Billy vs The Keeper

[Sabella's Socks]

Ignoring the offside for a minute...

At the time, I thought it was fine. Amazed it was given because of the general over-protection of keepers. But it was 50-50, and Billy wanted it more.

It took the keeper ages to work up enough outrage to chase after the ref. All seemed a bit half-hearted to me. I thought he realised he'd been done.

Sky have some outrage inducing freeze frame that makes it look like Billy kicked it out of his hands, and a Let's Have A Heated Debate page, but (paraphrasing), The Sky website is fucking shit.

Looks to me, when the game is moving, and in real time, like he's palming it up. Not got control over it.

Not that different from the assist v Bolton: Football* is a man's game.

It's also really noticeable how there are two Villa defenders in the six-yard box watching events unfold - they're spectating, while Billy and his new best mate Gary are playing.

*Apart from Women's Football, obviously.

 

[Wards]

You’d be pissed off if it were given against us that’s for sure. I’d have had no complaints if it was chalked off.

 

[Davalon]

In real time it didnt look like the keeper got two hands on it to me, but in slow mo he maybe just did.

Billy definitely interfering in front of the keeper would have pissed me off more as a Villa fan.

 

[Sheff de party]

Should never have counted in my view. It’s in two hands I think.

Didn’t even celebrate at the time as I assumed it’d be given offside or a foul.

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

Thing is it was so quick, just as he got hold of it Billy nicked it away.

Surprised he gave it though.

 

[Topplayersleave]

You’d be pissed off if it were given against us that’s for sure. I’d have had no complaints if it was chalked off.

If it had been chalked off it might have done us a favour in the end, we might have maintained some discipline and shape with a narrow lead

 

[blade67]

Ignoring the offside for a minute...

At the time, I thought it was fine. Amazed it was given because of the general over-protection of keepers. But it was 50-50, and Billy wanted it more.

It took the keeper ages to work up enough outrage to chase after the ref. All seemed a bit half-hearted to me. I thought he realised he'd been done.

Sky have some outrage inducing freeze frame that makes it look like Billy kicked it out of his hands, and a Let's Have A Heated Debate page, but (paraphrasing), The Sky website is fucking shit.

Looks to me, when the game is moving, and in real time, like he's palming it up. Not got control over it.

Not that different from the assist v Bolton: Football* is a man's game.

It's also really noticeable how there are two Villa defenders in the six-yard box watching events unfold - they're spectating, while Billy and his new best mate Gary are playing.

*Apart from Women's Football, obviously.

great OP. About time someone made this case. Fucking goalies expect it all their way. Terrific decision from the ref. The goalie may have had his hands on the ball for a fraction of a second, but under control. About as under control as a Chris Basham first touch

 

[Hamburg Blade]

In real time, as it happened, I was sure it was a foul and wouldn't be given. The slo-mo only backs up that thought. I was really surprised the ref didn't blow for it. Two hands on the ball has always meant keeper's ball.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

In real time it didnt look like the keeper got two hands on it to me, but in slow mo he maybe just did.

Billy definitely interfering in front of the keeper would have pissed me off more as a Villa fan.

Exactly.

The lino on this side was miles behind play all night. Helped us out more than once.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

You’d be pissed off if it were given against us that’s for sure. I’d have had no complaints if it was chalked off.

Imagine the carnage if Nat Lofthouse had scored it.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I was a keeper, and would have been very annoyed if that happened against me. In fact it did, and I WAS annoyed.

 

[Sikkim]

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

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

I didn’t think the keeper had it under control. He was unbalanced, sat on his arse with his hands up in the air. I thought the goal was good.

 

[ken shabby]

I didn’t think the keeper had it under control. He was unbalanced, sat on his arse with his hands up in the air. I thought the goal was good.

True, keeper had it on the tips of his gloves, almost balloon like, no grip on the ball at all, Billy tipped it over the line, no foul, no contact with the keeper... the keeper did as well as he could, with no body power behind him, all he could do was feebly stretch for it...... Possibly Billy offside for attempting to turn the original shot in, he got no where near though and it didn`t change the line of the ball or the dive of the keeper one jot, and he saved it, knocking it on to Madine. Hardly colossal obvious interference in normal time... the ball never changed course and the ref/linesman gave correctly what they saw.

