Keepers and Attackers

April 18, 2022 by Dan Heldman

Stephen, a referee, asks:

I see plays like this a lot, and I don’t know what to do, or better, what to consider when evaluating this stuff. Can you enlighten me? Can a keeper make a save and then go hurling into the player? Can a player get a last touch and go hurling into the keeper? What gives?

Answer

The answer is simple but you may not appreciate what follows. The way the answer is implemented “depends” on a host of factors which are totally dependent on what you see. Indeed, to a degree, you have complicated the otherwise simple answer by using a couple of words which, individually, have a significant impact on how you implement the “simple answer.”

Players in general make contact with each other on a regular basic throughout a game. And your specific scenario offers the arguably most difficult example.

In general – using, for example, a much easier scenario — say you have a team A field player and a team B field player who make contact with each other. Is there an offense? Could be but probably not. Let’s complicate things — suppose A runs into B. Also possibly not an offense but is a bit more complicated – we now have a scenario which, by the words we used, changed the scenario importantly because now A as done something clearly to B. As a result, we now have to decide why it happened (accidental or deliberate) and whether (either accidental or deliberate) it happened for a reason. What kind of reason – an inability to stop in time and/or a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair advantage. If it was deliberate and for a purpose which is illegal, then we have grounds to punish A (or not depending on the flow of the play at that moment).

Now complicate things significantly and consider the same two opponents, one of whom is a keeper and the other an opposing attacker. Adding a keeper into the scenario complicates the scenario greatly but for reasons which do not appear at all in the Laws of the Game despite having a long and/or practical history. The main factor favoring the keeper is that, first, keepers often are forced to engage in actions which are inherently more dangerous than a challenging attacker and, second, keepers are more likely to draw support from teammates who are more likely in turn to increase the perceived level of possible danger, which leads to a greater likelihood of becoming more angry with the attacker. Unfortunately, the reversal of this lays a greater burden on the attacker if he/she is the one being “touched” by the keeper. Historically and manifestly, keepers gain an advantage even if their behavior is comparatively the same.

The only positive thing we can do as a referee when contact seems likely between an opposing forward and a defending keeper (with the ball on its way to one or both of them) is to quickly go to high gear to get closer and to a better line of sight on: (1) who is moving toward the other (perhaps both simultaneously), (2) who jumps (maybe both), (3) who makes contact first, (4) who uses greater force with respect to the contact, (5) what direction is each party looking just before the impending contact, (6) whether the keeper is going to ground or jumping up higher in order to gain possession of the ball, (7) the immediately following action by both A and B, (8) who is focusing attention on the ball (both or mainly one), (9) which of A or B is making an attempt to avoid impending contact (or whether both are attempting contact), and finally (10) whether contact by one is visible to the other or was out of the other’s view. These ten elements can involve even greater complications if either (or both) are joined by one or more teammates added to the fray.

As you can see, the impending contact between keeper and/or attacker is simple in terms of specifying the parties involved but extraordinarily more complicated when it comes to a decision as to what exactly happened before, during, and immediately after the contact or possession of the ball. Overall, however, there is a general and commonly held opinion that, of the two opponents we are considering here, the one who gains firm possession before any subsequent contact between the opponent (attacker or keeper) has the stronger case prior to the other player’s attempts to challenge for the ball. However, there is an equally common opinion that the keeper encounters more personal danger in the process of challenging for the ball than does the attacker if both otherwise have a comparable likelihood of possessing the ball.

Note, however, that younger players require an even closer look and greater care because they generally lack the ability to understand “danger” — the older and/or more experienced the player the easier it is to take into consideration the ten elements offered above.…

Goalkeepers

Goalkeeper Possession and Other Issues

February 20, 2020February 20, 2020 by Dan Heldman

Thomas, an adult amateur player, asks:

With regard to Goalkeeping:

Q1. How long does a Goalkeeper have to retain possession of the ball in their hands before they are required to put the ball “back into play” either by throwing, punting or kicking the ball? I believe it is officially 6 seconds, but I don’t believe this time element is seldom actually called by referees.

