'Fouls' on goalkeepers

[Rado_N]

Just been reading through the top stories on Sky Sports website because I'm bored, and stumbled upon this article about Shawcross's disallowed goal against City last night:

Stoke's Ryan Shawcross was left fuming after his late goal against Manchester City was ruled out.

Shawcross thought he had headed the winner at the Britannia Stadium in injury-time, but referee Alan Wiley ruled it out for a foul on Shay Given.

But the young defender is insistent that his goal, which would have seen Stoke win 2-1, should have been allowed.

"I've got a good leap and I timed it well," he told the Stoke Sentinel.

"I got above the keeper and just nodded it into the goal and thought I had scored.

"The ref thought I had fouled the keeper, but I didn't think so - and having seen it since, I still don't think I did.

"I asked the referee about it at the end and he said 'you can't challenge the keeper in the six-yard box'.

"That is a bit silly, because if I am jumping higher than him then I am not going to challenge him."

Team-mate Glenn Whelan was equally perplexed at the goal being disallowed.

"I think the goal was decent, but the referee has obviously seen something else," he said.

Vieira challenge

Whelan himself was on the end of a crude challenge from Patrick Vieira and it appears the veteran French midfielder was hugely fortunate not to pick up a red card.

"I think the ref said he hasn't seen it," said Whelan.

"I said to the ref and to Patrick Vieira himself that he's been lucky, but you just have to get on with it.

"Maybe if I was a bit bigger, then maybe it would have hurt more," he joked.

Now the bit I have bolded seems utterly retarded to me. What are players expected to do, stay away from the keeper and let him jump for the ball on his own? This is a contact sport we are talking about, fair challenges are part and parcel of that, and for my money that was a perfectly legitimate goal that was struck off last night.

Now is Alan Wiley just being an idiot with this quote, or is that actually what referees are working by? There seems to be a lot of cases of these 'fouls' on keepers that are largely for nothing, and it is a shame in my opinion as it is removing an interesting and enjoyable aspect of the game.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That's interesting.

Rafa went on a rant a couple years back about how in Europe there's an official UEFA ruling that strikers may not compete with a keeper in the air, inside the 6 yard box. He was whinging about why this is never implemented in England. In the podcast i was listening to, I got the impression that this was/is a formal decision by the FA not to implement this new ruling.

I wonder if they've changed their stance?

 

[Brophs]

This is why there are fewer and fewer top class goalies. They're all just a bunch of fannies operating under the umbrella of 'Great shot-stoppers'.

 

[Snow]

The goalies are untouchable yet the never get a talking to when they jump for a high ball knee-first.

It's just lame refereeing.

 

[moses]

That's interesting.

Rafa went on a rant a couple years back about how in Europe there's an official UEFA ruling that strikers may not compete with a keeper in the air, inside the 6 yard box. He was whinging about why this is never implemented in England. In the podcast i was listening to, I got the impression that this was/is a formal decision by the FA not to implement this new ruling.

I wonder if they've changed their stance?

What Rafa says is true apart from the fact that it's a law of the game, which it ain't apparently. Anywhere. The fact that whether a law exists or not is a point of debate for 'experts' is a weakness in itself.

 

[Rado_N]

That's interesting.

Rafa went on a rant a couple years back about how in Europe there's an official UEFA ruling that strikers may not compete with a keeper in the air, inside the 6 yard box. He was whinging about why this is never implemented in England. In the podcast i was listening to, I got the impression that this was/is a formal decision by the FA not to implement this new ruling.

I wonder if they've changed their stance?

If it is that they are now enforcing that regulation in the Premier League then it's a sad state of affairs I have to say. The number of times the ball is whipped into a dangerous area only for the whistle to go because the keeper has run into somebody and fallen over, it pisses me off no end.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What Rafa says is true apart from the fact that it's a law of the game, which it ain't apparently. Anywhere. The fact that whether a law exists or not is a point of debate for 'experts' is a weakness in itself.

To be fair to the fat Spanish scrote, he never claimed it was a law of the game.

