Jump to content
IGNORED

Goalkeepers get too much protection - Exhibit 2012174


Lrrr

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

@davefevs you might want to have a look back at Martin Atkinson Graham poll and Chelsea Southampton as well. Refs look at challenges v keepers differently. It’s far easier to give a free kick and find an illegal challenge than give a goal.   

I know they look differently at keepers, but my question is whether that is genuinely the rules or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Is that actually a rule?  I’ve never heard that before?  Any qualified refs confirm? @shelts?

From my point of view (and I’m not clear on the above) I think the Leeds keeper was lucky.  If anyone committed a foul I’d say it was the keeper, but I’m not clear on rules here.

All about interpretation. Is Mee actually genuinely try to play the ball or be a nuisance to the keeper, he’s also backing in and knows the keepers coming and he will get clobbered or the keepers get a free kick . Keepers are over protected and maybe the first contact is keeper on Mee which is a foul and pen , not many would be brave enough to give but anywhere else on the pitch and it’s a foul . 
For me the most telling part was Dyche trying to talk to the ref  who totally ignored him, how arrogant , his comments after where what a lot of people are thinking about the modern game 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ref has to consider if the ball is in a playable distance to the attacking player and law 12 states.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

 

Leeds get lucky against Burnley as Illan Meslier appears to foul Ben Mee  before Ashley Barnes scores… only for goal to be disallowed for foul ON  goalkeeper | Football-Addict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Three Lions said:

The ref has to consider if the ball is in a playable distance to the attacking player and law 12 states.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

 

Leeds get lucky against Burnley as Illan Meslier appears to foul Ben Mee  before Ashley Barnes scores… only for goal to be disallowed for foul ON  goalkeeper | Football-Addict

Ta, I've just referenced that section, and I believe that is referring to a different scenario....not whilst the ball is mid-flight.  The photo above....is that mid-flight or post-catch / fumble?  If post-catch then I see where your coming from.  Did he ever have both hands on the ball, e.g. caught it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Three Lions said:

The ref has to consider if the ball is in a playable distance to the attacking player and law 12 states.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

 

Leeds get lucky against Burnley as Illan Meslier appears to foul Ben Mee  before Ashley Barnes scores… only for goal to be disallowed for foul ON  goalkeeper | Football-Addict

Side on angle, keeper hasn't yet touched the ball and has jumped into the back of Mee, he can't go through a player in the air to claim the ball, his knees in Mee's back come before touching the ball/he's the one who instigates the contact. Also my picture shows at point of contact the height difference between the players is minimal which does away with your 'under' argument, the Leeds keeper ends up higher because of momentum but at point of contact is not above to a significant enough amount.

Catch.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davefevs thats something like the referees view. If the player is not within a playable distance of the ball he cant make a challenge for it. The ref gave a direct freekick for? Probably impeding the keeper and with contact its a direct free kick. In the still the player is well short of the ball, he wasnt in a playable distance of it and he is impeding the keeper. That the keeper makes contact with the player is secondary there the ref has already decided its an offence. Go back into or under a keeper and not within a playable distance of the ball its going to be very likely a foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

davefevs thats something like the referees view. If the player is not within a playable distance of the ball he cant make a challenge for it. The ref gave a direct freekick for? Probably impeding the keeper and with contact its a direct free kick. In the still the player is well short of the ball, he wasnt in a playable distance of it and he is impeding the keeper. That the keeper makes contact with the player is secondary there the ref has already decided its an offence. Go back into or under a keeper and not within a playable distance of the ball its going to be very likely a foul.

So are you saying the ref gave a free-kick because Mee did this?  Imho and Gallagher’s opinion, he made the wrong decision if so. ??‍♂️

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most likely Dave but with contact otherwise its an indirect free kick. Everybody gets multiple angles to study where the ref blew for what he saw and its pretty easy considering the rules to see why the ref gave a direct free kick. The attacking player cant shield that ball because its not in his playing distance but it is to a six foot plus keeper with arms he also cant charge him in the air unless he is at a similar height to the keepers arms with his head and that is something people dont get - a lot of people dont know the rules here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...