other players, according to the wording (and the intent) of the law.

I went on to further point out that for myself personally, I believe keepers deserve the protection they get, partly because I remember the kind of dangerous challenges they used to have to suffer, when they didn't have that protection.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I also believe that keepers should be penalised when they commit fouls and sometimes they are given a free pass on challenges that outfield players would not get away with. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get protection in situations where they need it.

 

You’re right I played in the early 90’s and was on the field for many plays where keepers including my own absolutely destroyed opponents with challenges that field players would be sent packing for. Not even a foul called. “He was going for the ball”

 

I've already addressed that point and said I don't think keepers should be given any additional leeway when they commit a foul. I still take issue with your contention that they don't deserve any extra protection as I believe they do, in exactly the way the law says they should.

 

The law quoted was

This is the only protection of the keeper enshrined in the Laws. This has nothing to do with your concern.

Most of the time, players and keepers have one objective- score or stop a goal. Soccer is a contact sport, and contact alone isn't a foul. According to the laws, a direct free kick foul must be committed

I read this to say contact that results from a careful playing of the ball isn't a foul.

 

Some of the “protection” GKs get is nothing more than a recognition of what a careless challenge is. An attacker who makes contact with a GK with no chance to get the ball is committing a careless challenge. What would be an aerial 50-50 play against another field player can be careless against the GK because the attacker has no chance as the GK is using hands well above the attacker’s head. (And, as others have said, the GK is vulnerable in that position with body exposed an extended.)

 

I had a boys JV keeper once come out to collect a ball as an attacker was bearing down on it. He slid feet first and collected the ball in his arms. After collecting the ball he stuck one leg up in the air at a 45° angle with a locked knee. Luckily, the attacker was about 10 yards away when the keeper pulled this and was able to stop before becoming impaled on his boot. I still blew my whistle and told him that if he tries that again I am calling him for dangerous play, and if he made contact with any player with that stunt he would be sent off for VC. Can't believe a coach didn't tell this keeper not to do that move, he was shocked that I would call that and he thought he was just "protecting himself"...

That is the only time I have though of calling a keeper for PIADM. I have called quite a few for reckless challenges though...

 

I get what you’re saying but I wouldn’t consider that “protection”. That’s a logical and thought out reason to consider something “careless” and so it’s a foul.

Same as a typical shoulder challenge becomes careless when into the back of a player vs their shoulder.

I was probably unclear but I’m referring to the challenges where the field player and keeper go up together and while the keeper might have a more likely chance of getting the ball the field player has a chance as well. The issue is too many refs I see want to blow the whistle immediately when the contact starts. Typically they just refer to this as “interfering” with the keeper. Which is nonsense.

Or the people that blow the whistle any time a field player lines up with the keeper on a corner. Specifically when the field player and keeper both run to the ball and again the whistle blows and the only explanation is “interfering” with the keeper.

Fouls that have justification I have no problem with. It’s the one’s that the player has a legitimate shot of playing and getting the ball and then the slightest touch on the keeper causes people to lose their minds.

 

I really not sure what you're trying to say here. I don't believe that I've really expressed a particular 'concern' but to the extent that I have, it is precisely that goalkeepers should have the exact level of protection that the law says they should have - no more and no less. I've also said that when it comes to committing fouls, they should be subject to the same strictures as everyone else.

It almost seems as if you're confusing what I'm saying, with what I'm responding to.

Anyway, just so we're on the same page, what concern is it, that you think I have?

 

You can take a look at post #10 and see what law you quoted. I thought your concern stated just above that quote has something to do with the law quite.