The Ref Stop

Crewe v Bristol Rovers - Keeper Error (DOGSO-H?)

The Ref Stop
Archer said:
Just send the feckers off šŸ˜‚
Click to expand...
Say as it is why donā€™t you šŸ¤­ If I was in the shoes of the Referee (so long as he was my size!!), taking into account the dilemma of views of this forum, the Referee could either have been strong (red) or given the benefit of any doubt (yellow). Either way, I donā€™t think we can say the decision he made was definitely incorrect. Although in Law there is no difference as to determining a foul in the centre of the FoP or in the penalty area, Referees should be 100% sure of awarding a penalty kick & it should be the same for any sending off (imho).
 
Last edited:
DavidObs said:
Say as it is why donā€™t you šŸ¤­ If I was in the shoes of the Referee (so long as he was my size!!), taking into account the dilemma of views of this forum, the Referee could either have been strong (red) or given the benefit of any doubt (yellow). Either way, I donā€™t think we can say the decision he made was definitely incorrect. Although in Law there is no difference as to determining a foul in the centre of the FoP or in the penalty area, Referees should be 100% sure of awarding a penalty kick & it should be the same for any sending off (imho).
Click to expand...
You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance are you?
 
JamesL said:
I had him collecting the drop just on the line and then carrying over.

See the IFAB post from @ARF
Click to expand...

Under the old interpretation (only location of the ball matters), I would agree with you. But under the new ā€œwhere the hand makes contact with the ballā€ interpretation, I think his first touch picking it back up is a HB offense.

If he carried it out, there should be no card at all, as before the foul it was GK possession.

A caution for SPA feels better to me than a sendoff despite the fact I think the case for DOGSOH is pretty strong. At the levels I do, Iā€™m definitely sticking with SPA.
 
ARF said:
He doesn't carry it out though - he drops it in the area, and handles it outside of the area. Big difference because the ball can be challenged for.


https://twitter.com/x/status/1836012280246366421


Given the direction the attacker is moving and the defender in close proximity, I'm not convinced the attacker is getting a shot off before being challenged, so I think a yellow is fine here.
Click to expand...
I'd missed that IFAB guidance. 20 years I've been waiting for that! That was after I'd had big arguments over the "new" interpretation versus how everybody used to know what the GK handling "outside the penalty area" meant.
bloovee said:
Stand well back!
.........

Anyway, here goes with the history....

Compare and contrast:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/06/you-are-the-ref-robbie-savage#_
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/13/trevillion-hackett-steve-bruce-sunderland

See also (the source of this surreptitious and pernicious change in interpretation):http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34 and item 5:
"The goalkeeper and the penalty area line" which takes what I will call the "new" interpretation (because it is). NB it says "[This answer repeats materials used in answers from 2003-2009, all in the archives of this site.]" Before 2003, they had my "old" interpretation. But go to page 2 of that USAF thread and there's the old interpretation in two replies on November 3 2008 (ignore the IDFK nonsense). I don't think I can trace my email of 13 years ago (!) to Jim Allen of Asktheref but he said they'd "changed their mind" because (for some reason that hadn't occurred to anyone in over 100 years of refereeing) they thought the law 9 provision should be applied to other areas marked on the FoP.

Anyway, here's my last email to FIFA which sets out why I thought the diagram in the laws (now Law 6 "Goalkeeper releasing the ball") made it absolutely clear that I was (and am) right. (The diagram appeared after my email....)

They've not revised it to be beyond any doubt but if you don't think the diagram is already clear I may not convince you otherwise. There can be only one plain understanding of "check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area".




To: 'media@fifa.org'
Subject: "in the penalty area"


I emailed you in November 2006 re the interpretation that the goalkeeper could handle the ball if part of the ball was in the penalty area (rather than only being able to use his hands within the penalty area).


