If the law hasn’t changed, the article could have been from 1950 and still have been relevant.The linked article is four years old, and quoted a second hand source from 2005! And from the USF, whose interpretations were often innovative, and wrong.
That said, as the "not preventing the keeper from releasing the ball" has been the law for over 20 years, the advice is probably still about right.
It seems the more accessible the laws, the less keen people are to read them - though the laws are more than twice the length they were when you had to buy the book, either the official laws of association football (LOAF) or the better-illustrated "Know the Game"). The current law thankfully has now stopped confusingly using "possession" and "control" and settled for "control".
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).
Anyone can write to IFAB (the branch of FIFA that sets the laws) and suggest changes. For instance, why do you need "the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body)" - isn't that covered by "touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms"? Why (32 years after the Crosby / Dibble goal) do we still need "holding the ball in the outstretched open hand"?
(City, ruining the laws for decades.)
So, simply:
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when:
• touching the ball with any part of the hands or arms
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
Coupled with the indirect free kick if an opponent
prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it.
Of course, this is all in the context of the most-breached, least-enforced law in the game:
An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area...:
- controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
I think Haaland’s 3rd goal was that good that it should have counted as 5 goals.When all said and done id be fuming if we had that disallowed to go 3 up away! I think it should have stood.
I've really no idea what "crusade" you mean.If the law hasn’t changed, the article could have been from 1950 and still have been relevant.
You've been told by an actual referee that you are wrong, yet you are still posting bollocks about it 3 days after it happened.
It isn’t allowed to happen, however much you post your drivel about it.
I’ll leave you to your crusade.
Take it up with Dermot Gallagher, the ref on Saturday, the ref on here and 95% of football supporters.I've really no idea what "crusade" you mean.
I just think quoting the USF interpretation of the law from 17 years ago is desperately lazy. The bit about the keeper "releasing the ball" is much the same as when introduced in 1998, but (e.g.) you wouldn't want to talk about the offside law as if it hadn't changed since then (or handling).
I've done nothing but cite the relevant law, and pick up on another poster for (a) citing out-of-date wording for the list of "cautionable offences", and (b) saying the incident was a yellow card because it was "delaying the restart of the game". You don't really need to know the laws to realise that it was not "delaying the restart" as the game hadn't stopped.
That would depend on whether or not your boss wanted you to be prepared and informed, or whether he wanted you to talk shit and fake controversy to keep the ratings upIt was the same last week with the Trippier incident on de Bruyne.
Across about half a dozen threads there were posters saying “he was off the floor and out of control, it should have been a red card”. When the words “off the floor” and “out of control” aren’t in the LOTG.
I believe in the Sky studio the other day, Dermott Gallagher was explaining why it was an infringement on Ederson, and Warnock and the others in the studio said “oh I didn’t know that was the rule”… Warnock played 555 games in his career over 15 years and is now supposed to be a radio and television pundit on the sport. How the fuck does he not know the LOTG inside out? And even if he doesn’t, how is he going into the studio to talk about the weekend’s incidents and not reading up on that one, knowing it’ll come up, before going into work?… imagine going into a meeting at work not prepared for what is about to be talked about in a normal job? your boss would hammer you!
Thanks. Always learning.Law 12. The bit @Psychedelic Casual just quoted (though I'm not sure why).
I've no idea why you think I am arguing that it was not an offence.Take it up with Dermot Gallagher, the ref on Saturday, the ref on here and 95% of football supporters.
It didn’t count, it wouldn’t count tomorrow nor will it at the weekend,
Ok mate. Godspeed in your quest.I've no idea why you think I am arguing that it was not an offence.
But it's not a mandatory yellow card.
It's possible @Vic is a qualified ref.Take it up with Dermot Gallagher, the ref on Saturday, the ref on here and 95% of football supporters.
It didn’t count, it wouldn’t count tomorrow nor will it at the weekend,