|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Nov 10, 2019 19:25:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 10, 2019 20:03:12 GMT -5
What card was was she given? They didn’t show it in the clip.
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Nov 10, 2019 20:18:54 GMT -5
What card was was she given? They didn’t show it in the clip. none. spouse was watching, said it wasn't even called a foul. |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Nov 10, 2019 20:24:40 GMT -5
What card was was she given? They didn’t show it in the clip. Who would you give a card to there?? To me it was a clear no call. Neither player had the ball or right to it and collided unintentionally with each other. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Nov 10, 2019 21:57:57 GMT -5
What card was was she given? They didn’t show it in the clip. Who would you give a card to there?? To me it was a clear no call. Neither player had the ball or right to it and collided unintentionally with each other. It wasn’t clear to me, but the title of the thread indicated a foul. |
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Nov 10, 2019 22:15:39 GMT -5
Who would you give a card to there?? To me it was a clear no call. Neither player had the ball or right to it and collided unintentionally with each other. It wasn’t clear to me, but the title of the thread indicated a foul. Gotcha. Yeah I just think it’s a UNC hater. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Nov 10, 2019 22:18:40 GMT -5
Yea. Sorry. Should have changed the title.
No foul called.
No cards given.
Apparently legal play. I’d disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on Nov 10, 2019 22:19:39 GMT -5
What card was was she given? They didn’t show it in the clip. none. spouse was watching, said it wasn't even called a foul. I agree it shouldn't have been called a foul. It was a 50-50 ball that ended in a bad collision. I hope they are both okay and can bounce back from this in time for the post season. |
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Nov 10, 2019 22:56:24 GMT -5
While I certainly don't envy the referee who had to make that decision in real time - it definitely couldn't have been an easy one - I think the super slow motion replay shows a clear foul on the attacker. Yes, they are both going for the ball, but the GK gets there first and the attacker never touches the ball and crashes into the keeper. Very easy foul call in slow motion - not sure how some of you don't see that (maybe even yellow card due to the force of the charge, but attackers eyes were looking up at the ball, so maybe not)- very tough decision in real time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 0:39:56 GMT -5
UVA coach Swanson said the collision was “a bang-bang play” and didn’t think a foul or card was warranted because there was no malicious intent. I disagree. This is clearly a foul on the attacking player and whether she had malicious intent of not is irrelevant.
LOTG Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) states that “a goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).” And a goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hands(s) when (among other things) “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.”
In this play, as fast as it was, it's clear that the goalkeeper was touching the ball with some part of her hands or arms when the collision took place. The attacker challenged the goalkeeper and knocked her down. It is a foul. Whether or not the attacker was looking up in the air is not an excuse for not calling a foul. In fact, sprinting at that speed towards the goal area (goalkeeper) and/or in traffic, with eyes up in the air is a dangerous play in itself. And playing in a dangerous manner is a foul or misconduct.
Just imagine a player running in the field with his/her eyes looking up and running into your child at full speed. Foul, right? Or would you excuse the player because he/she didn’t see your child. Also, imagine if the ball in this play goes inside the goal. Not a goal, right?
Next, one should ask if the foul was a careless, reckless or excessive force foul. In my opinion, attacking player used excessive force and should get a red card (also, given the level and skill of the player involved).
Finally, I see this type of play happening often in our youth & adult amateur soccer games. The goalkeeper has control of the ball (as described above), is challenged by the opposing player, and there’s a goal. In many (most) instances I see this not being called a foul or misconduct, and the goal allowed. In several instances, the challenge by the attacking player also comes with some sort of (reckless) collision, goalkeeper gets injured, and a caution is not given. This is wrong.
In short, just remember that when the goalkeeper is in control of the ball (by simply touching it with its hands/arms) he/she cannot be challenged, period. If goalkeeper is “challenged” make sure there is no contact whatsoever with the goalkeeper or the ball by the opposing player.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Nov 11, 2019 7:07:06 GMT -5
My first reaction at full speed... ouch. And there is no way the keeper had possession. But in the slow-motion replay and with pausing, the keeper actually did catch that ball just before the collision.
In my opinion...
