A&H

Newport v Bradford keeper handball

E

es1

RefChat Addict

Every sympathy with the keeper here, something I've done before as well...I'm torn over whether it should be red though, think it denies a clear gso.

Striker would definitely get there before the defender given their actions immediately before the handball and the ball wouldn't have gone behind for a goal kick (or goal!?) before the striker gets there.

Odd one
 
The Referee Store
I don’t think this is DOGSO. The defender got in front of the attacker before the HB. Far from obvious that the attacker has the best opportunity to get to the ball first.
 
The defender has slowed as he expects the keeper to get the ball while the striker is running past him. he gets there first imo.

I get it's not clear cut as you have to judge/estimate quite a few things
 
I would go a step further and say that pitch isn't legal. From Law 1 ...

Only the lines indicated in Law 1 are to be marked on the field of play. Where artificial surfaces are used, other lines are permitted provided they are a different colour and clearly distinguishable from the football lines.

The pitch fails this for me on two levels: the other lines are white so not a different colour, and unless I am mistaken it isn't an artificial pitch.
 
RustyRef said:
I would go a step further and say that pitch isn't legal. From Law 1 ...

Only the lines indicated in Law 1 are to be marked on the field of play. Where artificial surfaces are used, other lines are permitted provided they are a different colour and clearly distinguishable from the football lines.

The pitch fails this for me on two levels: the other lines are white so not a different colour, and unless I am mistaken it isn't an artificial pitch.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected, it is artificial. But the rugby lines are white.
 
RustyRef said:
I stand corrected, it is artificial. But the rugby lines are white.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I believe theyre *just* blue. Could be that they've faded over time, but it does seem like they're slightly different shades, or I might need my eyes testing
 

Attachments

  • 1678564577530.png
    1678564577530.png
    21.6 KB · Views: 24
Never a DOGSO for me, despite the keeper's distance outside the penalty area at the moment of handling, even if the keeper is stood just inside the penalty are, just don't see the attacker getting the ball first.
 
It’s a hybrid pitch rather than artificial. There was supposed to be a rugby match there on Wednesday, but this was postponed due to the weather, so this is probably why the lines were still marked rather than being worn and less visible.
 
Close one - the defender has broken away at the time of handling and it seems that the ball has held up. But I'm with Rusty - my threshold for overcoming doubt would be a lot lower in these innocent circumstances than others.
 
Can you also opt for no caution here in the circumstances? If the keeper doesn’t misjudge the line he just collects the ball a few yards back (I think). At no point is there an OGSO or a promising attack.
 
I think the correct in Law answer is a caution. You don’t get to guess at what the offending player could have done if he hadn’t committed the offense.

That said, at lower levels I think one can get away with laughing it off and not giving the caution. But it is a bit of making stuff up . .
 
I think it’s right to caution given the circumstances and to negate a mass brawl or the like…

But what actually is the caution for here in law? Surely it cant be a stopping a promising attack… it’s either DOGSO if the attacker was going to get the ball, or just a plain handball + no caution if the ball was going out for a goal kick or to the defender.
 
It’s not stopped a promising attack, but under the current wording of the law, could argue it’s interfered with a promising attack - i.e. the attacker had a chance to close the ball down, as the defender slowed, making it a possible goal scoring opportunity, rather than obvious.

We’re coming at this from the same perspective. And I’m playing semantics but there’s enough ambiguity in that sentence to use here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Why did the ref show the keeper the yellow card twice? I checked to see if 36 was booked for impeding the attacker, he wasn't.

If you're the attacking team you want a red, if you're the defending team you're happy with a yellow. For me, a free kick and no yellow. It's obvious it's an error due to the lines on the pitch.
 
I had a discussion with some people on a League 2 forum on Faceache.

I hadn’t seen the incident so couldn’t say whether it was DOGSO or not, but there are a lot of football fans out there who genuinely think that it’s an automatic red card in the goalkeeper handles the ball outside of the area.

I am always amazed how fans of a sport can know so little about the laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top