A bit confused

I made a post on this on the Keeper Forum a while ago, but the whole notion of "protect the keeper" has no bearing on reality.

“Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)”.

“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”

Protecting the players, including keepers, is right there in law 12. Some people just don’t like to try to enforce it.
 
I made a post on this on the Keeper Forum a while ago, but the whole notion of "protect the keeper" has no bearing on reality. The phrase was birthed in rec leagues where keepers don't know what they are doing and it is repeated by higher skilled leagues just as an excuse to pretend to be pissed off at the other team and the referee. (But it has been repeated so often that the original "pretend" has turned into actual anger now in many players) In reality and if anything... it should be protect the attacker, because any keeper that uses proper form only risks at most a bruise to themselves in most cases. The attacker on the other hand.... can potentially break a leg if they don't pull out of a 50/50 with a keeper.

And proper form does not include putting your head in the kicking legs path. Your head will be nearby, but not in danger of being kicked unless the attacker deliberately tries to kick your head instead of the ball.

Nonsense.
 
“Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)”.

“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”

Protecting the players, including keepers, is right there in law 12. Some people just don’t like to try to enforce it.

Not to mention that if the keeper is using the smother technique (assuming they've started keeper training from about U9), they aren't going to really be solid on it 90% of the time until around U14....there's usually some error somewhere along the way. Until U12, the best they've gotten usually is maybe just an introduction to the technique (perhaps even only at keeper camp, assuming that's what they do)....before then there's just too much else to cover that's a higher priority including catching, diving, high balls, and distribution. It's just not in the rotation enough to master.

And even if the keeper coach is covering it, it's usually in keeper training without strikers present and let's face it most keepers aren't there because they are talented strikers...they are generally good all round athletes but if they have a strikers gift they usually get pulled to the striker role which is more valuable in the sport. So the training they generally do get is at half speed. My U12 son has had maybe 10 sessions to date at full speed, and that's not enough to master it. He has to learn the various different defensive techniques, the various different zones, and when to come out. Of the skills, this is one of the hardest things to master (which is why early on you see so many of them either frozen to their line or coming out feet first). What's worse is that once they have it, the strikers are also learning other techniques to counter (such as the toe pick or the lofted chip) which have to be added into the equation (so my son has had to relearn the technique with every new adjustment he sees because he has to add consideration of that new technique into his judgement).

Then you have the players that once the keeper has executed a dive and is the ground, will try to kick it out of his hands. The issue with the GK is he's on the ground which makes him vulnerable to a kick as well as makes it harder for the ref to see it. It's not that the ref needs to give the GK special protection because he's the keeper, but I would hope that the ref would make an effort to discourage an dangerous play against any player whose prone (it's just the GK is prone more often than other players).
 
“Playing in a dangerous manner is any action that, while trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player himself)”.

“A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.”

Protecting the players, including keepers, is right there in law 12. Some people just don’t like to try to enforce it.
My argument was not that one shouldn't protect the players, but that the attackers are more in danger than the keepers. This just means that the phrase "protect the keeper" is overused and tiresome to my ears because most of the time the keeper is not in any danger. As you correctly point out, you can call dangerous play for an attacking player threatening injury to themselves.
 
Not to mention that if the keeper is using the smother technique (assuming they've started keeper training from about U9), they aren't going to really be solid on it 90% of the time until around U14....there's usually some error somewhere along the way. Until U12, the best they've gotten usually is maybe just an introduction to the technique (perhaps even only at keeper camp, assuming that's what they do)....before then there's just too much else to cover that's a higher priority including catching, diving, high balls, and distribution. It's just not in the rotation enough to master.

And even if the keeper coach is covering it, it's usually in keeper training without strikers present and let's face it most keepers aren't there because they are talented strikers...they are generally good all round athletes but if they have a strikers gift they usually get pulled to the striker role which is more valuable in the sport. So the training they generally do get is at half speed. My U12 son has had maybe 10 sessions to date at full speed, and that's not enough to master it. He has to learn the various different defensive techniques, the various different zones, and when to come out. Of the skills, this is one of the hardest things to master (which is why early on you see so many of them either frozen to their line or coming out feet first). What's worse is that once they have it, the strikers are also learning other techniques to counter (such as the toe pick or the lofted chip) which have to be added into the equation (so my son has had to relearn the technique with every new adjustment he sees because he has to add consideration of that new technique into his judgement).

