# Headgear



## Denied (Sep 5, 2018)

Probably the one area that should be protected the most, is not. I understand that it is not a common thing for a keeper to use but with head injury prevention such a hot topic these days I'm surprised that I don't see more kids wearing, especially keepers, some form of protection.

I don't feel that there is anything on the current market that addresses this issue unless you look at some of the Rugby style headgear. Even those won't offer total protection but it's probably better then nothing.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 5, 2018)

Denied said:


> Probably the one area that should be protected the most, is not. I understand that it is not a common thing for a keeper to use but with head injury prevention such a hot topic these days I'm surprised that I don't see more kids wearing, especially keepers, some form of protection.
> 
> I don't feel that there is anything on the current market that addresses this issue unless you look at some of the Rugby style headgear. Even those won't offer total protection but it's probably better then nothing.


It's why there needs to be a keepers union.  Headgear is allowed by the LoG. Cech famously wears them.  But: 1) part of it is social, particularly in the US....keepers who wear it risk ridicule for being soft and that's something a keeper can never be.....to get there you'd probably need a rule requiring it, but 2) you won't get that rule because the studies that are out there seem to indicate that the helmets currently allowed don't do that much to prevent injury (was riding with a girl this weekend who fell off from a horse that was standing still when it reared....still got a concussion even though she was wearing a top line helmet much better than those flimsy things worn by rugby players), 3) to get something that's actually effective it would need to look a lot more like a football or riding helmet and with keepers charging forwards that would obviously raise concerns about the safety of other players.  If we are looking for a better solution to protect keepers, revising the LoG to be more effective in protecting the keepers by penalizing offensive players would actually do more good....the reward for a foul against the keeper being a goalkick and yellow is ridiculous.  But any effective change would likely have to be done at a FIFA level, and these threads have already shown most people outside of goalkeeping know nothing about it.


----------



## ForumParent (Sep 5, 2018)

I was so curious what you all did for head protection, but didn’t want to clog up the recent knee protection thread! 

I ended up purchasing this for my DS the keeper.  He’s young, and the team is brand new so my plan re peer/social pressure is for him to just wear it from day 1 and for everyone to just assume that’s part of the keeper collection of gear.   

https://storelli.com/products/exoshield-soccer-headguard?variant=6912315260962&utm_medium=cpc&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=Google Shopping&gclid=CjwKCAjw_b3cBRByEiwAdG8WqoxKTllJGwccJFbzsTEV9Jhr7Q7AZkPksdqievNoWaXNGoscZX141BoC7kkQAvD_BwE


(Oh geez, sorry for the eight billion character link).    

I’m a little bummed to hear that head protection overall isn’t super effective, but fingers crossed it’s better than nothing.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 5, 2018)

Denied said:


> Probably the one area that should be protected the most, is not. I understand that it is not a common thing for a keeper to use but with head injury prevention such a hot topic these days I'm surprised that I don't see more kids wearing, especially keepers, some form of protection.
> 
> I don't feel that there is anything on the current market that addresses this issue unless you look at some of the Rugby style headgear. Even those won't offer total protection but it's probably better then nothing.


As a parent, the biggest reason I don't insist my child wear headgear is that there isn't any conclusive evidence that headgear reduces the risk of concussion.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 5, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> It's why there needs to be a keepers union.  Headgear is allowed by the LoG. Cech famously wears them.  But: 1) part of it is social, particularly in the US....keepers who wear it risk ridicule for being soft and that's something a keeper can never be.....to get there you'd probably need a rule requiring it, but 2) you won't get that rule because the studies that are out there seem to indicate that the helmets currently allowed don't do that much to prevent injury (was riding with a girl this weekend who fell off from a horse that was standing still when it reared....still got a concussion even though she was wearing a top line helmet much better than those flimsy things worn by rugby players), 3) to get something that's actually effective it would need to look a lot more like a football or riding helmet and with keepers charging forwards that would obviously raise concerns about the safety of other players.  If we are looking for a better solution to protect keepers, revising the LoG to be more effective in protecting the keepers by penalizing offensive players would actually do more good....the reward for a foul against the keeper being a goalkick and yellow is ridiculous.  But any effective change would likely have to be done at a FIFA level, and these threads have already shown most people outside of goalkeeping know nothing about it.


My son has worn headgear. If he caught any grief about it he would say take it up with Petr. If they looked at him funny, probably because they had no idea whp Petr was, he would then say I thought so.

There is a stigma about headgear but it's really up to the keepers to change it, not FIFA. I get it, rules can be changed, but I doubt they will.

On the area of helmets not providing much protection? I could say the same thing about shin guards. Seriously,  on any weekend you can see dozens of professional players rolling around grabbing their shins in agony...uhm I thought shin guards were supposed to protect them? Apparently not yet they are a required part of the game.

I agree that the helmets/headgear out there today won't prevent a concussion,  but neither do Football helmets and yet they use them.  In fact probably the worst blow to the head in Football is a knee to the helmet.. imagine not wearing one. 

Some of the Rugby headgear can be customized.  I'm going to let my son, who is 16, design his own.  Even if it just helps a little... it's worth it.


----------



## espola (Sep 5, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> It's why there needs to be a keepers union.  Headgear is allowed by the LoG. Cech famously wears them.  But: 1) part of it is social, particularly in the US....keepers who wear it risk ridicule for being soft and that's something a keeper can never be.....to get there you'd probably need a rule requiring it, but 2) you won't get that rule because the studies that are out there seem to indicate that the helmets currently allowed don't do that much to prevent injury (was riding with a girl this weekend who fell off from a horse that was standing still when it reared....still got a concussion even though she was wearing a top line helmet much better than those flimsy things worn by rugby players), 3) to get something that's actually effective it would need to look a lot more like a football or riding helmet and with keepers charging forwards that would obviously raise concerns about the safety of other players.  If we are looking for a better solution to protect keepers, revising the LoG to be more effective in protecting the keepers by penalizing offensive players would actually do more good....the reward for a foul against the keeper being a goalkick and yellow is ridiculous.  But any effective change would likely have to be done at a FIFA level, and these threads have already shown most people outside of goalkeeping know nothing about it.


I was at a tournament in midwest a couple of years ago and a keeper parent told a horror story of an opposing keeper who dived face-first into a strikers kick.  The opponent's cleats caught the keeper just above the lips and peeled the face back up beyond the eyebrows.  No helmet short of an ice hockey cage is going to protect against that.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 5, 2018)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> My kid doesn't wear head gear and will not hear of it. If she goes up in a crowd and brings the knee up, she SHOULD be able to keep other players away (to an extent).  My bigger concern is the diving stop where the other player doesn't/can't hold up or the referee who allows the other team to continue kicking at it even though she has her hands on the ball.  She has come along way from when she would (accidently) stop the ball with her face since her hands weren't quick enough.


I think an attempt to play the ball under the control of the keeper should be an automatic yellow (how is it any better than DOGSO?) and a DK from the top of the penalty line.


----------



## espola (Sep 5, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> I think an attempt to play the ball under the control of the keeper should be an automatic yellow (how is it any better than DOGSO?) and a DK from the top of the penalty line.


No matter what rules we put in to protect keepers, there will still be borderline cases.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 5, 2018)

espola said:


> No matter what rules we put in to protect keepers, there will still be borderline cases.


Agree.


----------



## Dargle (Sep 5, 2018)

Some studies suggest that they may be counter productive,  pointing to something called the "Superman Effect."  This is where players wearing the head gear feel less vulnerable and therefore make riskier plays than they would without the headgear.  Since the headgear doesn't actually offer much protection, the result is worse than wearing no protection at all.  I don't think the studies focused on GKs specifically though.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 5, 2018)

I guess something is better than nothing, we have about 7-8 girls on our team wearing this as one got a mild concussion from heading the ball - https://unequal.com/halo-3/

Our Keeper DD wears it also.  It’s light, small, and probably offers little protection.  She feels more protected, but it is like the shin guard comment - keeper pant pads, and jersey elbow pads won’t do much to protect from a real impact.

I always looked at as every lit bit helps, and the psychology of feeling more protected in the field of play.  The Superman comment, that got me thinking...I have never seen her do anything dangerous, but I never thought of it from that perspective.


----------



## espola (Sep 5, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> I guess something is better than nothing, we have about 7-8 girls on our team wearing this as one got a mild concussion from heading the ball - https://unequal.com/halo-3/
> 
> Our Keeper DD wears it also.  It’s light, small, and probably offers little protection.  She feels more protected, but it is like the shin guard comment - keeper pant pads, and jersey elbow pads won’t do much to protect from a real impact.
> 
> I always looked at as every lit bit helps, and the psychology of feeling more protected in the field of play.  The Superman comment, that got me thinking...I have never seen her do anything dangerous, but I never thought of it from that perspective.


Those might protect against surface bruises or cuts, but they do next to nothing for concussions.


----------



## Denied (Sep 5, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> As a parent, the biggest reason I don't insist my child wear headgear is that there isn't any conclusive evidence that headgear reduces the risk of concussion.


Do we need conclusive evidence to protect our kids? What if it only protects 10%? Is that enough? Maybe if enough keepers start wearing them some company will decide to invest in making a better one. Also, correct if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFL have a study that said that playing Football(head to head collisions) does not cause concussions? I think we all know that they were wrong.


