Headgear

[coachrefparent]

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.

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.]

, 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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.

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]

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

Yes.

 

[Multi Sport]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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"

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