Goal or No Goal?

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Why precisely are you stopping play? At no point does blue touch the ball while the keeper has possession. If you stop play just because the keeper has possession, your only possible restart is a drop ball. We don't stop play just because the keeper has possession. Since we don't stop play for no reason, and since the keeper loses possession without blue touching the ball or the keeper, there is no reason to stop play or disallow the goal.

When may a GK be legally challenged?

Once the GK got one or both hands on the ball he now has possession.

Blue #7's foot contacting the GK left arm when he has one or both hands on the ball is a foul.

Even if you do not see the opponent contacting the GK you still have ATR 12.16 "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."

Once you see the keeper contact the ball with his hand or hands after the touch by his team mate you now have possession and activity by opponents #7 and/or #19 are illegal challenges to the GK in possession.

The restart will be a DFK for the GK's team.

[Eastshire]

At what point does the keeper hold or trap the ball? There is no point when the ball stops the movement started by the keepers teammate so it is clear that the keeper has failed to hold or trap it so he cannot according to the ATR have possession.

Even failing that, you cannot, as you suggest, stop play because the keeper establishes control. You have to actually have the opponent challenge the keeper to have an offense. If you stopped play when you feel the keeper established control the only possible restart is a drop ball.

You're bending the rules to bail out the defender and the keeper.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

At what point does the keeper hold or trap the ball? There is no point when the ball stops the movement started by the keepers teammate so it is clear that the keeper has failed to hold or trap it so he cannot according to the ATR have possession.

Even failing that, you cannot, as you suggest, stop play because the keeper establishes control. You have to actually have the opponent challenge the keeper to have an offense. If you stopped play when you feel the keeper established control the only possible restart is a drop ball.

You're bending the rules to bail out the defender and the keeper.

In the opinion of the referee is the basis of decision making in TLOG. In your opinion you do not see a time when the GK gained possession. In my opinion I do see a moment in time where the GK does gain possession and is then "kicked" in his left arm or "challenged" after gaining possession. You do not see the challenge by #7, I do see a challenge by #7.

Based on your opinion you are correctly allowing the goal. Based on my opinion I would be correctly applying TLOG as guided by the ATR, and restarting with a DFK for the GK's team.

If I were assigned to assess this game, this would be a discussion point in the debriefing. Why? So that I could explore if the referee crew is aware of points that lead to making a correct decision, no matter which decision they make.

Because it required me to look/replay/stop the action multiple times to come to my conclusion, I would not mark the decision incorrect no matter which way the referee, in his opinion, decided. The thing I would want to come from the debriefing is just how little hand to ball contact is required to be correctly judged possession, especially in a "youth" game.

[Eastshire]

I was a keeper and I like to think that I protect the keeper as much as the next referee. I have given the foul on a one finger and the ground trap before. That being said, I don't think you have any basis here for an opinion that the keeper had possession and if I was assessing the game, I would mark you down on foul recognition if you disallowed the goal.

ITOOTR does not give license to ignore the requirements of the LotG.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I was a keeper and I like to think that I protect the keeper as much as the next referee. I have given the foul on a one finger and the ground trap before. That being said, I don't think you have any basis here for an opinion that the keeper had possession and if I was assessing the game, I would mark you down on foul recognition if you disallowed the goal.

ITOOTR does not give license to ignore the requirements of the LotG.

What requirement of TLOG do you feel I have ignored?

In my opinion I have stated that I see the GK's hand or hands on the ball. After seeing that, I see #7's leg contacting the left arm of the GK at that point we can judge either a kicking foul or challenging the GK in possession. Either one within TLOG requires a DFK for the GK's team.

Again I "see" this using frame by frame advancement and enlargement. I admit that any referee in real time may or may not see that sequence. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to CR and AR no matter which way they judge. The ONLY reason I would discuss it with the crew is to be sure they fully understand TLOG and how and why they arrived at either decision.