----------



## Denied (Sep 5, 2018)

Dargle said:


> Some studies suggest that they may be counter productive,  pointing to something called the "Superman Effect."  This is where players wearing the head gear feel less vulnerable and therefore make riskier plays than they would without the headgear.  Since the headgear doesn't actually offer much protection, the result is worse than wearing no protection at all.  I don't think the studies focused on GKs specifically though.


I saw something similar but it was a Rugby study.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 5, 2018)

espola said:


> Those might protect against surface bruises or cuts, but they do next to nothing for concussions.


I don’t disagree, as a keeper the best thing to protect yourself is to be loud, protect yourself (knee up, etc.) and deliver a blow (come out hard) instead of receiving the impact...be the windshield not the bug.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 5, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> I don’t disagree, as a keeper the best thing to protect yourself is to be loud, protect yourself (knee up, etc.) and deliver a blow (come out hard) instead of receiving the impact...be the windshield not the bug.


Exact same with heading. If you head the ball correctly you will not get a concussion. If you let the ball head you, you likely will.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 5, 2018)

Denied said:


> Do we need conclusive evidence to protect our kids? What if it only protects 10%? Is that enough? Maybe if enough keepers start wearing them some company will decide to invest in making a better one. Also, correct if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFL have a study that said that playing Football(head to head collisions) does not cause concussions? I think we all know that they were wrong.


It's a chicken and egg problem.  Particularly given our culture (with its emphasis on winning and being tough), keepers won't be willing to do it unless someone (parents or authorities) force it.  Parents have a free rider problem-- if they enforce it and others don't, their kid might come under criticism from coaches, refs, players and other parents for being soft (and unless their kid is the naturally gifted 3% of keepers who at 9 years old can properly protect the high corner via an extension dive and write their own ticket for any team, good luck with that).  The authorities won't force it without some proof they'll do some good.  Companies won't invest in improving them until there's something that will be accepted by the authorities and they know they'll make money out of it.

Remember the NSCAA guidelines says players shouldn't specialize in keeping until age 12.  So for the under 12 it's got to be something that the kids can all share, is inexpensive so coaches can purchase, and doesn't run risks like lice transmission before orgs like AYSO and USSF get behind it.  And the more likely response by the authorities (given that they usually take the less litigious, easier way out) is to just outlaw certain keeper moves before age 12 (like front smothers and extended diving).  They'll never impose rules which are more protective and stringent for the older keepers but let the under 10s part time keepers go without protection...too much liability risk.

The best way to get companies to make and keepers to use is through the MLS...but same problem there....the MLS doesn't want to look soft in front of other leagues.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 5, 2018)

Denied said:


> Do we need conclusive evidence to protect our kids? What if it only protects 10%? Is that enough? Maybe if enough keepers start wearing them some company will decide to invest in making a better one. Also, correct if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFL have a study that said that playing Football(head to head collisions) does not cause concussions? I think we all know that they were wrong.


If there was evidence showing that it did provide 10% protection that would be “conclusive” to me.  Problem is there is nothing to suggest headgear even does that.  Sure, it seems like it should be good for something and using that logic  I encouraged my daughter to wear one, and she did for a couple seasons.  She started to “forget” to pack it in her bag and eventually refused to wear it at all. 

The point about the Superman effect is real.  Interestingly, there’s an argument that helmets in American football actually promote concussions because they allow head to head blows without contusions (bruises) and split scalps, thus providing a false sense of invincibility.  I read a very convincing article in SI years ago lobbying to eliminate helmets, which would stop players from leading with their heads like weapons.  Regardless, concussions occur because of head snap, change of direction causing the brain to hit the interior of the skull. The most effective way to combat this is to strengthen the neck muscles and teach players proper technique, including how to fall (tucking and rolling). 

I don’t criticize anyone for using headgear for their kids.  But if you want to see more use of headgear, there ought to be something that demonstrates it’s effectiveness to promote.


----------



## pewpew (Sep 5, 2018)

Not one mention of that big white post (2 of them actually) and the effect it has on the head when the two meet under the worst of conditions. Depending where the two meet..headgear won't matter.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 6, 2018)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> My kid doesn't wear head gear and will not hear of it. If she goes up in a crowd and brings the knee up, she SHOULD be able to keep other players away (to an extent).  My bigger concern is the diving stop where the other player doesn't/can't hold up or the referee who allows the other team to continue kicking at it even though she has her hands on the ball.  She has come along way from when she would (accidently) stop the ball with her face since her hands weren't quick enough.


Yeah that is my concern too.  At a recent tournament it was clear that the Ref. wasn't going to protect my Keeper.  When you can say 1001 after the Keeper has the ball and the kicker still comes in kicking, there is a problem.  I didn't need to say a word because her defender caught on and started running in front of her to protect her even though she already had the ball.  Of course that produced a fight and that same defender got a yellow card.  If the ref. had been appropriately protecting my Keeper, it wouldn't have happened.  Normally I hear parents on our side say, "Hey, protect our Keeper" when in fact my Keeper puts herself in a given situation.  What I saw at the tournament was not one of those situations.  Refs. need to understand the difference.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> If there was evidence showing that it did provide 10% protection that would be “conclusive” to me.  Problem is there is nothing to suggest headgear even does that.  Sure, it seems like it should be good for something and using that logic  I encouraged my daughter to wear one, and she did for a couple seasons.  She started to “forget” to pack it in her bag and eventually refused to wear it at all.
> 
> The point about the Superman effect is real.  Interestingly, there’s an argument that helmets in American football actually promote concussions because they allow head to head blows without contusions (bruises) and split scalps, thus providing a false sense of invincibility.  I read a very convincing article in SI years ago lobbying to eliminate helmets, which would stop players from leading with their heads like weapons.  Regardless, concussions occur because of head snap, change of direction causing the brain to hit the interior of the skull. The most effective way to combat this is to strengthen the neck muscles and teach players proper technique, including how to fall (tucking and rolling).
> 
> I don’t criticize anyone for using headgear for their kids.  But if you want to see more use of headgear, there ought to be something that demonstrates it’s effectiveness to promote.


What do you think about this study:

https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/soccer-headgear-ratings.html


----------



## gkrent (Sep 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> As a parent, the biggest reason I don't insist my child wear headgear is that there isn't any conclusive evidence that headgear reduces the risk of concussion.


As a recipient of a massive concussion while wearing a helmet, I concur that the only thing rugby style soft headgear is going to prevent is bumps, bruises and cuts.


----------



## vegasguy (Sep 6, 2018)

It is a personal choice. A keeper needs to play with confidence and if the head gear gives them more confidence then it is good for them.  My keeper has never even considered head gear and used to have Petr fathead on his wall.  My keeper chooses not to wear pants and if he has a long sleeve jersey he cuts it off above the pads.  He doesn't like them.  He says he feels constricted in long pants and long sleeves.  Others swear by the long sleeves as they feel protected.  Wear what makes you confident and protected..


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 6, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> What do you think about this study:
> 
> https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/soccer-headgear-ratings.html


That's probably the most stringent study I've seen. 

The only thing is that I don't understand the metrics underlying their star-rating system.  There is a table that shows a range of figures equating to the stars, but I'm not a physics expert, so I don't understand what the figures derived from the equations actually translates to in basic terminology.  For example, a 5 star rating equates to the numbers 0.0 to 0.3.  Do the numbers represent the factor by which a given headgear reduces the concussion causing forces?  In other words, a 0.0 means it reduces those forces to zero?  That seems unlikely.  Is it a percentage?  In other words the concussive force is reduced to zero percent or 3o percent?  Or is it .03 percent?  Or is it a calculation based on the percentage of likely hood of getting a concussion given a certain force of impact?  It seems amazing if the study shows that the given 5 star headgear reduces the forces to nearly zero.  That would be something worth shouting from the rooftops. 

The last nit-pick I'd have about that study is that they seem to be measuring head to head impacts like field players get when two players leap to head a ball, rather than the deceleration type concussions I think are more common.  I've seen three different teammates of my DD's get serious concussions in soccer, and all came from collisions where the head snapped back after a fall, rather than getting knocked on the skull by another skull. 

But it is good to see some science being applied to the problem, even if I don't understand it all.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 6, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> What do you think about this study:
> 
> https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/soccer-headgear-ratings.html


If I owned a headgear company, I'd get a local youth club to require using my headgear for all their players in exchange for a sponsorship.  Then use a local university or independent lab to record the incident rates of concussions among the players at that club vs another club over the span of a season or two.  That would be a pretty useful marketing tool if the results actually showed a difference.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 6, 2018)

On a side topic, we are getting our DD Keeper a Dentist made mouth-guard.  We are getting the cast made next week.  Long story...but we know kids who have gotten teeth knocked out playing soccer and basketball.  There are some studies both for and against mouth-guards preventing or lessening the severity of a concussion - I am not claiming they do or do not, just that I have seen both.  We are not doing it for concussion reasons, but to protect her choppers.  The girls are getting bigger and stronger,and the collisions are becoming more and more frequent and physical.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 6, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> What do you think about this study:
> 
> https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/soccer-headgear-ratings.html


I haven't read the study, but the Virginia Tech logo is prominently displayed on the manufacturer's website along with strange disclaimers as to the protection afforded "For given VA Tech impacts", so that's all I need to know.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 6, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I haven't read the study, but the Virginia Tech logo is prominently displayed on the manufacturer's website along with strange disclaimers as to the protection afforded "For given VA Tech impacts", so that's all I need to know.


