Soccer goalies

OK, gang. Simple qustion. Why do the soccer goalies wear different color uniforms than the rest of the team?

Thanks in advance,

don Jaime de los Resorbitos
Free the Water Tower 3!

The goallie is the only player who is allowed to touch the ball with his hands.

Wearing a differant colour makes it easier to distinguish between the one who can and the rest who can’t.

And to complete the answer, because the Laws of the Game require him/her to, specifically at Law 3, Clause (3):

Casdave is correct in identifying the reason for this particular clause in the Laws. :slight_smile:

In addition to being able to use his hands, the goalie is accorded some added protection in the goal area and the penalty area. The different uniform makes it easy for the referee to pick him/her out in a crowd.

Just out of interest BobT, are you saying there are different laws which apply to fouling a goalie, as opposed to any outfield player? I’m not so familiar with the small print of the rules.

Well, it is a foul to prevent the goalie from releasing the ball, Law 12


There is also a new rule about how long the goalie can hold on to the ball before releasing it. (six seconds I believe.)

It also works both ways against the goalie because there are certain things he cannot do even in the penalty or goal area (one specifically is taking the ball and throwing it at an opponent.)

Basically, he’s a marked man.

This rule is new to Major League Soccer. FIFA does not have this rule at all. I believe in place of it there is instead a limit to the number of steps the goalie can take while holding the ball (4).

According to the MLS website, it’s a new FIFA -mandated rule. The US is the first country that has started its season under the new rule.
The goalkeeper may take as many steps with the ball in his hands in the penalty area, but he must put it back into play within six seconds. If he doesn’t, it’s an indirect free kick.
The rest of the world will play under this rule starting July 1.

There aren’t different laws, referees just allow much less contact with the goalkeeper than with field players. I’ve been playing keeper for six years, almost any slide/ kick that occurs when the ball is in the air and near the keeper will draw a foul.

There are a few reasons:

*my hands and face are usually in the action, they’re much more vulnerable than shins and feet

*I’m often stretched out when making a save, so a foul would probably be more dangerous to my well-being

*Any foul to the goalkeeper that isn’t caught usually results in a goal, so the referee is generally vigilant

*The keeper has a lot to do with the team’s confidence, an injured or fouled goalkeeper can change the game’s flow

However, I could get away with just about anything. I kneed quite a few players during air balls and never got called on it.

You’re not really named Toni Schumacher are you? :wink:

I doublechecked with my soccer playing friends and they agreed saying that while it’s not official, goalies are always given the benefit of the doubt in any collision.

I understand the increased level of protection afforded to keepers. Pah, it wasn’t like that in my day when me and the late Stanley M. were playing, I can tell ya. :wink:

According to the 1999 Laws of the Game… Law 12 - Decision 2 of the International F.A. Board:
The goalkeeper is considered to be uilty of time-wasting if he holds the ball in his hands or arms for more than 5-6 seconds.

Also under Law 12: An Indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing tema if a player, in the opinion of the referee:
plays in a dangerous manner.
Some referees use this rule to prevent people from striking at the ball while in the goalkeepers possession.

Even stupid goalkeepers are afforded protection (well, unless they’re named Mark Crossley).

Anyone remember the game between (if I remember correctly) Brighton and Bristol Rovers a few years back? There’s a penalty area scramble which results in a goal-kick to Bristol Rovers; one of the Brighton players, George Parris, hadn’t returned to his own half and was hanging around on the goal line. The Rovers keeper didn’t spot Parris behind him, placed the ball to take the kick and Parris calmly jogged round and scored.

The referee disallowed it for ungentlemanly conduct.

Crusoe Takes A Trip

The referee disallowed it for ungentlemanly conduct.


[hijack] Quite right, too. A pity he wasn’t refereeing that Arsenal - Sheffield United Cup match a couple of years ago when Overmars scored from a throw-in after the ball had been kicked into touch to allow an injured player to be treated. [/hijack]

Who can forget Andy Dibble playing for Manchester City against Nottingham Forest, ball sitting loosely on the palm of his hand a cheeky striker headed it to the ground and scored, goal given. Totally unrelated is a goal not given by the referee in a Hearts Dundee Utd match. The ball was kicked into the net, it bounced back out off the stanchion into the defenders hands who then hands it to the keeper. No goal, no penalty, play on. The referee was Les Mottram who is now officiating in the Japanese J-League. I pity them.

Didn’t Chris Sutton do the same thing for Blackburn, putting pressure on when the ball had been intentionally kicked out due to an injury. I think it led to a goal, but don’t remember the opposition.

Wow, it’s amazing to see an in depth discussion of soccer laws here… I’m in delighted shock! :0

Law 12 used to contain some specific provisions regarding fouling the 'keeper. Specifically listed as an indirect free kick foul was:

The goal area is the smaller rectangular area directly in front of a goal, measuring six yards deep by 20 yards wide. If you think the rule as written was difficult to totally comprehend, you aren’t alone. But, in essence, it said that the 'keeper, in front of his goal before he possessed the ball with his hands couldn’t be run into by an opponent unless the 'keeper was obstructing that opponent. The classic example is the 'keeper attempting to get to a crossing kick who gets run into by an opponent also trying to play the ball.

Law 12 was substantially changed effective July 1, 1997. In the process, several clauses regarding ‘charging’ were eliminated, it being felt that charging carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force (banging really hard into someone without proper care for their well being) was already a penal foul, and ‘dangerous play’ and ‘impeding the progress of an opponent’ (both indirect free kick fouls) took care of the rest.

Under the current rule:

Keeping the 'keeper from getting to the ball is ‘impeding the progress of an opponent’; it results in an indirect free kick for the 'keepers team.

Knocking the 'keeper down or unfairly trying to dispossess him of the ball (considered in his possession if he is touching it ‘with any part of his hands or arms’ (Law 12, IB Decision #3)) is ‘dangerous play’; it, too, results in an indirect free kick. This rule can be interpreted very strictly for youth soccer and in recreational leagues.
One final thought: mattk might have some essential fact incorrect about what resulted in the caution to Mr. Parris. The ball would not yet be in play if placed for a goal-kick; Mr. Parris wouldn’t be able to play the ball until it had been touched by the opponents andleft the penalty area. If he did indeed do as described, he not only committed ungentlemanly conduct, he did something really stupid because it couldn’t have counted as a score anyway. Perhaps someone else can fill us in as to whether some other fact is missing. :slight_smile:

Not sure about the Parris goal, really. It was a few years back (possibly 1992/93), so I don’t know if all of the same laws applied. I remember there was some debate over whether he was offside at the time.

Anyway, I’ve tried a search for it and drawn a blank. I’ll see if anyone I know can remember the story.

Crusoe Takes A Trip

Tell a lie…here we go:

From It’s Up For Grabs Now: 50 bizarre goals. There’s a few other goalkeeping blinders in there.

Crusoe Takes A Trip