Q2. If a Goalkeeper takes legitimate control of the ball with their hands inside the penalty area, then runs to within say 4 yards of the forward edge of the box, stops, and absent any opposing player within a 5 yard radius, is it legal for a goalkeeper to then toss the ball in front of them with a backspin on the ball such that the ball bounces back into their hands, then REGAINS possession of the ball with their HANDS, REPEATS THIS PROCESS 1 or 2 more times, and then eventually returns the ball “back into play” either by throwing, punting or kicking the ball?

Some have said this activity by the goalkeeper is similar to when a basketball player standing at the free-throw line is passed the ball by an official and before the player takes their actual shot, they dribble the ball multiple times off the floor, and then they take their free-throw. Basketball players have a set time to take their free-throw starting when they take hand possession of the ball from the official and ending when they release the ball in the motion of shooting the free-throw. Some soccer coaches/players say that this similar “dribbling” by a goalkeeper prior to putting the ball “back into play” is allowed. I believe it is a violation of the possession rules for goalkeepers and once they intentionally forfeit their hand possession of the ball they are not permitted to REGAIN HAND Possession of the ball and if they do it is an illegal use of their hands and the opposing team should be awarded a penalty kick.

Answer

It doesn’t make any difference whether something occurring in a soccer match is “like” something occurring in some other sport. Soccer has its own rules.

Now, having said this, you are raising two complex issues as a matter of the Laws of the Game are concerned.

Q1: Law 12 is very clear. The goalkeeper has six seconds, not 7 or 8 or whatever, to release the ball from the goalkeeper’s control. By the way, just to keep the record straight, this is often stated – incorrectly – as releasing the ball into play. The issue is that the ball IS in play during the entire time it is in the hand possession of the goalkeeper BUT what is different is that, during this time the goalkeeper cannot be challenged for the ball by an opponent. This is the correct terminology – the ball is being withheld from challenge, not withheld from play.

Back to the point. It has long been the standard interpretation of this requirement that the goalkeeper HAS gained hand control whenever the goalkeeper has the ball in one or both hands, including when the ball is being stabilized against any hard surface – e.g., the body of the goalkeeper, the ground, any part of the goal frame, etc. The goalkeeper has not yet released the ball from his control if he is bouncing the ball or tossing the ball up into the air but loses control if the toss into the air is followed immediately by the ball hitting the ground and then taken back into the goalkeeper’s hand. Although not often seen, it can happen easily enough if the goalkeeper tosses the ball up into the air but misses the catch, followed by the goalkeeper scrambling to regain the ball from the ground. This is considered a second touch violation by the goalkeeper and results in an indirect free kick for the opposing team from where the second touch occurred.

If in all this the 6 seconds are exceeded (but see below regarding referee discretion), the referee can signal for a stoppage and turn control of the ball to the opposing team where the violation occurred, followed by an indirect free kick restart.

All this is fairly cut and dried. What is NOT cut and dried is when the referee becomes aware that the goalkeeper is exceeding, or has exceeded, or is about to exceed the six second limit. Sometimes observers think that the time has been exceeded because they have not paid attention to the starting point of the six second limit. Sometimes, the referee may warn a goalkeeper that the time limit has been or shortly will be exceeded. And sometimes, the six second limit is indeed exceeded with no whistle by the referee. But “it’s the Law” you might say and the answer is, yes, it is the Law but it is also “lawful” not to whistle at 6+ seconds because the violation is doubtful or trifling. Referees have the authority to handle this matter in any of these ways depending on the circumstances. Remember, constantly whistling for something that might not have been an offense in the first place (doubtful) or didn’t really matter (trifling), is not soccer, it’s some other sport. Soccer lives on the judgments of referees and the Law explicitly supports this … thank goodness.