I was skeptical about that too.  But I did some research on them.  Apparently VA Tech has a group that's been involved in helmet testing for football for some time, and created a ratings system to try to measure effectiveness in concussion prevention.  This was their first study for soccer headgear.  A quick google search shows several studies that they had published in peer-reviewed research publications, so it's not a total sham.  Whether or not VA Tech gets anything out of this deal, I have no clue, but it does appear to be independent of manufacturer's control.  

After a more careful study of their test methodology, I think it's probably as thorough as they can devise, but I think the star-rating system definitely skews the results to seem more impressive than maybe the numbers show.  It's not a bad comparison of products, relative to each other, but there is quite a lot of guesswork being used on calculating the "probability" of the rate of concussions given the one type of collision they are simulating.  It's hard for me to believe a Storelli headband (rated 5 stars) can reduce probability of concussion to almost zero, which is what is suggested by their rating table.  Not even a NASCAR HANS device could do that.  

I think it would be less misleading to state that headgear A is 20% more effective in reducing _lateral forces_ than brand B, etc.   But giving out star-ratings makes it seem like a consumer product test rather than a scientific analysis for concussion prevention.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 6, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> On a side topic, we are getting our DD Keeper a Dentist made mouth-guard.  We are getting the cast made next week.  Long story...but we know kids who have gotten teeth knocked out playing soccer and basketball.  There are some studies both for and against mouth-guards preventing or lessening the severity of a concussion - I am not claiming they do or do not, just that I have seen both.  We are not doing it for concussion reasons, but to protect her choppers.  The girls are getting bigger and stronger,and the collisions are becoming more and more frequent and physical.


Update us on how she likes it.  We got a store bought mouth guard for my DD at about the same age, but she couldn't communicate with her defense very well.  She kept having to take it out to shout at them, and eventually stopped using it.  I bet the custom one would be better.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 6, 2018)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> My kid doesn't wear head gear and will not hear of it. If she goes up in a crowd and brings the knee up, she SHOULD be able to keep other players away (to an extent).  My bigger concern is the diving stop where the other player doesn't/can't hold up or the referee who allows the other team to continue kicking at it even though she has her hands on the ball.  She has come along way from when she would (accidently) stop the ball with her face since her hands weren't quick enough.


I called a foul/PK and yellow card against a keeper who brought the knee up into a players stomach.  Forward went straight up for the header and keeper came forward with the knee into the attacker.  PK was scored and ended up being the winning goal.  So, make sure your player does not commit a foul when bring that knee up.


----------



## pewpew (Sep 6, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> On a side topic, we are getting our DD Keeper a Dentist made mouth-guard.  We are getting the cast made next week.  Long story...but we know kids who have gotten teeth knocked out playing soccer and basketball.  There are some studies both for and against mouth-guards preventing or lessening the severity of a concussion - I am not claiming they do or do not, just that I have seen both.  We are not doing it for concussion reasons, but to protect her choppers.  The girls are getting bigger and stronger,and the collisions are becoming more and more frequent and physical.





Mystery Train said:


> Update us on how she likes it.  We got a store bought mouth guard for my DD at about the same age, but she couldn't communicate with her defense very well.  She kept having to take it out to shout at them, and eventually stopped using it.  I bet the custom one would be better.


Take a look at SISU mouth guards. Very thin but still strong. Makes talking and drinking easier. Daughter used to use one but as her communication got better she still didn't like all that talking with the mouthpiece in. YMMV. Good luck!!


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 6, 2018)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> My bigger concern is the diving stop where the other player doesn't/can't hold up or the referee who allows the other team to continue kicking at it even though she has her hands on the ball.  .


  Exactly.   Gave up a goal where she was kicked in the arm and the ball went into the net.   Really?


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 6, 2018)

vegasguy said:


> It is a personal choice. A keeper needs to play with confidence and if the head gear gives them more confidence then it is good for them.  My keeper has never even considered head gear and used to have Petr fathead on his wall.  My keeper chooses not to wear pants and if he has a long sleeve jersey he cuts it off above the pads.  He doesn't like them.  He says he feels constricted in long pants and long sleeves.  Others swear by the long sleeves as they feel protected.  Wear what makes you confident and protected..


My daughter would forgo the shin guards if she could.   Speed and quickness is something she has and doesn't want to give up.   She plays basketball and takes more bumps and bruises there then she has at keeper, including hits to the head on rebounds.  Pretty much every girl that keeps playing as they get older is going to go head to head with other girls on the field as they try to head the ball, so if head gear is required it should be for everyone.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 6, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I called a foul/PK and yellow card against a keeper who brought the knee up into a players stomach.  Forward went straight up for the header and keeper came forward with the knee into the attacker.  PK was scored and ended up being the winning goal.  So, make sure your player does not commit a foul when bring that knee up.


If the keeper had grabbed the ball first before the knee hits the attacker would that have made a difference?


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Update us on how she likes it.  We got a store bought mouth guard for my DD at about the same age, but she couldn't communicate with her defense very well.  She kept having to take it out to shout at them, and eventually stopped using it.  I bet the custom one would be better.


I had Invisline Braces, upper and lower. The trays that you go through are on the thinner side but the retainers are definitely thicker. I have a friend of mine who is a Dentist and he had offered to make my retainers if I ever lost them. Curious to know how thick they could be made. Just a thought.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 6, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I called a foul/PK and yellow card against a keeper who brought the knee up into a players stomach.  Forward went straight up for the header and keeper came forward with the knee into the attacker.  PK was scored and ended up being the winning goal.  So, make sure your player does not commit a foul when bring that knee up.


I think there's a general consensus that when the knee is used offensively instead of defensively it is a foul.  Where there's still a log of disagreement is whether the act of raising a knee is itself dangerous play and/or reckless.  The reality is that nearly every professional trainer (from the highest to the lowest levels) teaches goalkeepers to raise their knee (though they may disagree on how aggressive it should be).  It becomes part of their muscle memory.  If it is dangerous play, then it should result in an IDF any time it is even attempted and there is another player in striking range (even if not struck).  If it's not dangerous/reckless play, then you get a lot of who is charging whom.  Fair point that if a field player were to do it it wouldn't be tolerated, but the reality is that it's part of the accepted technique at the current time. I think FIFA really needs to speak on this point definitively once and for all.

And I'd be willing to trade it if refs started to call attempts to play a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper and FIFA beefed up the rules so that the keeper no longer loses the handling advantage and the biggest danger for the striking player is a yellow card.  I'd say attempts to play the ball in the keepers possession should result in a yellow + IDF from the penalty line, if contact in a negligent or reckless manner a yellow + DFK from the penalty line, violent contact a red +DFK.  

There's too much imbalance right now in the rules to protect the goalkeeper, who holds one of the most (if not the most) dangerous positions on the field.  The revision of the triple jeopardy rule was one attempt to balance things.  I think they need to look at knees and possession as well to further balance things to make sure keepers are not given an unfair advantage nor unnecessarily put in danger.

p.s. loving the goalkeeper forum.  More interesting discussion here than in the regular forum right now.  Learning a lot.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 6, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> I think there's a general consensus that when the knee is used offensively instead of defensively it is a foul.  Where there's still a log of disagreement is whether the act of raising a knee is itself dangerous play and/or reckless.  The reality is that nearly every professional trainer (from the highest to the lowest levels) teaches goalkeepers to raise their knee (though they may disagree on how aggressive it should be).  It becomes part of their muscle memory.  If it is dangerous play, then it should result in an IDF any time it is even attempted and there is another player in striking range (even if not struck).  If it's not dangerous/reckless play, then you get a lot of who is charging whom.  Fair point that if a field player were to do it it wouldn't be tolerated, but the reality is that it's part of the accepted technique at the current time. I think FIFA really needs to speak on this point definitively once and for all.
> 
> And I'd be willing to trade it if refs started to call attempts to play a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper and FIFA beefed up the rules so that the keeper no longer loses the handling advantage and the biggest danger for the striking player is a yellow card.  I'd say attempts to play the ball in the keepers possession should result in a yellow + IDF from the penalty line, if contact in a negligent or reckless manner a yellow + DFK from the penalty line, violent contact a red +DFK.
> 
> ...



p.p.s. the buildout line rules were revised this year.  If there's a line violation, the prior award was a free kick.  But that just makes the keeper give up his handling advantage in favor of what's effectively a goalkick, and since it's not a carding offense, unless the ref was prepared to call a redo or verbally warn the player crossing, the keeper would be put in a worse situation.  The revision means the free kick is now taken from the penalty line, which makes sense (restoring the advantage the keeper previously held).  Know it's not FIFA but it makes sense...same rationale here.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 6, 2018)

p.p.p.s  as long as I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers, the other thing that drives me nuts is on corner kicks I have yet to see a ref call impeding when they put a striker right there to block the goalkeeper's path on these challenges.  That's clearly covered in the laws now, but rarely ever called (let them play, after all), and another thing I would trade the knee for, particularly for an express mention in the laws.  I saw a coach put a striker in a U12 game to impede the keeper off a direct free kick (which is both impeding and offside).  Ref didn't do anything about it until it was called out.