I think it was just one of those edicts occasionally issued by UEFA which provides additional guidance to referees on interpretation of the existing laws of the game.

 

[Brophs]

To be fair to the fat Spanish scrote, he never claimed it was a law of the game.

I think it was just one of those edicts occasionally issued by UEFA which provides additional guidance to referees on interpretation of the existing laws of the game.

Wouldn't not tackling the keeper in the box have to be a rule before guidelines could be issued for reasons of interpretation/implementation?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wouldn't not tackling the keeper in the box have to be a rule before guidelines could be issued for reasons of interpretation/implementation?

Feck knows. You're the law-talking guy. I just shrink heads

 

[AlwaysRedwood]

It was a horrendous call. Given ran into the player, who was then called for a foul. Cost Stoke the game.

But, I've grown used to EPL games being decided by refs as of late.

 

[Ixion]

Its pathetic the way keepers are protected, they just need to jump into someone and they'll get a foul. Stoke scored a legitimate goal last night and its a disgrace the officials robbed them.

 

[WireRed]

I've always been baffled by this unwritten law. Goalkeepers are human just like the other 10 on the pitch, often bigger built aswell, so why are they getting such special treatment? If there is a ball to be contested then it's fair game, keeper or no keeper. Another ridiculous scheme of Blatter's no doubt.

 

[MrK]

I've always been baffled by this unwritten law. Goalkeepers are human just like the other 10 on the pitch, often bigger built aswell, so why are they getting such special treatment? If there is a ball to be contested then it's fair game, keeper or no keeper. Another ridiculous scheme of Blatter's no doubt.

If keepers weren't a little over protected, I could imagine some players maybe trying to use this to their advantage by sneakily nudging the keeper as he rises for the ball, out of view of the officials.

As it is, attackers aren't protected a massive amount from shirt tugs by defenders, and so you see that happening at every single corner and free kick around the box.

Personally I have no interest in brute force or sneaky tactics becoming any more of a tool to win games than they already are, so I'm happy enough for keepers to get that extra protection.

Having said that, I haven't seen the Shawcross 'goal'. Sometimes keepers do get a little too much protection, but sometimes they get impeded and the resulting goal isn't ruled out. For me the rule is good, but as with all rules in football, the inconsistency of application is a bit annoying.

 

[Stobzilla]

I've always been baffled by this unwritten law. Goalkeepers are human just like the other 10 on the pitch, often bigger built aswell, so why are they getting such special treatment? If there is a ball to be contested then it's fair game, keeper or no keeper. Another ridiculous scheme of Blatter's no doubt.

Fact is, keepers need a little protection, they go up high for balls with their arms raised if they get knocked whilst in the air they have little to no chance of cushioning the blow when they hit the deck, this could result in many injuries that can keep them out for a while.

That said, they are over protected at the moment, it does need to be toned down.

 

[Pexbo]

I've long said that they get far too much protection considering the size of the bastards and the fact they already have the advantage of using their hands on top of the fact they go go for the ball leading with their knee first.

Then you see Neuer make a challenge like that and get away with it and it make you feel a bit sick. It's about time they were treated like the massive great blokes they are supposed to be and not molly coddled all the time.

 

[Santos J]

He couldn't exactly help making contact once he went up for the ball tbf. No idea how it turned out to be a Germany free kick though.

 

[ivaldo]

It could've been a red card offense if it was an outfield player, very dangerous challenge.

Still its Neuer, notice how no one has dared mention it here? Let's pretend it never happened.

 

[Rado_N]

Still can't wrap my head around the refs decision there.

Hugely reckless from Neuer.

 

[Vanrouge]

Agreed. I was fully neutral for this final until that moment. In a sense, he had a right to go for the ball, and keepers are taught that knee-first thing as self-protection, but that was against the spirit of it and he used the knee-first thing without a moment's concern for Higuain's safety. Not exactly a Schumacher moment, but it was reckless.

 

[Vanrouge]

(Brilliant keeper, though.)