Well done Billy lad for reacting quickest

 

[SwissBlade]

In real time i thought he'd got there before the keeper had it in both hands.

Their players didn't complain that much though, so i thought it must've been ok.

Replays showed that the keeper had both hands on.

As always, well done to Billy for playing to the whistle, we've had others chalked off for offside when they've not been and fouls when they've not been. So its fair enough

 

[Revolution]

Their players didn't complain that much though, so i thought it must've been ok.

They did - they surrounded the ref and complained to the linesman.

I credit Billy for "selling" the goal to the ref by sprinting away and celebrating as if there was no problem.

Personally I thought it shouldn't have been allowed, but given the bad luck that seems to dog this club I'll take anything we can get.

 

[SwissBlade]

They did - they surrounded the ref and complained to the linesman.

I credit Billy for "selling" the goal to the ref by sprinting away and celebrating as if there was no problem.

Personally I thought it shouldn't have been allowed, but given the bad luck that seems to dog this club I'll take anything we can get.

They didn't complain much, they certainly didn't complain like it was a huge injustice

Didn't Billy stop first before celebrating 'Shearer style' or was that the first?

 

[Cerberus 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.

 

[Eddiecolquhounsleg]

The way I saw it the goalkeeper was on his back with his arms extended upwards with the ball momentarily on his hands (not in them). To Billy this would have looked like a golf ball sitting on top of a tee just waiting to be knocked in. He did so, so it's a goal for me.

 

[Sikkim]

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.

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

 

[snootyfenooty]

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.

Yep, just like rugby, when you touchdown you need downward pressure on the ball, i.e. control. I'm still surprised the ref gave it mind but that's a reflection on the standard of refereeing these days and not the laws of the game.

 

[Tom Bott]

To Billy this would have looked like a golf ball sitting on top of a tee just waiting to be knocked in. He did so, so it's a goal for me.

You saying he needs to go to Specsavers

 

[Tom Bott]

His level of control for not ending with his studs in the keepers face deserved the goal to stand.

 

[Geordie Blade]

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

I get the first two, but the third bullet is bizarre! There is absolutely no reason why a goalkeeper needs to bounce the ball or throw it in the air to themselves. If an opportunistic striker kicks the ball whilst a keeper is bouncing it, it would serve the idiot right for taking such a needless risk.

 

[Sikkim]

I get the first two, but the third bullet is bizarre! There is absolutely no reason why a goalkeeper needs to bounce the ball or throw it in the air to themselves. If an opportunistic striker kicks the ball whilst a keeper is bouncing it, it would serve the idiot right for taking such a needless risk.

Agreed. I have absolute no idea why the ball needs to be bounced, other than “that what keepers have always done”

 

[Hamburg 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.

Good grief, you've decided to make a post on the specific laws of the game and how people are quoting it incorrectly and then get the rules wrong?! Then you've made a load of shit up which didn't happen - "almost juggling with it", he wasn't, "pushing it upwards", he wasn't, "grappled to get it under control", he didn't.
The ball was dropping into his hands, it only had to be in them, or "between them", to meet the conditions that the ball was in his control. Or by "touching it with any part of the hand", nothing about it being "secure" as you claim.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

The way I saw it the goalkeeper was on his back with his arms extended upwards with the ball momentarily on his hands (not in them). To Billy this would have looked like a golf ball sitting on top of a tee just waiting to be knocked in. He did so, so it's a goal for me.

Exactly the way I saw it.

Billy Sharp. Total command of positions and prepositions.

What a player.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I get the first two, but the third bullet is bizarre! There is absolutely no reason why a goalkeeper needs to bounce the ball or throw it in the air to themselves. If an opportunistic striker kicks the ball whilst a keeper is bouncing it, it would serve the idiot right for taking such a needless risk.

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.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

They didn't complain much, they certainly didn't complain like it was a huge injustice

Didn't Billy stop first before celebrating 'Shearer style' or was that the first?

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.

 

[SwissBlade]

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.

He was probably wondering what the Football Gods were doing, it wasn't the plan...