----------



## espola (Sep 6, 2018)

In my soccer lifetime, a recurring theme seems to have been that the powers that be hate goalkeepers.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 6, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> p.p.p.s  as long as I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers, the other thing that drives me nuts is on corner kicks I have yet to see a ref call impeding when they put a striker right there to block the goalkeeper's path on these challenges.  That's clearly covered in the laws now, but rarely ever called (let them play, after all), and another thing I would trade the knee for, particularly for an express mention in the laws.  I saw a coach put a striker in a U12 game to impede the keeper off a direct free kick (which is both impeding and offside).  Ref didn't do anything about it until it was called out.


No player has the right to "knee" any other player, period.

The situation you describe on corner kicks is NOT a foul. "All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent." Any player can stand right next to any other player and not move, including next to a keeper on a corner kick. 

As for the free kick, it would be offside (assuming all other requirements) if the player impacts the keeper's ability to make a play on the ball.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 6, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> No player has the right to "knee" any other player, period.
> 
> The situation you describe on corner kicks is NOT a foul. "All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent." Any player can stand right next to any other player and not move, including next to a keeper on a corner kick.
> 
> As for the free kick, it would be offside (assuming all other requirements) if the player impacts the keeper's ability to make a play on the ball.


Au contraire:

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/blocking-or-holding-the-goalkeeper-at-a-corner-kick-or-free-kick/
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/marking-the-keeper-at-corner-kicks/
Law 12: "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player....impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made"

IIUC there was some big controversy in the revision of the 2007 laws where it was expressly called out, but then reworded because it was feared that the implication would be that the keeper could be impeded on something other than a corner.  Perhaps Surfref has more knowledge, but it's not a new problem.

I take your point though.  All players have the right to their position.  The problem of course is that such concept doesn't make any sense.  What if 2 players want to occupy the same position.  The Laws, IIUC, don't really state who has precedence.  What if 2 players on the corner want to occupy the same space?  Whoever gets there first?  In any case, the rebuttal by a keeper to this is easy.  Striker stands in front of the keeper to impede.  Keeper moves to the side.  Striker follows.  The clear intent has been establish by the striker to impede as opposed to just hold their position.


----------



## pewpew (Sep 6, 2018)

It's the GKs job to pull a player in to "gently remove"  the offending player that's trying to disrupt their position on the field. 
And as far as going up for a ball with their knee up.. or when stretching out on the ground and bending the upper leg/studs up..I tell my GK the striker has two choices if they want to play so aggressive as to try and run right thru them. 1) Hit the eject button and pull out of the play. 2) Eat a knee or take the studs wherever they land. My kid's safety comes first before some kid hell-bent on scoring a goal that will do anything to score that goal.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 6, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Au contraire:
> 
> http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/blocking-or-holding-the-goalkeeper-at-a-corner-kick-or-free-kick/
> http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/marking-the-keeper-at-corner-kicks/
> ...


It's not my point, my quote is from the laws. It's your questions that make no sense. Two people can't occupy the same space, nothing to do with who has precedence, but you know that. Yes, whoever gets there first. Something in between and the referee decides if it is a foul. 

But, nice red herring counselor, as the above was not the point I was responding to.   My response was to your scenario chiding a coach for telling his player to stand next to the GK on a CK, contending if they did so and didn't move it was impeding. Still wrong.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 6, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> , my quote is from the laws.


So was mine.  It was a DFK.  Keeper moved...striker moved with him...it was clear from everyone who was watching, including me who had no dog in the fight, that the intent and instruction of the coach was to impede the keeper.  My son had a similar scenario a few weeks back where the striker was pushing him...referee didn't do anything there either, also on a DFK.  For the keeper, it's also a problem of physics....since the keeper is on the line usually on a DFK he can't get back on if there is someone blocking his way.

The issue of space, though, is a fascinating one.  You are right that the laws don't give anyone precedence, yet give players the right to occupy their space.  Effectively that means whoever gets there first.  So with respect to the knee, keeper charges striker (knee up) and moves into strikers space...clearly a foul irrespective of the knee...knee might make it a reckless foul depending on whether the knee is to be regarded as reckless on which there is a split of opinion.  Striker moves into space occupied by keeper, striker foul irrespective of whether the keeper plays with the knee up.  Keeper moves into space near striker but does not hit striker, if the knee is considered dangerous play (on which there's a split) then there should be a IDK.  Both players move into space neither occupies, well then it just got a lot more complicated.  But the knee problem and the impeding problem are 2 sides of the same coin, so it doesn't surprise me you come down on both sides against the keeper...you in fact are an example of my point.  

And stop with the counselor stuff.  It's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't advance your argument.  Or maybe you are taking a page from our book...if you have the law, pound the law, if you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have neither, pound the table.


----------



## espola (Sep 6, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> So was mine.  It was a DFK.  Keeper moved...striker moved with him...it was clear from everyone who was watching, including me who had no dog in the fight, that the intent and instruction of the coach was to impede the keeper.  My son had a similar scenario a few weeks back where the striker was pushing him...referee didn't do anything there either, also on a DFK.  For the keeper, it's also a problem of physics....since the keeper is on the line usually on a DFK he can't get back on if there is someone blocking his way.
> 
> The issue of space, though, is a fascinating one.  You are right that the laws don't give anyone precedence, yet give players the right to occupy their space.  Effectively that means whoever gets there first.  So with respect to the knee, keeper charges striker (knee up) and moves into strikers space...clearly a foul irrespective of the knee...knee might make it a reckless foul depending on whether the knee is to be regarded as reckless on which there is a split of opinion.  Striker moves into space occupied by keeper, striker foul irrespective of whether the keeper plays with the knee up.  Keeper moves into space near striker but does not hit striker, if the knee is considered dangerous play (on which there's a split) then there should be a IDK.  Both players move into space neither occupies, well then it just got a lot more complicated.  But the knee problem and the impeding problem are 2 sides of the same coin, so it doesn't surprise me you come down on both sides against the keeper...you in fact are an example of my point.
> 
> And stop with the counselor stuff.  It's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't advance your argument.  Or maybe you are taking a page from our book...if you have the law, pound the law, if you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have neither, pound the table.


The legitimate purpose for a keeper to raise his knee is to provide protection for his own abdomen below the ribs.  It is not legitimate for the keeper to raise his leg in a way that threatens or endangers an opponent.  The fact that reasonable people will disagree about where the boundary between those extremes is is why we hire referees.


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Sep 7, 2018)

Surfref said:


> I called a foul/PK and yellow card against a keeper who brought the knee up into a players stomach.  Forward went straight up for the header and keeper came forward with the knee into the attacker.  PK was scored and ended up being the winning goal.  So, make sure your player does not commit a foul when bring that knee up.


Not really my concern that she doesn't "commit a foul."  She isn't throwing a knee into the abdomen of the other player, she is brining the knee up, as she was taught, I assume to give her some protection from the player hell bent on running her over.  Call a foul, don't call a foul, don't really give a darn.  My daughter's safety is more important than a foul.  My kid never attempts to hurt anyone, and will continue to use the technique she is being taught.   

Forwards come charging in at full speed with their head down, not concerned at all for my kid's safety.  I have seen more than  few referees let opponents continue to kick at balls in the outstretched hands of a keeper, including my kid, and not make a call.  Perhaps the complete disregard for keepers safety is part of the problem.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

espola said:


> The legitimate purpose for a keeper to raise his knee is to provide protection for his own abdomen below the ribs.  It is not legitimate for the keeper to raise his leg in a way that threatens or endangers an opponent.  The fact that reasonable people will disagree about where the boundary between those extremes is is why we hire referees.



I think this is a good, concise assessment of where we should currently be, but 1) there seems to be disagreement out there over whether raising a knee is ever acceptable (i.e. the act of raising a knee near an opponent in and of itself threatens or endangers an opponent), 2) I think you are right about the boundary, and 3) the problem, like impeding, is that it gets into determining the intent of the party committing the foul, which is not mentioned by the laws.  The laws often times also do rely on the opinion of the ref...absolutely correct.  But it's also not up to the ref to write the laws, and there's enough disagreement out there that it leads to a major impact on how the game itself is played, which should never happen.  The function of the laws was to standardized how the game was to be played, and we get enough of that with refs ignoring whole parts of the laws with the "play on" school of thought, such as when the ball is in the keepers possession and they say play on.  It's FIFA's responsibility to provide better guidance on this issue, if not for the sake of the keeper, than for the sake of the game.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 7, 2018)

Lots of good comments, from my perspective raising the knee on attacking a high ball is done for three reasons, if done properly for momentum in the jump, to create space to receive the ball, and to protect yourself (nobody wants to run into a knee).  There are many offensive players who try to bowl over keepers to get the ball.  Coming out with the knee is done to prevent that.  Sometimes through balls, etc. Are 50/50 balls and if there is going to be contact in would prefer my player is protected and not on the receiving end of the collision.  Being strong, coming out physical, with the knee up consistently hopefully will players think about attacking the GK.

Last weekend on a CK, our daughter was literally grabbed, and tackled going up for a corner, dragged to the ground with no call.  Definitely a foul, and you can see from the game film.  The ref let them "play".   If offensive players are going play to impede/obstruct a keeper, there are a lot tricks (some might call them dirty, some may say gamesmanship) keepers can use to create space and get players off of them.


----------



## Keeper07 (Sep 7, 2018)

My husband always tells my daughter to raise her knee up for protection. He also tells her to make sure she brings her elbow out when grabbing the ball to protect her face/neck because she’s in her box and is in her right to do so. What’s the sentiment on that elbow?