Q2: Here is where things get a bit hairy. Certain facts can be clear. For example, it doesn’t matter how much backspin a goalkeeper gives the ball when bouncing it on the ground so that it comes back to his/her hands, if the whole of the ball completely leaves the penalty area, the referee can conclude that the ball is out of the goalkeeper’s control because it would be illegal for the goalkeeper to handle the ball outside the penalty area. Were we a goalkeeper who allowed the ball, even temporarily, to be outside our penalty area, we better be following it and be prepared to kick that ball somewhere rather than try to regain hand control. But, if in the process of bouncing the ball, it does not leave the penalty area, the goalkeeper has the right to regain contact with the ball and to NOT be considered to having actually released the ball from “control” as long as the total time this is taking does not exceed six seconds. Remember, as noted above, the Law does not consider bouncing the ball on the ground as having lost control of the ball so, for that reason, having the bounce come back to the hands of the goalkeeper does not constitute regaining control.

In general, what the Law is aimed at is not taking allegedly “extra” time to get the ball back into challenge when it is clear that this is what the goalkeeper is doing. Punishment is reserved for those goalkeepers who exceed the time limit because they are deliberately wasting time to achieve an unsporting benefit.…

Goalkeepers

Goalkeepers and Time

January 5, 2019 by Dan Heldman

Richard, an adult pro referee, asks

Have they done away with the six second rule for the goalkeeper before he releases the ball? If not, why don’t they enforce it?

Answer

First, “they” haven’t done away with it. Indeed, it remains the standard requirement in the US for US Soccer (IFAB), high school soccer (NFHS), and collegiate games (NCAA) — as well as the rest of the world.

Second, asking “why don’t they enforce it” takes us into a whole different issue. For referees, the first hurdle in their learning curve is to recognize that an action is an offense. For inexperienced referees (say, up through their first couple of years), this is one of the most important achievements and, in general, that recognition, plus stopping play and getting the restart right (both for offenses and for any other stoppage reason), are an acceptable measure by which to evaluate a new referee’s performance. Around years 2-4, the focus should begin to change. Offense recognition (if married with correct restarts) has largely been achieved and now the critical question becomes “what should I do about it?” You might ask, well, why is this a question because we’ve already said that stopping play and getting the restart right are what you are supposed to do”?

The answer is that there is “correct” and there is “right” – they are not necessarily the same. “Correct” means “in accordance with the Laws of the Game” whereas “right” means “what do I want to achieve in this game … at this moment … with this player … under these specific circumstances?” Limiting the goalkeeper to 6 seconds from the moment control of the ball is achieved to the goalkeeper’s release of the ball is a very concrete statement. Sounds unbendingly specific and easy to enforce – just use your watch to measure the time between these two points and, if it exceeds 6 seconds, whistle for an indirect free kick offense in favor of the opposing team from the point where the goalkeeper exceeded the 6 second limit. This is possibly what a new referee took away from the entry level course about how to enforce this rule.

Why do you see it “not enforced”? Well, perhaps it is because the referee forgot this rule. Or perhaps the referee forgot to start checking his watch and thus has no idea how long the goalkeeper held onto the ball. Perhaps the referee was estimating time and, just as he was about to whistle, the goalkeeper released the ball and the referee thought, what the heck, that’s close enough.

Or perhaps the referee gained enough experience or was mentored properly or received in-service training that went beyond the simple statement in the Law about 6-seconds-and-not-a-second-longer to understand why this rule is in the Law in the first place and then use that knowledge to evaluate the scenario and recognize that, yes, 7 (or 8 or 9) seconds was an offense but perhaps it was trifling – in other words, the offense didn’t matter because it did no harm to the opposing team and did not benefit the goalkeeper’s team – or perhaps the estimate was not precise enough and the expiration of 6 seconds was doubtful. Now marry this with the established norm that soccer is an active sport involving constant motion which should not be interrupted with stoppages without good reason (and neither doubtful nor trifling is a good enough reason). The result is a picture of a referee who has allowed the goalkeeper to exceed the 6-second limit on possession of the ball and who is in fact following the intent of Laws of the Game