Then you have the players that once the keeper has executed a dive and is the ground, will try to kick it out of his hands. The issue with the GK is he's on the ground which makes him vulnerable to a kick as well as makes it harder for the ref to see it. It's not that the ref needs to give the GK special protection because he's the keeper, but I would hope that the ref would make an effort to discourage an dangerous play against any player whose prone (it's just the GK is prone more often than other players).
I'm talking about the 50-50's where the keeper gets the ball in the air and then bumps shoulders with an attacker that has slowed their momentum to avoid a collision with the keeper. It is ridiculous that I then have to hear "HEY! Protect the keeper! Aren't you going to do anything about that" every single damn time this happens. and then I have to deal with at least 1 field player go "why isn't that a yellow". Meanwhile the keeper couldn't care less about what just happened.

Also, back in my day, I dislocated two knees with the smother technique. Not my legs, the attackers. Body vs leg. Body wins. Another time with the smother technique I got a giant bloody toe mark on my back because I rolled over to protect the ball. I was carried off the field, (I was 12 btw) but I never thought that it was the attackers fault that I executed poor form. I didn't really care that the attacker got a yellow for that particular 50-50. I just never made the mistake of rolling over again. Arguably, the 2 kids with dislocated knees also deserved yellows then because they took the same action as the other attacker by swinging their leg towards the ball on a 50-50. As a referee now though, I see that the attacker that injured me didn't consider the safety of his opponent and deserved the yellow.

Obviously, dangerous play should be discouraged, but to pretend that the situation in the 1st paragraph counts as dangerous play that needs to be discouraged is silly. I thought that when I was a keeper, and now as a ref I see the same looks on other keepers as they watch their coaches, parents and teammates make a bigger deal out of something that they were never worried by. The only time a keeper cares about being bumped or touched is after a goal is scored on them and they want the pity call to cancel the goal. I'm just tired of hearing something every time a keeper is touched. I obviously call fouls on keepers when they happen.
 
I'm talking about the 50-50's where the keeper gets the ball in the air and then bumps shoulders with an attacker that has slowed their momentum to avoid a collision with the keeper. It is ridiculous that I then have to hear "HEY! Protect the keeper! Aren't you going to do anything about that" every single damn time this happens. and then I have to deal with at least 1 field player go "why isn't that a yellow". Meanwhile the keeper couldn't care less about what just happened.

Well, as I've pointed out in the past, one of the problems with the soccer laws and in particular the foul rules is that they assume both players are entitled to their space, but they don't really address what happens when both players try to occupy the same space at the same time. Custom has developed that usually the player with contact on the ball has the right of way, though as you point out the 50-50 ball is the tough one. Furthermore, due to the quirks of English common law, the assumption is that if there's a collision someone must be at fault (there are no mere "accidents" since those don't happen in nature). That means the end result is pro-keeper or pro-striker in the situation you describe (there's no not making a choice). What's more, the players aren't operating on the same rules since the keeper can handle (and is expected to handle or punch) the ball, but the striker usually has the advantage of momentum and is charging in quite literally like a bull, so you are comparing apples and oranges.
 
Also, back in my day, I dislocated two knees with the smother technique. Not my legs, the attackers. Body vs leg. Body wins. Another time with the smother technique I got a giant bloody toe mark on my back because I rolled over to protect the ball. I was carried off the field, (I was 12 btw)...

Two dislocated knees and a back injury, all from the same technique?

How high a body count do you need to say that it is dangerous for kids at that skill level?
 
Two dislocated knees and a back injury, all from the same technique?

How high a body count do you need to say that it is dangerous for kids at that skill level?

Well it takes a long time to learn it so when would you have them start? If at later ages, then they'll be fumbling like a U10 goalkeeper...if at higher levels, then they'll be fumbling like an AYSO keeper at first....not even many of the pros are good at the technique (the Galaxy's Bingham for example is a product of the US Soccer system and is atrocious with this move....seems he's been trained in the old hold and stalk and when asked to perform this for the Quakes and Galaxy has struggled).

For that matter, if we are going to ban and smother and the high knee, I for one would like also the slide tackle and headers banned at least til higher levels and higher ages since it takes a real long time to learn those too and are also the source of many injuries....we've already acknowledged this with the header rule, so this seems like the next logical step. ;)
 
I agree about slide-tackle - should not be allowed until older age-levels because of the amount of practice needed to get it right.


But as previously stated, the rules of the sport have developed so that the player who makes contact with the ball first has the right of way. So, the same should apply to GK. If the GK makes contact with the ball prior to the attacker, subsequent contact is a foul on the attacking player. Its why the original video should not have been called a foul on the GK - regardless of how fast the attacking player was running or however much they opened themselves up to injury. It's not on the GK to think "I won't make this play because the opposing player may run into me after I get to it". A good GK is trained to disregard that thought entirely and focus on the "can I make a play prior to the opposing player's touch". And that's really tough to learn because everyone's natural instinct is to avoid the collision. To the video, it was absolutely the wrong call.