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> So was mine.  It was a DFK.  Keeper moved...striker moved with him...it was clear from everyone who was watching, including me who had no dog in the fight, that the intent and instruction of the coach was to impede the keeper.  My son had a similar scenario a few weeks back where the striker was pushing him...referee didn't do anything there either, also on a DFK.  For the keeper, it's also a problem of physics....since the keeper is on the line usually on a DFK he can't get back on if there is someone blocking his way.
> 
> The issue of space, though, is a fascinating one.  You are right that the laws don't give anyone precedence, yet give players the right to occupy their space.  Effectively that means whoever gets there first.  So with respect to the knee, keeper charges striker (knee up) and moves into strikers space...clearly a foul irrespective of the knee...knee might make it a reckless foul depending on whether the knee is to be regarded as reckless on which there is a split of opinion.  Striker moves into space occupied by keeper, striker foul irrespective of whether the keeper plays with the knee up.  Keeper moves into space near striker but does not hit striker, if the knee is considered dangerous play (on which there's a split) then there should be a IDK.  Both players move into space neither occupies, well then it just got a lot more complicated.  But the knee problem and the impeding problem are 2 sides of the same coin, so it doesn't surprise me you come down on both sides against the keeper...you in fact are an example of my point.
> 
> And stop with the counselor stuff.  It's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't advance your argument.  Or maybe you are taking a page from our book...if you have the law, pound the law, if you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have neither, pound the table.


Ok, I'll try to speak the language you understand: Your mommy of a keeper bias is clouding both your perception and judgment.  You think that because your kid is a keeper they should get special status (aside from the obvious control of the ball protection.)  
"As I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers"=totally false

If two players at midfield came together for a ball, and one raised their knee up the level of the opponent's chest or head while they were both trying to play a ball, you would have no problem (or shouldn't) with the referee calling a foul for a dangerous play.  But when it's the keeper, you want a special standard applied. 

If two players are at midfield are standing next to each other and a ball comes toward them, you would have no problem with the "striker" running in the path of the opposing mid-fielder in attempt to get to the ball first. (This is called playing good soccer.)  I hope you wouldn't be standing up yelling "impeding" as it is a fair challenge for the ball. But if it's your keeper, you want the offensive players to part like the red sea, and put down a red carpet so they can jump up in the air with an outstretched knee to keep all opponents away, so they can catch the ball in their arms. 

I am sure you will now add more and different facts to your original scenario: "the other thing that drives me nuts is on corner kicks I have yet to see a ref call impeding when they put a striker right there to block the goalkeeper's path on these challenges.  That's clearly covered in the laws now, but rarely ever called", such as the striker punches your keeper in the mouth or trips them, to prove your point (what you would call an amended complaint?)

Like all the other "referees suck" rants, the facts continually change, and there is no way to judge the call without being there and seeing EVERYTHING that transpires. _Nothwithstanding the foregoing,_ and that which you have _heretofore_ claimed, there is nothing wrong with an offensive player standing right next to your keeper (coaches _intent_ aside), in hopes that they gain an advantage when the corner kick comes in, and your keeper can't make the save as the striker heads the ball past her. And if any player, including your keeper, plays in a manner that is dangerous including "preventing a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury" or challenging the keeper when she is in possession of the ball with her hands. 

On a corner kick and free kicks, there is so much activity, jostling, pulling, fingers up orifices, by defensive players against the offense and vice versa, that can't all be seen by the referees.  When you are focused on only your keeper, you don't see all the other other crazy $h!t that goes on in the mob, that the referees are trying to see as well.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

Keeper07 said:


> My husband always tells my daughter to raise her knee up for protection. He also tells her to make sure she brings her elbow out when grabbing the ball to protect her face/neck because she’s in her box and is in her right to do so. What’s the sentiment on that elbow?


The box is not hers, it's just a place to define an area for goal kicks. She has no special "rights" in that area. As Surfref notes above, if the keeper plays in a dangerous manner, it is a foul just like any other player. No exemption for the keeper.  Despite these facts, most referees give some additional "leeway" to keepers in effort to help protect them.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Ok, I'll try to speak the language you understand: Your mommy of a keeper bias is clouding both your perception and judgment.  You think that because your kid is a keeper they should get special status (aside from the obvious control of the ball protection.)
> "As I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers"=totally false
> 
> If two players at midfield came together for a ball, and one raised their knee up the level of the opponent's chest or head while they were both trying to play a ball, you would have no problem (or shouldn't) with the referee calling a foul for a dangerous play.  But when it's the keeper, you want a special standard applied.
> ...


Your let them play judgment is clouding yours.  The laws prevent players from playing the ball once in the possession of the keeper...I (and others) here have pointed out it refs let this happen...sure refs can't see everything (having been in the trenches now I get that)....it's the ones who see it and selectively choose to disregard the law to play it on that I have the problem with.  Same with impeding...see the authority I cited...if the ref doesn't see it, well I get that...if the ref disregards that well that's a different story.  And as to the knee, there's just a disagreement there and not just here but in professional circles over how that should be judged.  FIFA should clarify.  And you know what...keepers just are different...they can play with their hands so they need different rules...what I'm asking for is for clarity and for the keeper not to be unduly penalized (as I've said, I'd gladly trade the knee for revising the laws surrounding fouls on keeper possession).

We actually agree on quite a few things:
1. you have to see how things transpired.  It's difficult to tell from just words, so I think you'd give me the benefit of the doubt based on what I've told you I saw, just as I'm not calling out Surfref for his call because I didn't see his call and there isn't a video.
2. I ref too.  I know it's hard.  I know we can't see everything.
3. The corner kick thing is ridiculous.  You are right, there's so much fouling (holding, pushing, impeding) going on there.  That's not a ref problem...it's a Laws problem and there isn't an easy fix to that one.


----------



## vegasguy (Sep 7, 2018)

No card given here..  seems as though cleats are up and the keeper clearly had possession.   My thoughts are a keeper needs to protect himself and worry about the ref later.  If you are coming out to scoop the ball and the other players charges, hold the ball to your chest as a buffer and move forward.  If they run into you when you have possession the foul should be on them.  Always leap with one knee up, the outer knee is up for protection.  When punching the ball on a 50/50 leap, punch through the ball first.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Your let them play judgment is clouding yours.  The laws prevent players from playing the ball once in the possession of the keeper...I (and others) here have pointed out it refs let this happen...sure refs can't see everything (having been in the trenches now I get that)....it's the ones who see it and selectively choose to disregard the law to play it on that I have the problem with.  Same with impeding...see the authority I cited...if the ref doesn't see it, well I get that...if the ref disregards that well that's a different story.  And as to the knee, there's just a disagreement there and not just here but in professional circles over how that should be judged.  FIFA should clarify.  And you know what...keepers just are different...they can play with their hands so they need different rules...what I'm asking for is for clarity and for the keeper not to be unduly penalized (as I've said, I'd gladly trade the knee for revising the laws surrounding fouls on keeper possession).
> 
> We actually agree on quite a few things:
> 1. you have to see how things transpired.  It's difficult to tell from just words, so I think you'd give me the benefit of the doubt based on what I've told you I saw, just as I'm not calling out Surfref for his call because I didn't see his call and there isn't a video.
> ...


Now you are just being silly. I don't have any "let them play" mentality. I call all fouls I see unless trifling, but certainly those committed against a keeper. If anything, I bend the rules to protect keepers, which is not really fair to those nasty "strikers."

The difficulty with your posts is you mix the positive (what the laws are) with the normative (what you want them to be). This makes your thoughts confusing and misleading to those who are trying to figure out what the "rules" actually are today, as opposed to what you would hope IFAB would change them to;  and, the keeper does have a "special rule" for her which is that she cannot be challenged when she is in possession of the ball with her hands, and can handle the ball in the penalty area. 

Otherwise (including as she leaps through a crowd with her elbows out and knees up), she is subject to all the same laws as everyone else until she gains possession of the ball.  This of course gives her a bit of an advantage, as offensive players have to back down ahead of time, presuming she will gain possession, so they don't commit a foul if she ultimately does.  (Keeper moms and dads also think that keepers have a special rule allowing her to play the ball on the ground with her feet and body, and everyone should back off.)

On the other had, I would love to see your (and other keeper moms') reactions if a "striker" came flying in toward the goal (and your keeper) attempting to head the ball into the net with her elbows stretched out like a condor, and her knee raised up like the karate kid.  Bloody murder would result: "Referee, you need to protect the keeper. Give her a yellow card....no a red card!!!" 

I still don't understand your impeding scenario. Strikers have every right to go for a ball being crossed in as the keeper does, even if they are in the way" of the keeper's path. No parting of the red sea for her. If as you describe the player was moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction of the keeper when the ball is not within playing distance of either player  (hard to believe if the keeper was trying to get ball) then it would be impeding.  But if the keeper was trying to get the ball, it was likely"within playing distance.  P.S. When defenders shield the ball, blocking the path of the offence  till it rolls out for goal kick (or throw in), that's not impeding either.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

vegasguy said:


> No card given here..  seems as though cleats are up and the keeper clearly had possession.   My thoughts are a keeper needs to protect himself and worry about the ref later.  If you are coming out to scoop the ball and the other players charges, hold the ball to your chest as a buffer and move forward.  If they run into you when you have possession the foul should be on them.  Always leap with one knee up, the outer knee is up for protection.  When punching the ball on a 50/50 leap, punch through the ball first.


I could see a card being given there, or not.