Of course, there are limits but, based on the above, it should be clear where those limits start clicking in. Around 8-10 seconds (time it so you have a feel for what that is) it probably becomes more difficult to say the offense is doubtful. It’s also roughly the point at which a referee who is in fact aware of the passage of time from experience might clearly inform the goalkeeper that he or she needs to get rid of the ball, followed by no more than a second or two with “NOW!” 12-15 seconds is nearing the point at which continued possession of the ball by the goalkeeper becomes difficult to describe as trifling – a time period which actually narrows if, during the same time, it is clear that the opposing team is becoming rightfully disturbed by the lack of a reasonably quick return of the ball back into active play.

Notice that the dynamics are totally different if, instead of picking up a ball played to him (other than from a teammate’s play of the ball with his foot), the goalkeeper simply stops the ball with his foot and remains standing with the ball on the ground. The clock doesn’t even start ticking here and the only restraint on the goalkeeper is if opponents begin moving to challenge (remember, the 6-second limit doesn’t even begin until the goalkeeper takes clear possession of the ball with his hand). Notice also that most referees start using tighter constraints if the goalkeeper has been warned already but takes unfair advantage of the indulgence.

So, you have the answer. You may not like it (though, as a referee, you should be following it if you are past your first several years of officiating) but that is why they are paying you the big bucks. They are assuming you will understand the difference between correct and right.

Blowing the whistle at the 6.1th second is correct, but it is seldom right.…

Goalkeepers

Goalkeepers and “Challenging for the Ball”

September 2, 2018 by Dan Heldman

Steve, a U13 – U19 coach, asks:

In open play, goalkeeper saves the ball in his area. To restart play does the ball have to go outside the area or can the keeper roll it to one of his defenders who is inside the area so he can dribble up field taking the ball out of the area?

Answer

Let’s clear out some underbrush in this scenario before getting to the central issue of your question. There is an important distinction in the Laws of the Game between taking a ball out of play and taking a ball out of challenge. The simplest way to take a ball out of play is to kick the ball off the field — the ball is automatically out of play the moment it entirely crosses the field’s outer perimeter lines (touch line or goal line, including the part of the latter which is between the goal posts). Players can also take the ball out of play by becoming injured or committing an offense, for either of which the referee stops play. Finally, the referee can take the ball out of play simply by whistling for a stoppage for any reason (weather, outside interference, or any other reason). Obviously, if a ball goes out of play, it means that no one can play it until there is a formal restart (unless the stoppage is when the final period runs out of time).

This is completely (and importantly) different from taking the ball out of challenge. This is the chief difference between a goalkeeper and any other player on the team because only the goalkeeper can do this but they can only do it within their own penalty area (anywhere in that area) and only by taking hand possession of the ball. “Out of challenge” means that, from the moment the goalkeeper takes hand control of the ball until the ball is fully released from hand control, no opponent can challenge the goalkeeper for the ball! The ball is still “in play” during this whole time, but an opponent cannot attempt to tackle, charge, or otherwise challenge for the ball.

Having “hand control of the ball” is operationally defined as the goalkeeper holding the ball with a hand (including having the ball resting on the hand, usually but not necessarily on the palm) or between both hands or between one or both hands against a surface (the ground, the body, a goal post, etc.). Once hand control is achieved (in the opinion of the referee), all challenges must cease. Period. Any attempt to challenge could result in the referee stopping play, issuing a caution, and restarting with an indirect free kick for the goalkeeper’s team. Referees understand that, in general, goalkeepers prefer for this not to happen, They are, at heart, egotists who firmly believe they are far more capable of getting rid of the ball their own way and for their own purposes than via an indirect free kick and so referees understand that (a) they should try to prevent interference from occurring in the first place and (b), if it is so blatant as to be unavoidable, the added punishment of a caution should be given.