You may be so confident in your judgment using a camera from somewhere behind the touchline half a field away to "mark down" a referee's judgement but when I am assessing, if the referee tells me he saw the GK's hand or hands on the ball, then be contacted or challenged, I am going accept his judgment. Why? because it is fully supported by TLOG, the ATR and the additional instruction found on the USSF approved askasoccerreferee website.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by ref2coach

What requirement of TLOG do you feel I have ignored?

Possession

In my opinion I have stated that I see the GK's hand or hands on the ball. After seeing that, I see #7's leg contacting the left arm of the GK at that point we can judge either a kicking foul or challenging the GK in possession. Either one within TLOG requires a DFK for the GK's team.

The only point the keeper has both hands on the ball is when his teammate disposes him. At no point after that does the keeper hold the ball between his hands or between one hand and another object. The keeper is liable for challenge in this situation. I don't believe that either blue player touched the keeper. Certainly, I don't see a kick that rises to careless which means there can be no foul for kicking.

Again I "see" this using frame by frame advancement and enlargement. I admit that any referee in real time may or may not see that sequence. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to CR and AR no matter which way they judge. The ONLY reason I would discuss it with the crew is to be sure they fully understand TLOG and how and why they arrived at either decision.

You may be so confident in your judgment using a camera from somewhere behind the touchline half a field away to "mark down" a referee's judgement but when I am assessing, if the referee tells me he saw the GK's hand or hands on the ball, then be contacted or challenged, I am going accept his judgment. Why? because it is fully supported by TLOG, the ATR and the additional instruction found on the USSF approved askasoccerreferee website.

Look, there's the ability to apply the Laws and then there's good judgement. If you are only assessing ability to apply the laws, you are doing a huge disservice to those you are assessing. In one of the areas I used to work, there was a referee who could have quoted the LotG to you backwards. I'm sure he aced every test he ever took on the subject. He was also the absolute worst referee in the area because his judgement was horrible.

It's one thing to say you couldn't tell from where you were how the referee's judgement; it quite another to just accept the referee's judgement when the purpose of assessing is to see if his judgement is good in the first place.

[ref2coach]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Possession

The only point the keeper has both hands on the ball is when his teammate disposes him. At no point after that does the keeper hold the ball between his hands or between one hand and another object. The keeper is liable for challenge in this situation. I don't believe that either blue player touched the keeper. Certainly, I don't see a kick that rises to careless which means there can be no foul for kicking.

Eastshire maybe I just have a better connection. When I frame by frame advance between the beginning of the 1:04th second and the end of the 1:04th second there is a frame where the GK's team mate is long past his hands, the GK has his right hand on the ball at about 11 o'clock and his left hand on the side of the ball at about 3 o'clock. That is possession. After possession, there is contact on the GK's left hand by #7's right foot. It is not legal to challenge the GK in possession. To make the call of illegally challenging the GK in possession does not require a "reckless" decision, only a decision was the GK challenged in possession.



Look, there's the ability to apply the Laws and then there's good judgement. If you are only assessing ability to apply the laws, you are doing a huge disservice to those you are assessing. In one of the areas I used to work, there was a referee who could have quoted the LotG to you backwards. I'm sure he aced every test he ever took on the subject. He was also the absolute worst referee in the area because his judgement was horrible.

It's one thing to say you couldn't tell from where you were how the referee's judgement; it quite another to just accept the referee's judgement when the purpose of assessing is to see if his judgement is good in the first place.

You are unwilling to concede that there is a possibility of possession that you do not see. I on the other hand, when watching at full speed, am willing to concede that there may not have been possession. When I am assessing, I do not have this monitor and the ability to single frame advance a judgement sequence. However when assessing I can ask questions that will reveal to me the referee's level of knowledge and his ability, to be where he needs to be, to give himself the best opportunity, to apply that knowledge. Only when I can "clearly" see, with no "question" in my mind will I declare a referee's judgement to be wrong.

If you feel that is a disservice to "The Game" then I will just have to accept your rebuke. However I am very happy that I have been rarely exposed to an assessor or assessing instructor that is willing to definitively agree or disagree with a decision/opinion that is as ambiguous as this one.