----------



## vegasguy (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I could see a card being given there, or not.


curious about  the or not.  I know the picture doesn't tell the whole story but here it is.  Keeper holding the ball at his feet.  Field player charges starting outside the 18.  Keeper picks ball up player still not to ground.  Keeper stands his ground.  Player slides cleats up at mid shin and keeper leaps over him.  Cleats up is the act that is cardable correct or am I wrong.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 7, 2018)

Sorry for the long post...All I can say is wow on that slide into the keeper...from the image it looks card worthy.

What I find pretty ironic is that this game the kids play is supposed to be a "non-contact" sport....this thread is on head gear, and we are now talking about knees, protection, etc., the mobs on corner kicks, the jostling, holding, grabbing, poking, and pulling.  Not just just keeper, but all players need to know how to protect themselves on the field.  What I am noticing about my DD's team and those she plays against, currently u13, is that the games are getting more and more physical all the way around.  Some teams are more physical than others.  Over the past year and a half I have seen my DD's team learn to be more physical in order to be able to compete.  I think there is a fine line between being physical and competing and what some may consider dirty or dangerous...it depends on which sideline you are on.  I have seen some rough fouls over the last couple of years, but nothing that I would consider being done with the specific intent to harm or purposefully injure the other player.  I've seen kids cry when they took a player down and realized they may have hurt the other kid.  I have seen purposeful fouls, but nothing that screamed at me that one kid was going after another to specifically hurt them.  The worst I have seen in the last year, was an opposing player pull one of our girls down by her hair when she was beat.  Our sideline went nuts.  Did the kid mean to pull her down, I would say yes.  Did she mean to pull her down by her hair, or was she grabbing for the shirt and got the hair instead...Who know's....I just find it hard to believe that at 10, 11, or 12 year old kid would intentionally try to injure another player.  If so, there are other things going on.  

At the end of the day nobody wants their kid to get hurt by a dangerous play or see a kid get intentionally injured. I agree, the ref's can't see everything.  There is also a difference between kids playing physical, competing, and wanting to win versus being overly aggressive and playing dangerously.  Some of that can be managed by a good coach not allowing that type of play and parents not rewarding or promoting that style of play.  If I saw my kid go out and intentionally try to injure another kid she would need to worry about a lot more than a foul call or a card by the ref.

I agree with what many have said that in order to change the physical play the rules need to change, or how the rules are interpreted needs to be standardized.  Neither is simple, easy, and hopefully it will happen while our kids are still playing.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Now you are just being silly. I don't have any "let them play" mentality. I call all fouls I see unless trifling, but certainly those committed against a keeper. If anything, I bend the rules to protect keepers, which is not really fair to those nasty "strikers."
> 
> The difficulty with your posts is you mix the positive (what the laws are) with the normative (what you want them to be). This makes your thoughts confusing and misleading to those who are trying to figure out what the "rules" actually are today, as opposed to what you would hope IFAB would change them to;  and, the keeper does have a "special rule" for her which is that she cannot be challenged when she is in possession of the ball with her hands, and can handle the ball in the penalty area.
> 
> ...


I think I've tried to be clear about where I think the Laws are and where I think they should be, but o.k. I'll take your point.  I think some of your comments have an anti-woman/anti-mom/anti-lawyer taint but o.k. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  And I'll take you at face value when you say you aren't part of the "let them play mentality"-- part of the difficulty here again is that what is "trifling" differs from person to person, FIFA doesn't provide a whole lot of guidance, and I've met quite a few refs who think there's no way they are part of the "let them play" school but so many things are trifling to them that yeah it's quite obvious they are (to even their colleagues).

Re impeding, that's kind of funny since you raised the point about space.  Here I think you are confusing what the laws are and what they should be.  I gave you authority written up by others that agreed with me, which you haven't told me why you think they are wrong.  And I agree while others don't need to part like the Red Sea, it's also true that they can't deliberately block the keeper's movements (see the authority cited for why shielding isn't relevant for this particular point...they do it better than I can).  But I agree with you (moving into the normative) that the Laws don't make a whole lot of sense there.  In fact, the impeding (originally obstruction) rules where to prevent a scenario like a striker carrying the ball down field and the players setting up a wall which moved in front of the striker (sound like another game we know)?  The Laws say every player is entitle to their space but gloss over the scenario when 2 players are simultaneously trying to occupy the same space.  It's why I think refs are reluctant to call the foul of impeding.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

vegasguy said:


> Cleats up is the act that is cardable correct or am I wrong.


Yes.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> Sorry for the long post...All I can say is wow on that slide into the keeper...from the image it looks card worthy.
> 
> What I find pretty ironic is that this game the kids play is supposed to be a "non-contact" sport....this thread is on head gear, and we are now talking about knees, protection, etc., the mobs on corner kicks, the jostling, holding, grabbing, poking, and pulling.  Not just just keeper, but all players need to know how to protect themselves on the field.  What I am noticing about my DD's team and those she plays against, currently u13, is that the games are getting more and more physical all the way around.  Some teams are more physical than others.  Over the past year and a half I have seen my DD's team learn to be more physical in order to be able to compete.  I think there is a fine line between being physical and competing and what some may consider dirty or dangerous...it depends on which sideline you are on.  I have seen some rough fouls over the last couple of years, but nothing that I would consider being done with the specific intent to harm or purposefully injure the other player.  I've seen kids cry when they took a player down and realized they may have hurt the other kid.  I have seen purposeful fouls, but nothing that screamed at me that one kid was going after another to specifically hurt them.  The worst I have seen in the last year, was an opposing player pull one of our girls down by her hair when she was beat.  Our sideline went nuts.  Did the kid mean to pull her down, I would say yes.  Did she mean to pull her down by her hair, or was she grabbing for the shirt and got the hair instead...Who know's....I just find it hard to believe that at 10, 11, or 12 year old kid would intentionally try to injure another player.  If so, there are other things going on.
> 
> ...


You think it's physical now... wait until college. 

Was watching my DDs jersey nearly get removed from her as she ran on a breakaway. Commentators were saying how shocked they were at the non call.


----------



## Kopi (Sep 7, 2018)

I agree MS only gets more physical as you increase in age.  My daughter is a GK and she took the step from club to college soccer this year and Dang! you talk about physical. My DD is a pretty tough cookie but its pretty intimidating to step into that realm. She's been steamrolled like 2 times already with no calls but she's also been given a majority of calls. College soccer has me cringing a ton and its just the start of the season.. lol!


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I still don't understand your impeding scenario. Strikers have every right to go for a ball being crossed in as the keeper does, even if they are in the way" of the keeper's path. No parting of the red sea for her. If as you describe the player was moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction of the keeper when the ball is not within playing distance of either player  (hard to believe if the keeper was trying to get ball) then it would be impeding.  But if the keeper was trying to get the ball, it was likely"within playing distance.  P.S. When defenders shield the ball, blocking the path of the offence  till it rolls out for goal kick (or throw in), that's not impeding either.


What do the rules actually say about impeding?    Is it only for out of bounds, or could 3 players shield the ball all the way into the goal?   What about three players surrounding a keeper to keep them from moving at all?     How much force is allowed to run through impeding players?   How close to the ball do you have to be to impede, or does it matter?   Does the position of your arms come into play while impeding?


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> Sorry for the long post...All I can say is wow on that slide into the keeper...from the image it looks card worthy.
> 
> What I find pretty ironic is that this game the kids play is supposed to be a "non-contact" sport....this thread is on head gear, and we are now talking about knees, protection, etc., the mobs on corner kicks, the jostling, holding, grabbing, poking, and pulling.  Not just just keeper, but all players need to know how to protect themselves on the field.  What I am noticing about my DD's team and those she plays against, currently u13, is that the games are getting more and more physical all the way around.  Some teams are more physical than others.  Over the past year and a half I have seen my DD's team learn to be more physical in order to be able to compete.  I think there is a fine line between being physical and competing and what some may consider dirty or dangerous...it depends on which sideline you are on.  I have seen some rough fouls over the last couple of years, but nothing that I would consider being done with the specific intent to harm or purposefully injure the other player.  I've seen kids cry when they took a player down and realized they may have hurt the other kid.  I have seen purposeful fouls, but nothing that screamed at me that one kid was going after another to specifically hurt them.  The worst I have seen in the last year, was an opposing player pull one of our girls down by her hair when she was beat.  Our sideline went nuts.  Did the kid mean to pull her down, I would say yes.  Did she mean to pull her down by her hair, or was she grabbing for the shirt and got the hair instead...Who know's....I just find it hard to believe that at 10, 11, or 12 year old kid would intentionally try to injure another player.  If so, there are other things going on.
> 
> .


  It's a bit of a misnomer that soccer isn't a contact sport.  Contact is permitted to the extent not prohibited by the laws, such as when coachrefparent points out trifling contact or shielding.  Based on a conversation I'm privy to, I can tell you that CalSouth is aware contact is becoming a problem in SoCal and there have been lots of complaints from the parents against the "let it play" and "I don't care" refs.  Whether they'll do anything about it is entirely a different question.  My own theory is it's particularly a Socal problem based on the 2 national influences we have in SoCal (English and Mexican), both of which football federations have an expansive definition of "trifling"



socalkdg said:


> What do the rules actually say about impeding?    Is it only for out of bounds, or could 3 players shield the ball all the way into the goal?   What about three players surrounding a keeper to keep them from moving at all?     How much force is allowed to run through impeding players?   How close to the ball do you have to be to impede, or does it matter?   Does the position of your arms come into play while impeding?