The interesting part of all this groundwork is determining what constitutes releasing the ball back into challenge. Basically, it means getting rid of it — throwing it, kicking it (punt, dropkick, etc.), or setting it on the ground and kicking it. The Law allows the ball to be tossed up in the air and then to catch it or to bounce it on the ground and catch it, all without losing hand control (tossing it up, allowing it to hit the ground, and then catching it on the rebound, however, is a second possession offense — don’t do this, goalkeepers, just kick the ball on the rebound). All of these actions are considered part of “releasing the ball into play” and are as protected from challenge or interference as is simply holding the ball.

OK. That’s the groundwork. Now to your scenario, which basically has nothing to do with everything we just talked about. You asked about “restart play” and now we know that play never stopped in the first place! What stopped was the ability of an opponent to do what he or she would normally do while the ball was in play — challenge for it. Accordingly, there is no restart issue here. There are special things to remember about restarts from within a team’s own penalty area and the issues you raised involve that, none of which are relevant to how a goalkeeper puts a ball back into challenge. Most players, coaches, and spectators (plus many well-paid commentators) commonly call this “putting the ball back into play” but this is incorrect. Referees know that this is “putting the ball back into challenge” because the difference is crucial. Except for leaving the field or the referee stopping play or time ending, the ball is always in play.…

2016 and Later Law Changes

Interfering with the Goalkeeper

August 27, 2018August 29, 2018 by Dan Heldman

Michael, an adult amateur player, asks:

When a goalkeeper has the ball in his hands and goes to kick it down field, can an opposing striker block the ball? Especially if they are outside the box?

Answer

Your scenario is a bit unclear. If by “they” you mean both the goalkeeper and the striker and if by “outside the box” you mean outside the penalty area(as opposed to the goal area), then the solution is easy — the goalkeeper is committing a handling offense and this takes priority. We suspect, however, you meant that only the striker was “out of the box,” in which case it doesn’t matter which “box” you meant.

As long as the goalkeeper has hand control of the ball, including when he is in the process of releasing it (i.e., throwing or kicking the ball), no opponent can interfere with the release or challenge for the ball. Sometimes, opponents make it easy for you by looking at the goalkeeper and obviously moving closer or moving around to block the direction that the goalkeeper apparently is considering in which to release the ball. Once the ball is released, however, the ability to challenge for control of the ball returns.

This is very clear and easy to enforce in the static situation where the goalkeeper is clearly holding the ball but becomes murkier during the actual release of the ball. The general principle is that an opponent cannot be allowed to be close enough to the goalkeeper to interfere with the release. How far back is that? It’s in your opinion. That opinion should take into account whether the opponent has merely established a location which does not block the direction of the release … and stays there. Sometimes, an opponent makes it easy for you by actually moving around to interfere while the goalkeeper is attempting to move in response to find a clear release direction. And it becomes ridiculously easy if the opponent runs into an area which is the direction of release while the release is taking place. The referee should handle these situations proactively (before any interference could occur) by warning an opponent to back away and to stay out of the way. If you have done so and the opponent ignores your warning or if events happened so quickly that there was no time to give the warning in the first place and the interference occurs, this is a cautionable offense – whistle, show a yellow card to the opponent, and order an indirect free kick restart from where the interference occurred.

Keep in mind that experienced goalkeepers generally prefer to perform their own release rather than to have that changed to an indirect free kick so choose your options carefully and step in only when the potential interference is blatant and/or when the players are inexperienced and/or when you have warned the opponent but the opponent interferes anyway (the caution is for unsporting behavior but ignoring an actual warning from you adds an icing of dissent).

Remember that the issue is not limited to “how far back.” Where the opponent is in relation to the direction of the release is just as important. There is no specific distance offered in the Laws of the Game as is the case for example with retreating at least ten yards for a free kick. Here, the decision is solely “in the opinion of the referee.” As the International Board (IFAB) put it in this year’s edition of the Laws of the Game:

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”…

Goalkeepers

Goalkeepers — Ready or Not

April 29, 2018 by Dan Heldman

Marc H, a U13 – U19 coach, asks:

When a free kick is given and the kicker asks for the Referee to give him the required distance for defenders (10 yards in a regulation match), does the Referee take into consideration the goalkeeper setting up the wall and being ready before the Referee blows the whistle to put the ball in play? I’ve seen circumstances where the Referee blows the whistle and the keeper Is still setting up his wall. Is there any consideration to the keeper in this case?

