Attempted Double Touch DOGSO by Goalkeeper

[bester]

Goalkeeper miskicks a goal kick and then fouls an attacker (who hasn't yet touched it) inside the penalty area while attempting to play the ball, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
The goalkeeper doesn't touch the ball during the tackle.

What's the sanction?

 

[ARF]

Sounds like a caution to me.

 

[Russell Jones]

Hmmm, can it truly be classed as a challenge for the ball when there isn't a legal way for the player to do so (unless his opponent plays it first!)?! Assuming it can then, yup, this is a great 'loophole' Yellow Card

 

[one]

Yeah. Thread title sounds misleading. "Attempted double touch DOGSO" will be more accurate. But I am with @Russell Jones . I don't call it a loophole though. I see it as a gap in the definition of "challenging for the ball". If it is defined correctly then this should be a red if the foul occured before the attacker touched the ball. Without that definition I'd say it open to interpretation and I will still give it a red.

As a side note, this scenario is not just limited to goal keepers. It can happen to any other defender.

 

[Peter Grove]

Goalkeeper miskicks a goal kick and then fouls an attacker (who hasn't yet touched it) inside the penalty area while attempting to play the ball, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
The goalkeeper doesn't touch the ball during the tackle.

What's the sanction?

If the keeper doesn't touch the ball during the tackle, where's the double touch offence?

In any event (assuming no serious foul play is involved) for me this is only a yellow card, since a penalty would be awarded.

As far as I'm concerned, it only matters whether it was an attempt to play the ball, the law doesn't say the player has to be entitled to play the ball, it only talks about whether they attempted to do so. YMMV

It's interesting to note that there was an offence like this a couple of years back where it really was a double touch offence, in a women's UCL game involving AS Roma. It looked like the keeper was trying to play a short goal kick but when she saw her team mate wasn't going for the ball and an opponent was closing in on an empty net, she played the ball again. The referee sent her off. Because the result would have been an indirect free kick rather than a penalty, this was the technically correct decision, though I seem to recall that in the discussion over this on here, some thought it was a slightly harsh decision.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328119060865888256

 

[Viridis1886]

Because the result would have been an indirect free kick rather than a penalty, this was the technically correct decision,

So are you going for a red card then @Peter Grove ?

The above looks to be the same as the OP described, but without the contact in a challenge.

 

[santa sangria]

In the OP - penalty, YC, attempt to play the ball (the law cannot cover everything, like attempting to play a ball that cannot legally be played, and I think PK, YC is what footy expects).

In Peter’s clip - IDFK, RC. I think that’s clear in law.

IMHO of course.

 

[JamesL]

In the OP - penalty, YC, attempt to play the ball (the law cannot cover everything, like attempting to play a ball that cannot legally be played, and I think PK, YC is what footy expects).

In Peter’s clip - IDFK, RC. I think that’s clear in law.

IMHO of course.

If a ball can't be legally played then is that not covered under no possibility to play the ball?

 

[one]

and I think PK, YC is what footy expects

Errm. Attacker is about to tap the ball in and he is fouled. I'd argue footy expects a red. And if I can put a retrospective argument in then yellow is even less expected if the ensuing penalty misses.

for me this is one of those edge cases that you can sell either way. Would love for the law to cover this. Not because it happens often, but because if it does, consequences of the decision are big.

 

[socal lurker]

If a ball can't be legally played then is that not covered under no possibility to play the ball?

I was going to agree, but that isn’t quite what Law 12 says:

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.​

I don’t think IFAB remotely considered this scenario when it wrote the language. And I keep waffling on the better interpretation (I thin @one is right that this can be sold either way). I think I come down on red. I think the spirit of the law tells me that if touching the ball would result in red for the IFK infraction, then the GK should not be spared the send off by committing the more serious DFK offense. But I can’t say with any certainty someone is wrong for taking the @Peter Grove approach.

 

[santa sangria]

I mentioned this to one of our trainers yesterday. He gave me a blank look like: hope TF it never happens!

 

[Peter Grove]

The above looks to be the same as the OP described, but without the contact in a challenge.

Actually, there is a fairly big difference between the clip and the OP in that one leads to a penalty, the other to an indirect free kick, which in turn affects the sanction. The law says a yellow card for DOGSO inside the penalty area can only be given when a penalty kick is awarded (and the other criteria are met). So if there's no penalty kick and it's adjudged to be a DOGSO offence, the law says it's a red card in any event.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

no possibility to play the ball

I'd say this applies to OPs situation no? He cannot possibly play the ball legally

 

[Peter Grove]

I'd say this applies to OPs situation no? He cannot possibly play the ball legally

The law doesn't say the player has to be entitled to play the ball legally, it just talks about the possibility to play the ball. When you think about how the law came about and the overall intent of it, as far as I can tell it's more about the player making an attempt to play the ball (as opposed to the man) than anything else. Whether they're legally entitled to play the ball is not the crux of this law, to the best of my understanding.

 

[one]

Whether they're legally entitled to play the ball is not the crux of this law.

I am reasonably confident the reason for this is not that they didn't intend it, it's that they didn't think of it.

If you think about why this law was brought in in the first place, it was to eliminate triple punishment. They wanted to do it for acts that football expected to be part of the game, but poorly executed and caused an offence. The OP act, though poorly executed and became an offence, even it's best execution would have still been an offence and something that football does not expect.