Reposting the authority below:


http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/blocking-or-holding-the-goalkeeper-at-a-corner-kick-or-free-kick/
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/marking-the-keeper-at-corner-kicks/
Law 12: "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player....impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made"

Thoughts on the video below.  My own 2 cents: No. 1: at first keeper and striker just take space, striker's intent is clearly to impede the goalkeeper though I understand the laws don't mention intent, goalkeeper moves, reality is goalkeeper can't catch if the striker is shielding him (as opposed to the ball) without going over the top of the striker and committing a foul himself, we all know that's why the coach is ordering the striker to do that, once the striker moves with the goalkeeper I think that's impeding, No2: just taking space, No3: very clear it's impeding if not a holding foul


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

I tell my DD to avoid collisions with keepers. Try to make them commit and go around them because she will always get the worst of a collision (5-7 130) But there are some big girls out there who have no problem running through a Keeper. 

Her GK ran into one of those players in their last game. Took about a minute before she got up and she is a big girl. What surprised me most about it is that she was not subbed out due to concussion protocol.  It was hard to tell what happened and the ref did wave the coach over but about that time she got up and motioned she was OK. Seriously.. what GK is gonna take themselves out of a game?


----------



## futboldad1 (Sep 7, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> What I find pretty ironic is that this game the kids play is supposed to be a "non-contact" sport....


Please tell me you are kidding....soccer IS a contact sport. 

Dangerous fouls are different, unpleasant and forbidden... but have your kids play tennis if you believe soccer shouldn't have contact.


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Sep 7, 2018)

Multi Sport said:


> I tell my DD to avoid collisions with keepers. Try to make them commit and go around them because she will always get the worst of a collision (5-7 130) But there are some big girls out there who have no problem running through a Keeper.
> 
> Her GK ran into one of those players in their last game. Took about a minute before she got up and she is a big girl. What surprised me most about it is that she was not subbed out due to concussion protocol.  It was hard to tell what happened and the ref did wave the coach over but about that time she got up and motioned she was OK. Seriously.. what GK is gonna take themselves out of a game?


It might not be a popular opinion, but next time that girl comes at your keeper I would imagine the keeper will remember who she is and approaches the player a little differently.  What the forward(s) need to ask themselves is are they willing to take the contact the next time they come across that keeper, or one of the keepers friends?  The keeper will know who it was, keepers talk, and eventually the forward will pay the price.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 7, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> It's a bit of a misnomer that soccer isn't a contact sport.  Contact is permitted to the extent not prohibited by the laws, such as when coachrefparent points out trifling contact or shielding.  Based on a conversation I'm privy to, I can tell you that CalSouth is aware contact is becoming a problem in SoCal and there have been lots of complaints from the parents against the "let it play" and "I don't care" refs.  Whether they'll do anything about it is entirely a different question.  My own theory is it's particularly a Socal problem based on the 2 national influences we have in SoCal (English and Mexican), both of which football federations have an expansive definition of "trifling"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree number 3 for sure.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 7, 2018)

We usually have a person in between my daughter and the player running interference.  She needs to concentrate on the ball and not worry about anyone else.   The buffer helps.    I remember a women's US keeper allowed herself to be pushed into the net.   It gets crazy in there, and calls are very inconsistent.    Really we all just hope for consistency in calls.


----------



## Woobie06 (Sep 7, 2018)

futboldad1 said:


> Please tell me you are kidding....soccer IS a contact sport.
> 
> Dangerous fouls are different, unpleasant and forbidden... but have your kids play tennis if you believe soccer shouldn't have contact.


"Non-Contact" in quotes was meant to be sarcastic or snarky, at least that is what I think air quotes are for.  Never said there should not be contact.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

socalkdg said:


> We usually have a person in between my daughter and the player running interference.  She needs to concentrate on the ball and not worry about anyone else.   The buffer helps.    I remember a women's US keeper allowed herself to be pushed into the net.   It gets crazy in there, and calls are very inconsistent.    Really we all just hope for consistency in calls.


Here's where coachparentref has a normative point.  By doing that the defender is now impeding ( or pushing if the order is "push him out") the striker.  The defender is entitled to his/her space, even if it's in front the goalkeeper.  My point being I agree that the impeding rule comes into conflict with a defender is entitled to his/her space.  This isn't a new problem....it's a problem that's been going on for decades which is why this Law is constantly being rewritten.  But to go full circle, where I object is where refs are inclined to rule against keepers for things like knees (not saying Surfref's call was wrong under the circumstances) but not give them the benefits on impeding conduct like the video or playing a ball in possession of  keeper.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

vegasguy said:


> curious about  the or not.  I know the picture doesn't tell the whole story but here it is.  Keeper holding the ball at his feet.  Field player charges starting outside the 18.  Keeper picks ball up player still not to ground.  Keeper stands his ground.  Player slides cleats up at mid shin and keeper leaps over him.  Cleats up is the act that is cardable correct or am I wrong.


If that's what happened, I'd give a card.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

Woobie06 said:


> Sorry for the long post...All I can say is wow on that slide into the keeper...from the image it looks card worthy.
> 
> What I find pretty ironic is that this game the kids play is supposed to be a "non-contact" sport....this thread is on head gear, and we are now talking about knees, protection, etc., the mobs on corner kicks, the jostling, holding, grabbing, poking, and pulling.  Not just just keeper, but all players need to know how to protect themselves on the field.  What I am noticing about my DD's team and those she plays against, currently u13, is that the games are getting more and more physical all the way around.  Some teams are more physical than others.  Over the past year and a half I have seen my DD's team learn to be more physical in order to be able to compete.  I think there is a fine line between being physical and competing and what some may consider dirty or dangerous...it depends on which sideline you are on.  I have seen some rough fouls over the last couple of years, but nothing that I would consider being done with the specific intent to harm or purposefully injure the other player.  I've seen kids cry when they took a player down and realized they may have hurt the other kid.  I have seen purposeful fouls, but nothing that screamed at me that one kid was going after another to specifically hurt them.  The worst I have seen in the last year, was an opposing player pull one of our girls down by her hair when she was beat.  Our sideline went nuts.  Did the kid mean to pull her down, I would say yes.  Did she mean to pull her down by her hair, or was she grabbing for the shirt and got the hair instead...Who know's....I just find it hard to believe that at 10, 11, or 12 year old kid would intentionally try to injure another player.  If so, there are other things going on.
> 
> ...


Soccer is not a non-contact sport.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 7, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Here's where coachparentref has a normative point.  By doing that the defender is now impeding ( or pushing if the order is "push him out") the striker.  The defender is entitled to his/her space, even if it's in front the goalkeeper.  My point being I agree that the impeding rule comes into conflict with a defender is entitled to his/her space.  This isn't a new problem....it's a problem that's been going on for decades which is why this Law is constantly being rewritten.  But to go full circle, where I object is where refs are inclined to rule against keepers for things like knees (not saying Surfref's call was wrong under the circumstances) but not give them the benefits on impeding conduct like the video or playing a ball in possession of  keeper.


I don't believe there is any such overall bias or inclination among referees. Nearly all referees call it fairly both ways. You just only see what happens to your keeper because that is all you are watching 90% of the time.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I don't believe there is any such overall bias or inclination among referees. Nearly all referees call it fairly both ways. You just only see what happens to your keeper because that is all you are watching 90% of the time.


It's not my keeper and the incident I'm citing was not my keeper nor was the video, though I confess I probably have more empathy for keepers just given I've been one and have one (which I can't say about most other refs).  That's not a bad thing, given that the position is so different.  I ref too (as I've said several times), and while I am no doubt far less experienced than you, I would hope you would extend me at least a little professional respect and courtesy.  And while I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't intending otherwise, you are making it very difficult.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> I don't believe there is any such overall bias or inclination among referees. Nearly all referees call it fairly both ways. You just only see what happens to your keeper because that is all you are watching 90% of the time.


I was watching my DDs U12 team play. Her keeper came out late but got to the ball before the attacking player did. The keeper got kicked and her coach yelled out to the CR about protecting the keeper but the CR just told him to calm down. The AR turned to me and said that if the keeper got hurt it would've been her own fault for coming out so late...


----------



## PaytoplayinLancaster? (Sep 7, 2018)

Multi Sport said:


> I was watching my DDs U12 team play. Her keeper came out late but got to the ball before the attacking player did. The keeper got kicked and her coach yelled out to the CR about protecting the keeper but the CR just told him to calm down. The AR turned to me and said that if the keeper got hurt it would've been her own fault for coming out so late...


Not sure how it’s late if she got there first?  So what are the refs looking for if the keeper and striker are going for a ball?  In this scenario I would think the striker would be at fault if they got hurt because they were late getting to a loose ball.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

PaytoplayinLancaster? said:


> Not sure how it’s late if she got there first?  So what are the refs looking for if the keeper and striker are going for a ball?  In this scenario I would think the striker would be at fault if they got hurt because they were late getting to a loose ball.


Totally agree..


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 7, 2018)

PaytoplayinLancaster? said:


> Not sure how it’s late if she got there first?  So what are the refs looking for if the keeper and striker are going for a ball?  In this scenario I would think the striker would be at fault if they got hurt because they were late getting to a loose ball.