Careless? No - both made a play for a ball in the air
Reckless? No - same. Neither is “entitled” to a 50/50 ball
Violent? No - same
With replay I can see this being a foul on the attacker. Two players often wish to occupy the same space and collide. Many times a foul is given and it’s purely a judgment call. The striker is lucky in this case that the GK didn’t come out with a knee up to protect herself.
You’re crazy if you think a center referee could see this.. from behind the play given the ping-pong bounces of the ball. You’re also crazy if you think the AR should have correctly identified the split second sequence of events from the side (while simultaneously examining multiple players’ offside position). This is one that’s called purely on instinct and experience, then justified however the humans decide.. as the players and crowd lose their minds. Keep this in mind as you lose your mind while watching games.
Lastly.. Goalkeepers are nuts
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on Nov 11, 2019 8:20:04 GMT -5
Watching again in real time - as CR - if this happened in one of my games - my reaction would have been foul and caution against attacker, and no one would argue.
To my eye, the attacker's challenge seems reckless, given her soccer IQ that she is going to goal and should expect the keeper to be challenging as well. The caution also signals to the defending team that you are protecting the keeper (so don't retaliate), and to the attacking team to be smarter in challenges. Remember, cards aren't always given just for the incident, but for everyone on the field...
Like it or not, keepers are given more protections because they often put themselves in defenseless positions.
That said, I would not blame the attacker for making an aggressive play or having any animus against the keeper, but the result warrant action. And as a high level player, she would recognize that and move on. Basically an effort foul, not a malicious foul. I consider this a 'soft' yellow, given more for result than action, as opposed to a 'hard' yellow, given for nasty play.
Standing by for others to disagree...
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Nov 11, 2019 9:00:15 GMT -5
I can see this being called a foul and I can see it being a no call. In real time no way that you can even see that the keeper touched the ball and by that time Pinto had her head basically at the ball as well. This was definitely a 50-50 ball IMO and both players had a right to it. I think this was a dangerous play, but dangerous for both players. Honestly Pinto is very lucky that she did not get a concussion or break her neck. That was a very similar head position to a spear tackle in American football. Despite the fact that it was a dangerous play for both players I see plays like this ALL of the time in college, pro, youth soccer that are no calls. Despite the laws of the game I RARELY see a ref call goal keeper control when they are barely touching a ball. Most won't call it unless they have it wrapped up or clearly held securely in both hands.
If it had been a foul or even a yellow I would not have argued with it either. This is a pure judgement call by the officials. Judging what was an attempt for a 50-50 ball is subjective as is the "hand in an unnatural position." Both are subjective entirely.
I sincerely hope both ladies are ok and recover from the car accident-like soreness that both have today in time to play this weekend. Does anyone know if the GK sustained an injury? I know she did not come back in but that could have been precautionary given the severity of the impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 9:02:09 GMT -5
My first reaction at full speed... ouch. And there is no way the keeper had possession. But in the slow-motion replay and with pausing, the keeper actually did catch that ball just before the collision. In my opinion... Careless? No - both made a play for a ball in the air At a minimum this is a Careless foul. Players showed lack of attention when going for the ball. Sprinting on the soccer pitch for a ball and without awareness of where other players are is careless action.Reckless? No - same. Neither is “entitled” to a 50/50 ball As described in my post, goalkeepers cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s), including by touching it with any part of the hands or arms. The moment a referee sees this challenge occurring, he/she can sanction an indirect free kick. If there is contact, then the restart is a direct free kick. In professional, high-level soccer, referees usually wait to see if attacking player get to the ball first (not at the same time as the goalie's hand/arm). In youth soccer, referees are asked to blow the whistle in anticipation of the play in order to protect the goalkeeper (and opposing player). Safety first. In fact, goalkeeper safety is why this provision exists (for a long time) in the LOTG. I should emphasize that in the spirit of the law, referees should apply the Laws with safety first in mind.
