The Ref Stop

Goal after GK handling outside PA.

Homer Ref

Homer Ref

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
This happened in 2010 game where I was the only official yesterday. GK and attacker about 2 yards outside PA. GK clears but hits the attacker and ball rebounds and hits GK arm, rebounds back off the arm and onto the path of attacker. I played on as attacker was through on goal and scored. I didn't take any sanction against the keeper although should I have done?
 
The Ref Stop
Homer Ref said:
This happened in 2010 game where I was the only official yesterday. GK and attacker about 2 yards outside PA. GK clears but hits the attacker and ball rebounds and hits GK arm, rebounds back off the arm and onto the path of attacker. I played on as attacker was through on goal and scored. I didn't take any sanction against the keeper although should I have done?
Click to expand...
Time traveller?

The test here is, had you stopped play for the handball offence would it have been DOGSO?

If the answer is yes then it should have been a caution.
 
Both players were about a yard from each other and that added to the confusion for me. I was a wee distance away from both but had a clear view. All I could see was the ball hitting GK arm then the ball breaking back off to the attacker and he has an open goal. Nobody complained about the lack of a sanction so for me, I thought the goal was enough punishment. I'm aware what the LOTG states on this, but am I allowed just to use a bit of leeway on that?
 
Homer Ref said:
Both players were about a yard from each other and that added to the confusion for me. I was a wee distance away from both but had a clear view. All I could see was the ball hitting then the ball breaking back off to the attacker and he has an open goal. Nobody complained about the lack of a sanction so for me, I thought the goal was enough punishment. I'm aware what the LOTG states on this, but am I allowed just to use a bit of leeway on that?
Click to expand...
Dog and duck league, yes you can get away with it. Higher up it's a missed caution. If the offence would have been DOGSO and you played advantage the caution is mandatory.
 
Did the GK deliberately handball. Eg try and save it.

Or were they in a narural body shape for someone who had just tried to clear the ball.

The defender being so close likely gave them no time to deliberately handball it. (Not putting a reflex save past them).
 
OldNavyRef said:
Did the GK deliberately handball. Eg try and save it.

Or were they in a narural body shape for someone who had just tried to clear the ball.

The defender being so close likely gave them no time to deliberately handball it. (Not putting a reflex save past them).
Click to expand...
Definitely a reflex save ONR, don't think the GK thought much about it.
 
James covered it earlier. If it is park football you can sell most things.

But the correct decision for a deliberate save is a yellow. Must probably wouldn't find that too ridiculous either. Probably an easy sell.

You dived and saved the ball mate, you're lucky he scored
 
Homer Ref said:
This happened in 2010 game where I was the only official yesterday. GK and attacker about 2 yards outside PA. GK clears but hits the attacker and ball rebounds and hits GK arm, rebounds back off the arm and onto the path of attacker. I played on as attacker was through on goal and scored. I didn't take any sanction against the keeper although should I have done?
Click to expand...
So, in case of doubt, call on your friendly IFAB... It appears to me the the relevant section of Law 12 is as follows:

"If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.

However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."

Even if it was just a rebound, the ball touched the attacker before again contacting the GK, so no foul, no sanction, no how.

As I understand the situation and as I understand the Law, even signaling advantage (if you did so formally as opposed to letting the play develop) would be unnecessary.

Am I wrong about this?
 
joeref said:
So, in case of doubt, call on your friendly IFAB... It appears to me the the relevant section of Law 12 is as follows:

"If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.

However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."

Even if it was just a rebound, the ball touched the attacker before again contacting the GK, so no foul, no sanction, no how.

As I understand the situation and as I understand the Law, even signaling advantage (if you did so formally as opposed to letting the play develop) would be unnecessary.

Am I wrong about this?
Click to expand...
Ooops! Missed that (obviously)🥴 I'll go quietly now...
 
Homer Ref said:
This happened in 2010 game where I was the only official yesterday. GK and attacker about 2 yards outside PA. GK clears but hits the attacker and ball rebounds and hits GK arm, rebounds back off the arm and onto the path of attacker. I played on as attacker was through on goal and scored. I didn't take any sanction against the keeper although should I have done?
Click to expand...
I think it's DOGSO. Doesn't matter if you thought it was not on purpose. Should caution the GK after that goal. As James said, in lower tier or amateur matches you could away with it, but in higher matches it would be missed caution. But I agreed that the decision to play advantage should be held. You still should caution with a yellow card after that play.
 
Tingting said:
I think it's DOGSO. Doesn't matter if you thought it was not on purpose.
Click to expand...
It's not DOGSO, since the goal was in fact scored. Also, it does matter if the referee judges it not to be on purpose, because then you have to decide if the player has made their body unnaturally bigger or not. If it wasn't deliberate and the player hasn't made their body unnaturally bigger, then there's no offence.
 
Peter Grove said:
It's not DOGSO, since the goal was in fact scored. Also, it does matter if the referee judges it not to be on purpose, because then you have to decide if the player has made their body unnaturally bigger or not. If it wasn't deliberate and the player hasn't made their body unnaturally bigger, then there's no offence.
Click to expand...
Well I was asuming that the GK was spreading out his arms on purpose because it right outside pen area. Keep probably kept hands raised as i seen in many incidents similar. The topic above didn't say anything about the arms posture. It would've been DOGSO if goal not scored, but GK still commits an offense that still liable for him.
 
Peter Grove said:
It's not DOGSO, since the goal was in fact scored. Also, it does matter if the referee judges it not to be on purpose, because then you have to decide if the player has made their body unnaturally bigger or not. If it wasn't deliberate and the player hasn't made their body unnaturally bigger, then there's no offence.
Click to expand...
For the not on purpose its for unatraully bigger positions with hand balls. In this case I assumed the GK arms were wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top