On a true 50-50 ball, I agree that casual fans or teammates parents might yell about protecting the GK. But I don't think its the Keepers or their parents - we know its anyone's ball. Our team's DA Keeper is phenomenal at the 50-50 balls in the air, and has the mentality that every one is hers.

And most of the reffing I have seen around this has been correct - that you let them play unless you see an elbow come in to play, or someone moving at an angle to take away from the other player's vertical space. And that applies to the GK too - they can't jump into an attacking player's upward movement. GKs trained on high balls are usually pretty good at avoiding that collision by using their arms and punching the ball, but if in doing so they make contact with an attackers vertical jump it should be called a penalty on them just the same.
 
but it seems here that some are arguing that involving GKs at all, or holding them to the same standards is inherently dangerous. And that's ridiculous. But it is why at the youngest ages kids generally play no-GK soccer. By the time they're 8 or 9 they generally have the mental and physical understanding not to run into the other player - even if the other player is a GK.

And the few times I have heard "protect the GK" is after they have secured the ball, and the attacker walks that fine line of one extra swipe to see if they REALLY have it. Just like the NFL there is that middle ground where they sort of have it, but its not secure. That's where a ref's judgment comes into play. My kid is a GK but our high-school team got a pretty important goal last nite after the opposing GK made a save on a spectacular dive, but had the ball pop out of her hands on making contact with the ground. And our forward played it in out of the air, off the bobble. If that was my daughter I would have been disappointed, but realized that it was a legitimate goal. And that no one's safety was put at risk.
 
. By the time they're 8 or 9 they generally have the mental and physical understanding not to run into the other player - even if the other player is a GK.

The argument right now in the GK community is whether goalkeepers (and goalkeeper training) should be deferred to age 10, particularly since coaches seem to be pushing the GK into full time roles younger and younger (the amount of advertisements right now for 2011/2012 GT goalkeepers on the girls side on the Soccer Boards is ridiculous). The argument is that coaches have unrealistic expectation over what a goalkeeper, particularly one who isn't in FT training, can do. Asking them to executive a dive, a 1v1 foot or smother save, or go for a high ball without proper safety training is risky, and the coaches don't understand it's going to take a keeper a bit of time to develop the skill safely (let alone effectively). The recommendations from the United Soccer Coaches, GK training, is that a minimum a kid should be 12 before they devote full time to the position. The argument against is that (short of a natural or a unicorn, and they do exist out there) it takes a long time to develop a GK skills and if they don't start early when the time comes for them to play in goal the coaches will still have unsafe or unrealistic expectations.

And the few times I have heard "protect the GK" is after they have secured the ball, and the attacker walks that fine line of one extra swipe to see if they REALLY have it. Just like the NFL there is that middle ground where they sort of have it, but its not secure. That's where a ref's judgment comes into play. My kid is a GK but our high-school team got a pretty important goal last nite after the opposing GK made a save on a spectacular dive, but had the ball pop out of her hands on making contact with the ground. And our forward played it in out of the air, off the bobble. If that was my daughter I would have been disappointed, but realized that it was a legitimate goal. And that no one's safety was put at risk.

The real irritating one is when the goalkeeper has a hand on it and the ball has clearly stopped, but the attacker still takes a shot at dislodging it. The GK Union has for some time been pushing that this should be an automatic carding offense if done deliberately or recklessly even if no contact is made since many times the keepers hand or arm will be hit as well (physics being what it is). Technically, the rules should already cover it, but in practice even in the pros tend to disregard it.
 
Two dislocated knees and a back injury, all from the same technique?

How high a body count do you need to say that it is dangerous for kids at that skill level?
The dislocated knees are from when the attacker tried to kick the ball hard as I smothered the ball. Most attackers would just try to jump over or at most, toe-poke the ball . But the ones that tried to full swing the ball through me were in for a surprise. My body would stop the ball and then I would smother the ball. This meant when they kicked I would end up smothering the ball and their foot. Their foot stopped moving, but the rest of their body still went flying forward at 20 mph over me. That is what cause the dislocations. Who is at fault? Is it the keeper and the smother technique? Or the attackers that decided to do a full swing? And the back injury was just me being toe-poked in the back real hard. Hurt like hell.
 
Back
Top