The part that blew me away was that the AR said anything to me. It wasn't as if I was having a discussion with him about it. He just decided to give me his opinion.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 8, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I was skeptical about that too.  But I did some research on them.  Apparently VA Tech has a group that's been involved in helmet testing for football for some time, and created a ratings system to try to measure effectiveness in concussion prevention.  This was their first study for soccer headgear.  A quick google search shows several studies that they had published in peer-reviewed research publications, so it's not a total sham.  Whether or not VA Tech gets anything out of this deal, I have no clue, but it does appear to be independent of manufacturer's control.
> 
> After a more careful study of their test methodology, I think it's probably as thorough as they can devise, but I think the star-rating system definitely skews the results to seem more impressive than maybe the numbers show.  It's not a bad comparison of products, relative to each other, but there is quite a lot of guesswork being used on calculating the "probability" of the rate of concussions given the one type of collision they are simulating.  It's hard for me to believe a Storelli headband (rated 5 stars) can reduce probability of concussion to almost zero, which is what is suggested by their rating table.  Not even a NASCAR HANS device could do that.
> 
> I think it would be less misleading to state that headgear A is 20% more effective in reducing _lateral forces_ than brand B, etc.   But giving out star-ratings makes it seem like a consumer product test rather than a scientific analysis for concussion prevention.


Yeah...I thought the same thing about the star system and the "probability" of rate of concussions.  It does seem logical to me though that there is some level of reduced risk and their study at least shows that.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 10, 2018)

socalkdg said:


> Exactly.   Gave up a goal where she was kicked in the arm and the ball went into the net.   Really?


If the keeper has any level of possession of the ball between body part or body and the ground, then I would penalize with dangerous play (indirect free kick) the player that kicks the ball out of the keepers possession.  Maybe even a Yellow or Red Card if there is any contact and the level of contact.  Keepers a vulnerable when on the ground even when they have the ball fully secured.  I have had attacker’s try to kick the hall out of keepers possession and missed and kicked the keeper in the face and body.  Those very few players got a Red Card.  Referees must protect the keeper once they obtain possession of the ball.  Before the keeper has possession they are just another player.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 10, 2018)

socalkdg said:


> My daughter would forgo the shin guards if she could.   Speed and quickness is something she has and doesn't want to give up.   She plays basketball and takes more bumps and bruises there then she has at keeper, including hits to the head on rebounds.  Pretty much every girl that keeps playing as they get older is going to go head to head with other girls on the field as they try to head the ball, so if head gear is required it should be for everyone.


Just get her a good light weight shin guard.  I played youth soccer in the late 70’s when shin guards were optional and the shin guards provided very little protection.  I saw several players suffer severe bone bruises or fractures of the shin when not wearing shin guards.  A good pair of shin guards is essential for player safety.

I bet within a few years head gear for youth players will be mandatory in the USA.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 10, 2018)

socalkdg said:


> What do the rules actually say about impeding?    Is it only for out of bounds, or could 3 players shield the ball all the way into the goal?   What about three players surrounding a keeper to keep them from moving at all?     How much force is allowed to run through impeding players?   How close to the ball do you have to be to impede, or does it matter?   Does the position of your arms come into play while impeding?


Impeding is in Law 12.  Not something I call very often since players tend to use their hands which turns Impeding into a Holding penalty.
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/722/144644_310518_LotG_18_19_EN_12.pdf


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 10, 2018)

Surfref said:


> If the keeper has any level of possession of the ball between body part or body and the ground, then I would penalize with dangerous play (indirect free kick) the player that kicks the ball out of the keepers possession.  Maybe even a Yellow or Red Card if there is any contact and the level of contact.  Keepers a vulnerable when on the ground even when they have the ball fully secured.  I have had attacker’s try to kick the hall out of keepers possession and missed and kicked the keeper in the face and body.  Those very few players got a Red Card.  Referees must protect the keeper once they obtain possession of the ball.  Before the keeper has possession they are just another player.


Shouldn't you/we penalize the keeper with a dangerous play?  The laws only provide that a keeper cannot be challenged when they are in possession of the ball with their hands. If not, aren't they the same as any other player playing the ball on the the ground with others challenging, who are penalized for dangerous play? Or are players allowed to sit on a ball and smile (keeper or not?)


----------



## Keepermom2 (Sep 10, 2018)

Multi Sport said:


> I tell my DD to avoid collisions with keepers. Try to make them commit and go around them because she will always get the worst of a collision (5-7 130) But there are some big girls out there who have no problem running through a Keeper.
> 
> Her GK ran into one of those players in their last game. Took about a minute before she got up and she is a big girl. What surprised me most about it is that she was not subbed out due to concussion protocol.  It was hard to tell what happened and the ref did wave the coach over but about that time she got up and motioned she was OK. Seriously.. what GK is gonna take themselves out of a game?


Exactly!


----------



## Surfref (Sep 11, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Shouldn't you/we penalize the keeper with a dangerous play?  The laws only provide that a keeper cannot be challenged when they are in possession of the ball with their hands. If not, aren't they the same as any other player playing the ball on the the ground with others challenging, who are penalized for dangerous play? Or are players allowed to sit on a ball and smile (keeper or not?)


Law 18: Common Sense


----------



## Keeper pops (Sep 11, 2018)

Multi Sport said:


> I was watching my DDs U12 team play. Her keeper came out late but got to the ball before the attacking player did. The keeper got kicked and her coach yelled out to the CR about protecting the keeper but the CR just told him to calm down. The AR turned to me and said that if the keeper got hurt it would've been her own fault for coming out so late...


Nice response by the AR putting the blame on the keeper. My keeper have been wearing a Storelli head gear for years. I want to share a concussion indecent with my keep where the CR informed me after the game the contact was clean. 

It was a corner play and the opponent came from her backside with a running start. She had her eyes on the ball and the opponent with a running start jump towards her back. As they collided the opponent elbowed my keeper behind her neck (of course not SEEN by the CR or AR). She “blackout” and was carted off to the trainers tent. She didn’t pass the concussion protocol and unable to play the rest of tournament. We took her to urgent care and confirmed her concussion. 

Here’s my point, I take still pictures and got clean pictureS of this sequence. As discribed above, the opponent clearly didn’t play the ball as she had her back with her elbow connecting to my DD’s back of neck. I will not pose the picture but this was during the Man City tournament a few years ago.  

As mentioned, after the game, the ref came to me to tell me, it was a clean play. I didn’t say anything since I was busy taking pics.


----------



## MWN (Sep 11, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Shouldn't you/we penalize the keeper with a dangerous play?  The laws only provide that a keeper cannot be challenged when they are in possession of the ball with their hands. If not, aren't they the same as any other player playing the ball on the the ground with others challenging, who are penalized for dangerous play? Or are players allowed to sit on a ball and smile (keeper or not?)


No, because keepers are allowed to use their hands, arms, etc.  All 11 players are allowed to go to the ground (slide tackle).  All players owe a "duty of care" to the other players, including the keeper.  When players are not "careful," its a foul for being "careless."  If a keeper goes to the ground to save a ball with their hands then all players owe a duty of care to not kick at the ball in a manner that would potentially injure the keeper.  If the keeper gets there first and misplays the ball then that duty of care still applies, but the attacker is free to attempt to play the ball in a manner that is careful.  When other players play from the ground (perfectly legal), the "dangerous play" condition is heightened because, unlike keepers, there is no prohibition from playing a ball in the possession of a non-keeper.


----------



## Multi Sport (Sep 11, 2018)

Keeper pops said:


> Nice response by the AR putting the blame on the keeper. My keeper have been wearing a Storelli head gear for years. I want to share a concussion indecent with my keep where the CR informed me after the game the contact was clean.
> 
> It was a corner play and the opponent came from her backside with a running start. She had her eyes on the ball and the opponent with a running start jump towards her back. As they collided the opponent elbowed my keeper behind her neck (of course not SEEN by the CR or AR). She “blackout” and was carted off to the trainers tent. She didn’t pass the concussion protocol and unable to play the rest of tournament. We took her to urgent care and confirmed her concussion.
> 
> ...


Until the powers that be finally decide that the game needs more then three Refs we will have to deal with these type of plays.


----------



## Grace T. (Sep 11, 2018)

Don't know where else to put it, but given the theme of "goalkeepers are just different", here's an article that sums up a lot of the points raised (apparently to be part of a series)....

https://deadspin.com/its-time-for-a-better-conversation-about-goalkeeping-1828717458


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Sep 11, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Don't know where else to put it, but given the theme of "goalkeepers are just different", here's an article that sums up a lot of the points raised (apparently to be part of a series)....
> 
> https://deadspin.com/its-time-for-a-better-conversation-about-goalkeeping-1828717458


I liked this quote ..."In the 147 years since the position was codified, soccer has never really figured out what to do with the goalkeeper..."   Very true.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 11, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Don't know where else to put it, but given the theme of "goalkeepers are just different", here's an article that sums up a lot of the points raised (apparently to be part of a series)....
> 
> https://deadspin.com/its-time-for-a-better-conversation-about-goalkeeping-1828717458


Thanks for sharing.  Good read.


----------



## Mystery Train (Sep 12, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Don't know where else to put it, but given the theme of "goalkeepers are just different", here's an article that sums up a lot of the points raised (apparently to be part of a series)....
> 
> https://deadspin.com/its-time-for-a-better-conversation-about-goalkeeping-1828717458


Best piece on goalkeeping I have ever read.  Thanks for sharing.

Deserves it’s own thread.


----------