Violent? No - same If you mean, "violent foul" or "excessive force" as described in LOTG then I'd say it was indeed excessive force so much so that the player was helped off the field. Side note: the term violent in LOTG is used in reference to Violent Conduct, which is different from a foul, in that it is when "a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball"With replay I can see this being a foul on the attacker. Two players often wish to occupy the same space and collide. Many times a foul is given and it’s purely a judgment call. The striker is lucky in this case that the GK didn’t come out with a knee up to protect herself. You’re crazy if you think a center referee could see this.. from behind the play given the ping-pong bounces of the ball. You’re also crazy if you think the AR should have correctly identified the split second sequence of events from the side (while simultaneously examining multiple players’ offside position). This is one that’s called purely on instinct and experience, then justified however the humans decide.. as the players and crowd lose their minds. Keep this in mind as you lose your mind while watching games. Agree! making these calls require a lot of experience, understanding of the game, and players actions. I agree CR was not in best position to see the play develop but AR was in perfect position (note that, after the initial bounce, the AR should be in line with the ball, so the AR had to take about 4 steps sideways as he/she tracked the ball, eyes on the ball, just as the forward did). Experienced/knowledgeable CR/AR should be able to anticipate the collision (though really fast, the attacker still takes at least 5 steps forward) and be ultra alert to make the call. I've seen that in youth soccer, parents will blame the referee for the collision, and whatever injury(ies) may take place, which is not entirely fair as the conduct of the players cannot be prevented at all times. In any case, ref's should err on the case of safety first. Lastly.. Goalkeepers are nuts |
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Nov 11, 2019 9:43:46 GMT -5
I agree with Soccerloafer. Definitely a foul, and probably a YC for being a bit reckless. I mentioned previously that I could "possibly" see no YC due to the fact that the attacker was looking at the ball in the air and not the keeper; however, as Soccerloafer mentioned, this is a high level player who should know the situation, that the keeper is coming out to play that ball, and take more care for the keeper's safety (not to mention her own). For that reason, I'm changing my vote to foul and YC. But I wouldn't be upset at a ref who merely called a foul as in real time; it's not always easy to make those instantaneous decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Nov 11, 2019 10:18:48 GMT -5
What the hell are some of you looking at?!?!
The keeper NEVER HAD THE BALL! Never had two let alone one hand on the ball. The UNC player arrived first and headed the ball into the UVA Keeper who made a save off the header. Then the UVA Keeper hit the UNC player.
There is no foul as the Keeper initiated the contact.
If this was two field players then yeah the UVA player might have gotten a card or at least a penalty. Maybe.
Two last thing, look at the replay. The Ref is right outside the 18 in the middle of the field and had a clear view of the 50/50 ball. Add in the AR was right there from the corner kick that started the play so both were almost in perfect full view of the event. Refs did a great job that’s why they’re working the Acc finals.
I’m also a former GK from a family of Gkers and have trained GKers but this was not a foul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Nov 11, 2019 10:24:31 GMT -5
LOTG Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) states that “a goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).” And a goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hands(s) when (among other things) “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.” Ball came off the UNC’s players head so the UVA Keeper never had control as she had to save the shot first and then the Keeper collided with the UNC player so you argued against your own point. Can’t make a save and have control as stated in the last part of Law 12 above. |
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Nov 11, 2019 11:15:09 GMT -5
JumpJumpKeep, I agree that the keeper didn't have control - never said she did. But, I'm not seeing where the attacker headed the ball, unless it barely, barely skimmed her head - it definitely doesn't change direction. Ball definitely hits the keeper (basically in her lap), but collision prevents her from catching it. 100% a foul. Absolutely baffled as to how you can say that the keeper initiated the contact here - even if ball did skim the attacker's head, it then hits the keeper, then the contact.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Nov 11, 2019 11:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Nov 11, 2019 11:54:12 GMT -5
JumpJumpKeep, I agree that the keeper didn't have control - never said she did. But, I'm not seeing where the attacker headed the ball, unless it barely, barely skimmed her head - it definitely doesn't change direction. Ball definitely hits the keeper (basically in her lap), but collision prevents her from catching it. 100% a foul. Absolutely baffled as to how you can say that the keeper initiated the contact here - even if ball did skim the attacker's head, it then hits the keeper, then the contact. As stated above by another commenter, the ball clearly changes direction as the UNC player gets to it. Not sure if it’s a header or more like a face/nose ball but it clearly changes direction and goes toward goal. Had the UVA GK not been there and no one else touches that ball it rolls in for a goal thus making the contact the GK had with it as a save and not a form of control. |