Answer:

Short answer – none whatsoever.

Goalkeepers think they are special – and in some respects they are (it is a dangerous job after all) – but in this case the goalkeeper is taking a risk by his involvement. Here’s the main point. Asking that the minimum distance be enforced converts the restart from a quick to a ceremonial event. By definition, the referee is the only person who must be involved and her only function here is to signal the restart when she is satisfied the minimum distance enforcement task is finished – i.e., the 10 yards is achieved.

The referee is not and cannot be concerned about any opponent not being where some other opponent thinks is not optimum. In other words, it is the Referee who sets the wall, not any defender (much less the goalkeeper). It is a simple matter of applying the Law and the Law is only concerned about a minimum of ten yards in every direction. If there is any opinion by a defender that a teammate, while not closer than ten yards, isn’t in the “right place,” the problem is not the referee’s. If a goalkeeper is sufficiently concerned that teammates are not where he wants them that he is prepared to be out of position to defend against a free kick, that’s his problem.

We feel safe in observing that the first time such a goalkeeper is scored against because he wasn’t where he was supposed to be, his coach will make the lesson clear.…

Goalkeepers

Goalkeeper Tactics

February 25, 2018 by Dan Heldman

Jeff, a U13 – U19 referee, asks:

When the goalkeeper is challenging for possession of the ball, are there restrictions on bringing his/her knee up when they are jumping to grab the ball?

Answer

No … and yes. Perhaps not a very helpful response so let’s explore below the surface.

Can goalkeepers raise their knee during the process of gaining possession of the ball? We know, that’s not exactly how the question was posed … stay tuned. Of course, why not? Add in the phrase “while challenging for the ball” and there is now a significant dimension that has been added; namely, the presence of someone else (an opponent, presumably) who is also attempting to gain possession of the ball. The big difference, of course, between these two — the goalkeeper and the opponent — is that one can legally handle the ball inside his/her own penalty area but the other one cannot. Put them both outside the penalty area and they are on exactly the same level, at least legally.

So, let’s assume we are talking about all this happening inside the goalkeeper’s penalty area. We can tell you that virtually all goalkeeper camps and trainers include the “raising the knee tactic” in their programs. These camp trainers also provide (by example and implication — wink, wink) two standard explanations that they encourage goalkeepers to use if asked : to protect themselves or to gain height while reaching upwards for a ball. Actually, the reason is very simple. It is to help create a space around the goalkeeper into which it is dangerous for the opponent to enter, thus encouraging opponents to stay back to avoid being contacted by the raised knee. By the way, we encourage doubters to simply visualize approximately where that knee winds up when raised. In short, it is done to intimidate.

Would we as referees look askance at field players raising knees to intimidate opponents who might wish to challenge for possession of the ball? Would we perhaps be inclined to punish a player at midfield trying for a descending high ball who raised a knee to back an opponent off? If “I’m just protecting myself” is good enough for the goalkeeper, why not for any other player elsewhere on the field? The answer, unfortunately, is that this has become one of those “urban legend” things that got started long ago and has become ordinary in the minds of many officials who haven’t thought more deeply about why this behavior occurs. Further, it involves goalkeepers who continue to benefit from their favored status as “special.” We like goalkeepers — they are brave, interesting, funny, and as egotistical as anyone with a whistle, but sometimes this can be carried to extremes.

Accordingly, what this issue boils down to is not the fact of a knee being raised but why it is being raised. Seriously, think back over the many games you have officiated and ask yourself how often you have seen a goalkeeper raise his/her knee when there is no opponent around. Actually, if you do see this, more often than not the goalkeeper is trying to establish it as a routine action so you will be less likely to question it when they do it for the real reason.

