Rules on charging the goalie
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
If a keeper is not in possession of the ball, he's basically a field player. Once he possesses the ball in his hands, he cannot be touched. But if he is dribbling, attempting to header or punch, attempting to catch - he's just like any other player on the field. And like any other player, the opposing player must play the ball, not the keeper. A clean tackle of a keeper (meaning you get to the ball 1st) is the same as a clean tackle of a field player. |
Anonymous
You are not wrong. If a player is trying to tackle someone who is prone or on the ground, or kicking their leg near their head or hands it is a foul regardless of their position. Clean tackles on goalies in the box are rare for that reason. |
Anonymous
Only if their head is in a natural position. A head first header where a player is heading a ball 2 or 3 feet above the ground is such a situation. Kicking a head 5 feet off the ground is dangerous play, 2 feet off the ground depends upon what the Ref sees. |
Anonymous
No. Rules don’t read that way. Kicking at a players head that is 2 feet off the ground is dangerous play. Rules don’t change based on what ref sees. |
Anonymous
I agree you cannot kick at a players head intentionally. Kicking at a ball that is bouncing 2 feet off the ground that another player decides to try to head is a different matter. |
Anonymous
Nope. |
Anonymous
"Playing in a dangerous manner Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player themself) and includes preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury." It's an indirect free kick. 5 ft high kick is dangerous or 2 ft high header is dangerous if they prevents a nearby player from playing the ball. |
Anonymous
Yes but once contact or harm occurs it escalates to a yellow or red card. Read the rules. |
Anonymous
Quote from Law 12, first Section: "1. Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: •?charges •?jumps at •?kicks or attempts to kick •?pushes •?strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt) •?tackles or challenges •?trips or attempts to trip" To one of your responders: It used to be illegal to fair charge the keeper, but sometime between today and 2004 (Last time I wore a badge), they apparently changed it. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
It falls under... Serious Foul Play A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play. If the referee feels the tackle (running into the keeper) or the kick was careless, a foul would be called. It also might be seen as a push, or as you mention 'in the air' as jumping at the keeper. It could also simply be a collision, the case of two bodies attempting to occupy the same space at the same time, and no foul would be called. If the foul was deemed reckless a caution should be added, and if done with excessive force the player should be sent off. |
Anonymous
Here is a USSF rule clarification where the keeper did not have possession... Question: I was centering an Academy game and the away team was deep into their offensive penalty box with an attack. They took a shot at the goal which the keeper stop but did not gain immediate control of the ball with his hands. The keeper fell to the ground (on his back) and managed to trap the ball under his legs. For the that instant the ball was fully in control by the keeper with his legs. The attacker was kicking at the ball and managed to get it out from under his legs and shot and the goal and it went in. I did not allow the goal and felt I had 2 rational reasons. My first thought was the keeper did have “control” of the ball with his legs and therefore the attack should have been stopped. The second thought was that it was dangerous play to try and kick the ball out from his legs (especially considering it was lodged under them) and an indirect free kick should have been awarded. My question is this, does a keeper have to control the ball with his hands for it to be considered under control or if he or she has definite control with other parts of his body (legs, stomach) is that considered control? USSF answer (April 16, 2010) While we agree with your notion that the referee should have stopped play immediately, it would not have been because the goalkeeper had possession of the ball. Possession by the goalkeeper requires “hands-on” control of the ball, something he did not have. Here is an excerpt from the USSF publication “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” that spells out goalkeeper possession: 12.16 GOALKEEPER POSSESSION OF THE BALL The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is held with both hands, held by trapping the ball between one hand and any surface (e.g., the ground, a goalpost, the goalkeeper’s body), or holding the ball in the outstretched open palm. Once established, possession is maintained, when the ball is held as described above, while bouncing the ball on the ground or throwing it into the air. Possession is given up if, after throwing the ball into the air, it is allowed to hit the ground. For purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the “handling” includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder. While the ball is in the possession of the goalkeeper, it may not be challenged for or played by an opponent in any manner. An opponent who attempts to challenge for a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper may be considered to have committed a direct free kick foul. However, a ball which is only being controlled by the goalkeeper using means other than the hands is open to otherwise legal challenges by an opponent. The referee should consider the age and skill level of the players in evaluating goalkeeper possession and err on the side of safety. We see no offense by the goalkeeper. If, as it appears, the goalkeeper had the ball between his legs and did not delay unduly in attempting to extricate himself from this predicament, he did not play dangerously and the opponent was wholly at fault for taking unfair advantage of his situation. Merely making kicking motions would constitute the dangerous play offense, but actually making contact with the kicking motion turns it into a direct free kick offense plus a card (the referee would normally think red — due to “kicking,” but this could possibly be downgraded to a yellow if there were mitigating circumstances.) |
Anonymous
A rule change like that is not a bad idea but it would change play near the GK significantly. Similar to football where you cannot touch the kicker as he is in a dangerous position. In soccer the change would be you cannot touch the GK even when making a play on the ball. |
Anonymous
|
It's not clear to me how charging and shielding work from a goalie's perspective before he picks up the ball.
I'm not too worried about the game, so I told my daughter protect yourself first, if they are running at you full speed with their heel cocked back to their butt, you put an elbow in their eye, then pick up the ball. |
Anonymous
|
The key is that it is ALWAYS the referees decision as to if the player was charging the goalie or if either were engaged in dangerous play.
Even if you're our the goalie mom, even if your the field player mom, it's the referees call. They are in charge of the fields and what they say goes. Having a coach or parent scream about a wrong call helps exactly no one, and may end up with red cards for the offending adults |