Peru Goal Keeper make double save ... but was it clean

Discussion in 'Referee' started by techguy9707, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. techguy9707

    techguy9707 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Location:
    Antelope, CA
    I saw this over on the list but I had not seen it in the referee section.



    The u-20 keeper makes a save and then needs to save it again. but... is the second save clean? I am not so sure. Interested to hear other opinions.


  2. wguynes

    wguynes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Location:
    Altoona, IA
    Believe he meets the first requirement of touching the ball before the player.
    In addition, I don't see any unnecessary or excessive contact after that.
  3. uniqueconstraint

    uniqueconstraint Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Location:
    Indianapolis,Indiana - home of the Indy Eleven!
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    On the second go-round, does the player or the keeper touch the ball?

    Tough to tell, but it seems like the player is the one to touch the ball - whether the keeper kicked the player or the player "got shot by a sniper", is hard to tell.

    I guess at game speed I don't know what I'd do after a 60 yard sprint with a call like that to make - leave the field and start drinking. :confused:
  4. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Who kicks the ball out?
    It looks like the attacker does; and that is what the ref is calling.

    So then, what is the significance of the Keeper kicking the attacker's shin?
    A) Trifling, because the ball was either out or almost out?
    B) Trifling, because he had his chance and blew it?
    C) That was a foul, and it hurt?
    D) That was a cynical foul?
    E) That was a DOGSO foul?

    I am going with A, seasoned with a small amount of B.
    dadman repped this.


  5. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    Having seen a better quality vid at another site I'm fairly confident that the keeper got the ball before he made contact with the attacker (but the attacker has the last touch on the ball).
    So basically what wguynes said. ;)
  6. sjquakes08

    sjquakes08 Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Country:
    United States
    Either way, I think the attacker would have been a lot less "injured" if he hadn't just blown an opportunity for an easy goal.
    ColoradoRef, dadman and wguynes repped this.
  7. R.U. Kiddingme

    R.U. Kiddingme Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Location:
    iowa
    Ya know, if I see a kid running half way across the field, bustin his/her tail to save a ball from going into touch, I'm going to give that kid an extra centimeter or two for the effort.
    Same thing here, it probably would've been hard for me as center or my AR to see exactly what happened with such a bang-bang play at the end, but if I had to make a good guess, I would've called it a clean save just because of the extraordinary effort...maybe that's wrong at a high level but I'm not really there yet, so...
  8. soccersubjectively

    soccersubjectively Let us soccer

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Location:
    Little Rock
    Country:
    United States
    s/o to that hard working AR
    ArgylleRef and dadman repped this.
  9. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    There is no way I could call a foult there. All of that happened much to fast.
    I am with you, sir.
  10. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    And you.
  11. IllinoisRef

    IllinoisRef Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Country:
    Brazil
    What others said.
    The keeper genuinely seems to be trying to play the ball, I know we are not mind readers but I didn't notice any malice or attempt to kick the attacker. What I do see is a 50/50 where the keeper touch a split second earlier and the attacker was the last one to touch out of the goal line. Restart with a goal kick.
  12. Yale

    Yale Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Give that striker an Academy Award!
  13. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    I'm not sure the attacker is even faking it tbh. He took a hard kicked ball to the shin and the keepers boot to the knee. Even though it wasn't a foul I think he had legitimate reason to go down. :D
    dadman repped this.
  14. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States
    benefit of the doubt always to the attacker, it was a foul and deserved a pk.
  15. IllinoisRef

    IllinoisRef Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Country:
    Brazil
    L
    Why??

    Attackers never fake do they?

    I'd accept if you said you saw a clear foul but give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker? Once again, why?
  16. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States
    because what I saw after watching this numerous times was the keeper kick the attacker in the shin and yes the attacker must always get the benefit of the doubt. Feel free to say that the attacker was guilty of simulation, but I'm just not buying it.
  17. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    Hmmm... I'm more inclined to think that if anything, a keeper who gets the ball also gets the "benefit of the doubt," such as it is.
  18. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    When it comes to a foul, IMHO, this is absolute nonsense. If you see a foul, then call it. But unless you're sure there is a foul, no way do "give the benefit of the doubt" and call something you didn't see.
    SccrDon repped this.
  19. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States
    and I said that I saw a foul
  20. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    If that is your opinion, and you are the referee, then "benefit of the doubt" is not needed.
  21. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    But if it takes "watching this numerous times" to come to the conclusion that it was a foul, then perhaps doubt — and its concomitant benefit — might indeed come into play when you're the one out standing on the pitch with only the one fleeting opportunity to see and process it.
  22. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 BigSoccer Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 1999
    Country:
    United States
    yeah true...and you forgot the fact that I'd need to run the 70 yards in order to get there to see what I likely missed
  23. camconcay

    camconcay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Location:
    Georgia
    Country:
    United States
    Attacker touched it just before keeper, keeper kicks it off attackers right shin and follows through into left leg of attacker - ball well beyond both. Keeper is hyper focused on the ball and kicks the ball, natural follow through and attacker hits keepers leg/foot as much as keeper kicks attacker. No way I can call that a foul even if I were where the cameras were (which this referee was not nor anywhere near although AR did a great job making to the goal line just after the first save).
  24. techguy9707

    techguy9707 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Location:
    Antelope, CA
    Interesting conversations. Thanks. I posted the thread with the title like it is to get conversation going.

    I thought then, and now, the play was pretty clean. GK got the last block clean enough for me. No foul.

Share This Page