Question Number: 35868

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/27/2025

RE: Adult

Damianos of Athens, Attiki Greece asks...

I have a more general question regarding how untouchable is a Goalkeeper.

The last couple of matches in the greek league, there were incidents that to me are confusing. Weirdly the same goalkeeper is involved.

The fisrt case, the GK catches the ball on the ground, the attacker bumps him , mostly trying to annoy him and not challenge him. Then the goalkeeper pushes him a bit, and then they get into an argument, where the GK gives a "soft" headbut to the attacker inside the box. The ref gave penalty and a red card. Should n't have been an offensive foul on the first place?
https://youtu.be/8GzrClxzQCM?t=137


The second case the keeper catches the ball mid air, is touched by the attacking player , who seems to be trying to protect himself and not play the ball. Then the GK looses the ball after landing on the attackers head, and in my opinion commits a clear penalty. Is there an offensive foul in case the attacking player stands still, being outside the small box make a difference https://youtu.be/-32NFCEse5k?t=47

Bonus question the ref on the last case, gave a corner. If VAR thinks there is a penalty but also believes that there is an offencive foul, what is the process? Call for a review an suggest an offensive foul, or let the corner decision stand?


Thank you in advance

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Damianos
Thanks for the question

On the first one the contact between the goalkeeper and the attacker are both trifling. The first bump has no effect on the goalkeeper other than annoyance and he reacts with a push on the attacker which again has no effect.
If that is all that happened then play on with perhaps a word with both at an appropriate time.
Having said that if the first contact was to impede movement, unsettle the ball, challenge the goalkeeper a referee would be required to call that offence immediately or even signal advantage which would mean that the referee could go back to the original offence if required.

That did not happen here yet rather two players engaged in insignificant bumping and pushing more unsporting rather than playing offences. Most times this would be over instantly with play continuing and a mental note taken of it.

Now the situation escalated into a more serious incident so the referee was left with no option but to award a penalty and issue a red card for violent conduct.
The referee can be seen moving into the area as he had an inclination that it was going to escalate which it did.
Very few referees are going to call those incidental bumps and pushes as games would descend into a litany of stoppages.
So for me the correct call was made the way it unfolded with the silly behaviour ignored and the head contact punished.

On the second one there is in my opinion no offence by the attacker and it should have been a penalty and probably a caution as I can’t see all tne conditions of an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
As you say the attacker has just stood still and did nothing. It was an error by the goalkeeper compounded by a pull back foul which is a penalty.
As to the goal area that makes no difference to any offence. It is now used for goal kick placement only. There was a time when it was used to prevent goalkeeper being legally charged in the area with the ball yet that is no longer possible so that use is no longer required. A goalkeeper cannot be charged now while in possession of the ball. Back in the day it was possible to charge a goalkeeper with serious injures happening. That was the original use of the goal area which was to prevent charging close to goal.

On the third one I believe it is a penalty as I do not see any contact on the ball by the goalkeeper. The video is not absolutely certain though and if the referee tells the VAR official that he saw contact on the ball which cannot be disproven by video then it is a corner kick restart.
At the very highest level such as the World Cup the ball has a sensor to determine contact on the ball. If that technology was available here it would bring absolute certainty to the call as the contact on the ball would match what happened on the video.
For what its worth I think the goalkeeper’s reaction spoke volumes as he stood up expecting in my opinion a penalty. He made no gesture of touching the ball etc.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Damianos,
I think my colleague ref McHugh has covered the specific incidents you referenced in sufficient detail, so I'll confine my answer to the general question you posed, of "How untouchable is a goalkeeper?"

The goalkeeper, when they do not have control of the ball with the hands, is no more or less untouchable than any other player. So any touch on a goalkeeper who does not have hands on the ball, should be judged by the referee in the same way as physical contact between any two players would be.

However, the situation changes when the keeper has control of the ball with the hands.

When that is the case, the law says that:

"A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)."

As to when control is established, the law states as follows:

"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"

I hope that provides some useful information for you about how incidents of physical contact with goalkeepers should be viewed by the referee.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Damianos,
I wish to reinforce a concept of safety which is a concern to those who enforce and make up the LOTG conditional approaches based over many years of experimentation and observation.

You see, keepers are at risk because their legal ability to use hands within their penalty area create situations where they will bend down and place their head or their hands right where the opposing players are kicking the ball. So the LOTG stated once actual ball possession was obtained using this method, -NO- challenges from the opposition are permitted!

So upon any opposition challenging a keeper, they must be aware of their obligations to AVOID unfair contact and seek to stop or refrain from following through a contact challenge. That does not restrict an opponent from trying to play the ball fairly, just an awareness of situations where contact could be inevitable.

The concepts of trifling is minimalistic effect or benign contact doubtful has more to do with certainty or the need to intervene. Both can be ignored or a quiet word or reprimand yet when one or both opposing players engage in tit for tat careless behavior it can escalate into a reckless action if a referee does not intervene effectively in the early stages of conflict.

Players still have to take responsibility for their own actions. Referees can't always save a player from themselves doing something they shouldn't be doing. When keepers HAVE hand control, a little bit of impeding here a light push there from the opposition . If the keeper retains ball possession, the referee can apply advantage or add a bit of commentary to indicate what he saw and how displeased he might be should he continue to see it. Ball in hand for a keeper to run out to the edge of a PA and punt or throw it at his discretion is superior to a free kick on the ground.

In any challenges for the ball the keeper is quite capable of fouling first or causing the most damage. I've seen fist punches and knees into the head and back, body slides tripping where the ball is not contacted. Just as I have seen attackers try to force the ball out of their grasp or through the keeper under the impression if the ball is contacted the resulting carnage is acceptable! The laws of the game provide us a framework concept of carelessness recklessness and excessiveness these are applied in each situation where a foul is recognized.
In each game the referee is a MATCH CONDITION just like the weather or pitch condition, sometimes it is better than others!

The first incident was just silliness, it escalated into a created situation! The keeper in effect gave the opposition a GIFT! The striker baited the keeper into an aggressive move. There was no doubt the striker was play acting for that was not a vicious head strike by any stretch of the imagination but it was a violent act. Violent acts force a referee intervention, as a DFK restart the head strike inside the penalty area now becomes a PK and Keeper gets sent off. Perhaps if the referee or AR had verbally intervened it might have defused the tensions but winding up hothead keepers is relished by strikers.


Cheers

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 35871