Billy vs The Keeper

[Sikkim]

They complained slightly more than the Bolton players. And that was about it.

And it took the keeper ages to get up and chase after the ref. You can see his lack of reaction in the goalcams.

There’s nothing in the laws of the game about a referee needing to take a keepers reaction into account when deciding whether a goal should count or not.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

No.

Here’s the current rules.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball 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 hands.


The Incident you mention would not have been given under the current rules

Yes, but the wording here is that it’s in control if between two hands. Looking at it he’s at full stretch and I’d argue the ball is resting on top of the two hands rather than between.

Obviously if this had happened on Hendo I’d be arguing the reverse...

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Ex ref Mark Halsey on the goal, reckons it could have been disallowed for either offside or the kick. I must say I was surprised it wasn’t given for offside, as if not interfering with the keeper for the shot he certainly gets to the ball from an originally offside position.

One thing nobody seems to have commented on is Dean Smith’s laughable comment post-match that it could have been disallowed because “Sharp’s studs were up”

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Yes, but the wording here is that it’s in control if between two hands. Looking at it he’s at full stretch and I’d argue the ball is resting on top of the two hands rather than between.

Obviously if this had happened on Hendo I’d be arguing the reverse...

or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms
Apart from that, the way the rules are applied regarding the ball being over the line, absolutely any part of the curvature of the ball needs to be between his hands to count.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

One thing nobody seems to have commented on is Dean Smith’s laughable comment post-match that it could have been disallowed because “Sharp’s studs were up”

That was one reason for the OP. That, and the shit-stirring from Sky.

I'm so glad we've got a manager who sees whining and moaning for what it is. Have some dignity. Take some responsibility. Almost no matter what, the game is in your team's hands. If the ref is crap (this one wasn't) and the lino is behind the game (this one was, to an almost comic extent), then, unless they're outright cheating, it's the same for both teams. Get on with the game.

On the narrow point of offside I think Halsey is right.

On the narrow point of the keeper having control I think he's wrong, the keeper was just teeing it up for Billy.

On his hands not in his hands.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I recall that 3 years ago we had a goal given against us at Southend when George Long had one hand on the ball in contact with the ground and it was kicked from him into the net. The goal was given, and United fans were quick to blame Long rather than look at the rules...

Good times.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

On his hands not in his hands.

The rules don't talk about "on" and "in". You can't re-interpret it to suit the situation.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Why do folks keep going on about "having 2 hands" on the ball but not mentioning the bit about the ball being under control?

I suspect this is another example of most fans not actually knowing the rules.

The rules do not state that kicking the ball from the keepers hands is a foul if he's got 2 hands on it. The rules state that it is a foul if he's got 2 hands on it and the ball is under control.

There was an incident a few years ago where the keeper was laid out full stretch on the ground with both hands on the ball, and a player came up and kicked it from his hands into the goal. The goal stood, legitimately, because although that keeper had touched the ball with hands, it wasn't under his control. If he'd grasped it and had it secure in both his hands then it would have been a different matter. But he didn't. And the same reasoning is applied to that incident the other night at Villa, when the keeper was almost juggling with it, pushing it upwards with both hands to try and get hold of it properly.

Whatever way you look at it, the ball was not under control. The fact both his hands were touching it, as he grappled to get it under control, is an irrelevance. It was the correct decision and within the rules of the game to let it stand.

2 hands was always the playground rule, I agree with you he’d not had the ball long enough to have any kind of control over it.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

2 hands was always the playground rule, I agree with you he’d not had the ball long enough to have any kind of control over it.

The rules define control as having your hands on it, they don't mention length of time.

 

[Topplayersleave]

Why should we ignore the offside? There’s nothing to ignore. He wasn’t offside...

Exactly, cross comes in to the back post Sharp is slightly offside but he is not involved in the play
He gets himself back onside and then challenges the goalie in phase 2 of the move

Anybody see Gayle's goal for West Brom last night, he stood 5 yards offside for the free kick, the ball goes to the back post, gets played back in to the middle and Gayle nods it in totally unmarked. Onside when the ball was played back into the middle during phase 2

Stupid rule entirely but that's the rule

 

[Topplayersleave]

Imagine the carnage if Nat Lofthouse had scored it.

Nat Lofthouse would have just kicked the goalie, ball and all into the net

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Exactly, cross comes in to the back post Sharp is slightly offside but he is not involved in the play
He gets himself back onside and then challenges the goalie in phase 2 of the move

Anybody see Gayle's goal for West Brom last night, he stood 5 yards offside for the free kick, the ball goes to the back post, gets played back in to the middle and Gayle nods it in totally unmarked. Onside when the ball was played back into the middle during phase 2

Stupid rule entirely but that's the rule

No idea whether the Gayle goal you describe is offside, but you’ve got the view of an ex-Prem referee above on whether Sharp was offside and he’s said fairly clearly that he thinks he was.

He also follows up with another tweet to explain why.

 

[Rob86]

It’s the sort of luck the top teams get, maybe it’s a good omen, as it rescued us a point in the end.

 

[Topplayersleave]

No idea whether the Gayle goal you describe is offside, but you’ve got the view of an ex-Prem referee above on whether Sharp was offside and he’s said fairly clearly that he thinks he was.

Just goes to show the inconsistency in the rule doesn't it

In my opinion a player should be offside if he gets involved in any stage of the move

Its totally unfair that a player can be onside because he's not involved but then be the very person that turns the ball into the net two seconds later

How involved is that ?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I can't remember it completely, but seems to me like an example given by FIFA, page 118 example 14, isn't that very close to what happened?

https://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/Fo...ng/02/36/01/11/LawsofthegamewebEN_Neutral.pdf

 

[JohnDenver]

I don’t think the goal should have been given but the fact the keeper was sat on his arse waiting for the ball, whereas Billy was attacking it, made it look legitimate in real time.

Both that and the offside call were so fine as to not be outrageous fortune. We were luckier with Basham’s non penalty award. That was blatant.

 

[Dellas Cowboys]

I don’t think the goal should have been given but the fact the keeper was sat on his arse waiting for the ball, whereas Billy was attacking it, made it look legitimate in real time.

Both that and the offside call were so fine as to not be outrageous fortune. We were luckier with Basham’s non penalty award. That was blatant.

Swings and roundabouts really. One of their goals had an offside in the build up.

 

[GuangzhouBlade]

Swings and roundabouts really. One of their goals had an offside in the build up.

Yes their second was offside. Number 24 is offside the first time he receives the ball but sky chose just to show the assist when he was onside.

 

[Geordie Blade]

This, I would guess, is to prevent it being legal to kick the ball away from the keeper whilst he is trying to kick it out from his hands, although there is already a specific rule against this.

The Goalkeepers Union won’t thanks me for this, but I also think that law is a bit daft. Why should goalkeepers be allowed to have a ‘free’ kick in open play, when it’s perfectly legal to try to stop an outfield player making a pass? If the keeper can’t find a way of getting rid of the ball without being tackled, then that’s their problem.

 

[Sikkim]