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 12:01:36 GMT -5
LOTG Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) states that “a goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).” And a goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hands(s) when (among other things) “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.” Ball came off the UNC’s players head so the UVA Keeper never had control as she had to save the shot first and then the Keeper collided with the UNC player so you argued against your own point. Can’t make a save and have control as stated in the last part of Law 12 above. Good comment. However let me make an attempt to spell out these two exceptions, within the context of the LOTG. As stated, goalkeeper is considered to have control of the ball by touching it with any parts of the hands or arms, except if: a) the ball rebounds, e.g. the ball hits the hands/arms and comes back out without any other interference. this "rebound" exception does not apply in this play. b) the goalkeeper has made a save, e.g. the goalkeeper intentionally punches the ball out as in a cross with his/her fist or a goalkeeper intentionally stops (saves) the ball with the hands but lets it drop on the ground in the same action. This "save" exception does not apply in this play either. If this save exception happens, the opposing player can legally play the ball at anytime after the save. In short, in these two exceptions, the opposing players are allowed to challenge the goalkeeper (ball). In all other cases, it is an IFK. Or in this case, a FK due to the contact (collision) with the goalkeeper. As a side note, note that in these two exception cases, the goalkeeper is allowed to pick the ball back up without any other player touching the ball first without committing a IFK offense (i.e. touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player). One more side note to some comments made in these posts :-) - if you think about it, who touches the ball is an instantaneous action that happens all the time in a game and must be determined in real-time for cases like a throw-in, goal or corner kick. Referees are trained to keep the eye on the ball at all times and make these calls in real-time. In fact, parents on the sidelines get extremely upset when a referee misses one of these calls (which generally happens when the referee view is blocked). So even in bang-bang plays, should the referee be in good position, he/she should be able to determine whether or not a player touched the ball or who touched it last. Last but not least, referees are human thus make mistakes or calls are simply subjective, and whether decisions are right or wrong, the referees’ decisions should always be respected. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Nov 11, 2019 16:56:40 GMT -5
From the lotg (the any part of the arm statement is wrong):
Goalkeepers are not permitted to keep possession of the ball in their hands for more than six seconds. The goalkeeper is considered to be in possession of the ball:
while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g., ground, own body) or
while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand
while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air
Aside from the second and third clauses, the goalkeeper has the ball if its between their hands or between their hand and the ground or their body. The keeper did NOT have possession of the ball according to the lotg. It deflected off the attacking player and touched her forearms (not between her hands nor between her hand and a hard surface) and she certainly wasn't holding it in an outstretched hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Nov 11, 2019 17:03:29 GMT -5
I’m saying brutally reckless play - imagine any other field player getting drilled like that. You can’t run 400 miles an hour like a crazy person into the other team. I’d ejected her for dangerous play - both players could have been severely injured from that play. Even more dangerous how she lowered her head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 17:49:28 GMT -5
From the lotg (the any part of the arm statement is wrong): Goalkeepers are not permitted to keep possession of the ball in their hands for more than six seconds. The goalkeeper is considered to be in possession of the ball: while the ball is between his hands or between his hand and any surface (e.g., ground, own body) or while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand while in the act of bouncing it on the ground or tossing it into the air Aside from the second and third clauses, the goalkeeper has the ball if its between their hands or between their hand and the ground or their body. The keeper did NOT have possession of the ball according to the lotg. It deflected off the attacking player and touched her forearms (not between her hands nor between her hand and a hard surface) and she certainly wasn't holding it in an outstretched hand. Not sure what version you are referencing. FYI, here's a Cut & Paste from Laws of the Game 2019/20 | Law 12 | Fouls and Misconduct, Page 106: 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).lf you like a bit of history, I believe the original wording was introduced in IFAB Decision 17 to Law 12 in 1991): "a goalkeeper will be considered to be in control of the ball when he takes possession of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms. Possession of the ball would not include the circumstances where in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper, for example when he has made a save." This was later modified and up to 2015/16 LOTG stated that: - the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from him, e.g. after he has made a save
– possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball In 2016/17 LOTG you see the language we have today where IFAB tried again to clarify the language, and got rid off the term "parrying the ball." Nowadays, if the goalkeeper "parries" the ball, say the ball is bouncing to him/her, then the goalie can "save" the goal by parrying the ball to the ground; when ball rolls on the ground, the opposing player is allowed to challenge it, and the goalkeeper can pick it up as well. There is no offense in any of these actions. If the goalkeeper has gained control of the ball as per above, the opposing player cannot challenge for it. This is an offense (IFK) even without contacting the goalie. If there is careless contact with the goalie, then it is a FK. If the contact is reckless is YC; if the contact is with excessive force, it is a RC. |
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 18:40:42 GMT -5
I’m saying brutally reckless play - imagine any other field player getting drilled like that. You can’t run 400 miles an hour like a crazy person into the other team. I’d ejected her for dangerous play - both players could have been severely injured from that play. Even more dangerous how she lowered her head. Yes! that's exactly what the LOTG states and is part of the LOTG spirit of the game emphasis on safety & fairness first. This type of play does not have a place in the beautiful game. A player cannot run over another player to win what may be considered a 50-50 ball. Period. That's a foul if a player cannot control its momentum or motion. Players need to know this, coaches (& parents) should teach this, spectators should promote it, and referees should avoid it if possible when they see this type of dangerous play developing, and enforce any disciplinary action it if/when it takes place; so we all who follow and play this sport, recognize the importance and gravity of such collisions in players' well-being. We don't need this. |
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Nov 11, 2019 21:05:40 GMT -5
Respect: good contributions in here. A lot to think about. ...The hardest play to judge as a referee, in my (relatively inexperienced as a referee) opinion is one where the players are in a straight line from your viewing position. In this case there is No way for the referee to see the keeper possess the ball when you’re twenty yards outside the penalty area and the attacking player is in between you and the GK. And I still think an AR will be hard pressed to discern all this in a split second. As evidence I offer any of the recent VAR offside calls that take a 60 FPS video and stop it dead and we still can’t tell... If I see the same play on a 50/50 ball in the future I will likely give a yellow card and not think twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Nov 11, 2019 21:15:35 GMT -5
Violent? No - same If you mean, "violent foul" or "excessive force" as described in LOTG ...Indeed I meant to say excessive force. Thanks for the correction. Hey coaches: On a 50/50 ball.. Should either player stop because the other is approaching at full speed? I think it’s probably wise to avoid the collision.. but my HS coach in 1988 would remove you from the game for being a.. um.. chicken. And I’m certain he wasn’t the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by Respect on Nov 11, 2019 23:13:52 GMT -5
Respect : good contributions in here. A lot to think about. ...The hardest play to judge as a referee, in my (relatively inexperienced as a referee) opinion is one where the players are in a straight line from your viewing position. In this case there is No way for the referee to see the keeper possess the ball when you’re twenty yards outside the penalty area and the attacking player is in between you and the GK. And I still think an AR will be hard pressed to discern all this in a split second. As evidence I offer any of the recent VAR offside calls that take a 60 FPS video and stop it dead and we still can’t tell... If I see the same play on a 50/50 ball in the future I will likely give a yellow card and not think twice. That's a good start. Being mentally prepared for these situations helps a lot at game time. A YC/RC sends the message that dangerous play resulting in physical contact is not acceptable and it has consequences. Note that although truly simultaneous (physical) fouls are rare, LOTG expects the referee to make a call for one or the other; a drop ball restart is generally not advisable. Per LOTG, referee must " punish the more serious offence, in terms of sanction, restart, physical severity and tactical impact, when more than one offence occurs at the same time" (this applies in the case for multiple offenses from players on the same team or from players from each one of the teams). You can still issue any appropriate YC/RC sanctions to all players involved. Finally, for youth soccer games, referees should talk/warn players if using dangerous play, e.g. slide tackling, when challenging the goalie in their attempt to "steal/win" the ball. I saw a game this last weekend in which this situation happened three times. In the first time, the goalie got a slight contact and complained to the opposing player. I wish the referee had given a warning to the attacking player. Perhaps the other two situations would've not happened later in the game or at least a YC could've been issue (which may serve as a learning lesson for the youth player). Good thing is goalkeeper finished game uninjured. |
|