So, keep a close eye on such encounters. Obviously, if the knee is raised to intimidate and contact is made, don’t be so ready to give the goalkeeper a free pass.…

Disciplinary Matters

The Plight of Goalkeepers

November 24, 2017 by Dan Heldman

(Originally published on 10/17/17, “Operation Restore”)

Kaleb, a U13 – U19 player, asks:

Yesterday during my soccer game I was playing goalie. I stopped the ball and started to get up so I could kick the ball up the field. A person from the other team started running full force at me (note, I still had the ball in my hands) so I snapped one arm out in front of my body and the person from the other team hit my arm. The Referee immediately called a penalty on me for using my arm as a weapon. I didn’t swing my arm at him I just put my arm up to protect myself and he hit my arm. I would like to know if putting your arm up to defend yourself is a penalty.

Answer

Could be. This is one of those judgment calls for which “you had to be there” in order to get some sense of what the Referee saw — the decision depends on so many variables. We will say that, in general, the picture we get when you said that you “snapped one arm out in front of my body” is the classic football (American football) photo of a pigskin carrier running down field with an arm held out to fend off opponents trying to stop him.

Let’s just admit up front that the job of a goalkeeper is, as one observer noted, marked by “80 minutes of boredom and 10 minutes of terror.” In other words, it’s not easy and every goalkeeper walks a thin line in situations like this between trying to stay uninjured and doing their job, a job which often requires the goalkeeper to get into positions on the ground or in the air which are inherently risky. Having had some experience with serving in this position, we also understand that some goalkeepers take advantage of the quick, brief dust-ups that are a normal part of the goalkeeper’s life to respond in ways that are, shall we say, unforgiving of opponents. Opponents, on the other hand, generally are not very forgiving of goalkeepers (except their own, of course) when it comes to a willingness to take their efforts to continue attacking the goal right to, and sometimes beyond, the edge of the goalkeeper’s safety.

All that said, it is the job of the Referee in situations involving challenges to or in the vicinity of the opposing goalkeeper to remember that the Laws of the Gamer require such challenges to cease immediately once the goalkeeper has control of the ball. “Control of the ball” is marked generally by having both hands on the ball or one hand on the ball against any kind of surface (ground, body, goalpost, etc.). Keeping in mind the need to factor in the age, skill, and experience of the players, Referees should be proactive in safeguarding the goalkeeper where the flow of play appears to include one or more opponents acting recklessly despite the goalkeeper arguably having control of the ball. In your scenario, the Referee should have begun closely monitoring the actions of the opponent who had “started running full force” at you, repositioning to warn the opponent that his behavior was being observed, and even providing a strong verbal caution against violating the Law, all in an attempt to forestall the impending offense. At some point, the apparent intent to interfere by the opponent would warrant a preemptive whistle.

On the other hand, you are not warranted in taking actions which go beyond mere “self protection” — after all, a more effective way to protect yourself in a case like this would be to simply sidestep the onrushing opponent. This often does not appeal to more macho goalkeepers whose mindset is, “it’s his job to avoid me so I will simply stand my ground and maybe get in a bit of mayhem on my own which will probably be ignored or justified by the Referee.”

In short, while we would have preferred to see the Referee in this case act in advance to prevent or stop a rapidly building momentum which, if left unchecked, is only likely to end badly for everyone involved in the likely collision, you had other opportunities besides snapping your arm outward in what could only be termed an aggressive manner. Hence our answer at the beginning of all this — yes, it could be a penalty (i.e., determined to be “striking” and, since it was by a defender within his own penalty area, leading to a penalty kick restart).

Better for all concerned, however, would have been a whistle by the Referee to stop play as the opponent’s run brought him close enough to justify a decision that there was an intent to interfere with the release of the ball into play, resulting in a caution for the opponent for unsporting behavior and an IFK restart for the defending team. Better yet would have been proactive officiating aimed at getting it through the opponent’s head that he needed to stop running at the goalkeeper once control of the ball was established.

…