Soon afterwards, coincidence or not, the laws included a new diagram (Interpretation and Guidelines section, Assistant Referees, diagram 4) that I thought confirmed the view that it was the position of the hands that mattered.


It is still being taught that the position of the ball is what matters.


USSF, until 2003 having supported the view that it is where the hands are that matters, changed its mind and are still promoting the ā€œposition of the ballā€ interpretation:

http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=34 THE GOALKEEPER AND THE PENALTY AREA LINE October 12, 2010
Iā€™m writing now because the regular feature strip in the Guardian, ā€œYou are the Refā€, has also now printed this interpretation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/13/trevillion-hackett-steve-bruce-sunderland
even though a previous strip had the opposite view http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/06/you-are-the-ref-robbie-savage#_
Assuming that FIFA did intend to support what I regard as the traditional interpretation, a revised wording might be needed; if not to law 12, the instruction to assistants might be changed:
The assistant referees must take a position in line with the edge of the penalty area and check that the goalkeeper does not touch the ball with his hands outside the penalty area


to become


The assistant referees must take a position in line with the edge of the penalty area and check that the goalkeeper does not use his hands outside the penalty area to touch the ball.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


For brevity I won't quote the whole 2006 email - but I'd not been able to get a definitive answer from the FA (or senior refs I tried) but most EPL refs seemed on my side. My arguments for the "traditional view" were:

  1. Historically, the goalkeeper could handle within his own half, and presumably this did not allow a keeper to reach over the half-way line.
  2. Linguistically, the law (in all official languages) clearly means that ā€œwithin the penalty areaā€ applies to the act of handling, not the position of the ball.
  3. It makes ā€œwithin the penalty areaā€ mean something other than its plain meaning.
  4. It would mean a goalkeeper could legitimately touch a ball 20cm outside the area if the ball is ā€œin the penalty areaā€, but if the ball is wholly outside the area it would be an offence, although the keeperā€™s hand was in exactly the same position. (Most who hold this view seem to think that a defender handling a ball ā€œin the penalty areaā€ should not concede a penalty unless his hand is in the penalty area, thus creating another inconsistency.)
For officials, it is easier to judge whether a hand is on the ball outside the line, whereas for the new interpretation officials would need to see the edge of the ball in relation to the line and the hand in another position. In some cases it would be no more difficult that an assistant referee judging whether a ball has been kept in play, but at some angles (and without an assistant) it would be much harder to judge.

And I did add:

Law 9 might also be clarified, viz. ā€œhandling offences committed outside the boundary lines of the field of play but while the ball is in play are deemed to have been committed on the field of playā€.
Click to expand...
 
The social media Q&A seem to be individual views/interpretations of IFAB employees. I see major problems with these sort of "clarifications" when something can be interpreted with different outcomes.

For starters in a few years a different IFAB employee may change the interpretation in new Q&A not being aware of the existing one.
As we have discovered some Q&A clearly contradict the actual laws, while some are corrected, others are ignored.
The biggest problem is that most can agree "social media" should not be the official source of the laws of the game. Not every referee is 'obliged' to follow the postings of IFAB social media, but they are obliged to be aware of content of the LOTG and official circulars.

A good example here is holding that starts outside the PA and continues inside. Imagine how inconsistently it would be applied if it wasn't in the LOTG but in some old social media Q&A post.

Rant over.
 
We can go round and round on what the better interpretation is. And we have! One quirky thing about the location of the hands argument is that, applied literally, we can have a HB PK against the kicker. If the GK touches a ball that is still in play on the goal line, but touches the ball beyond the goal line, the hand-ball contact isnā€™t in the PA. The DFK handling offense off the field is moved onto the field at the closest spot, resulting in a PK.

I really donā€™t care which way we apply the Law to GKā€™s. (OK, I marginally prefer the location of the ball model as being easier to identify in active play.) But either way, the language of the Laws remains unclear and should be reframed to give a clear answer. It would be so easy to make this clear, whichever direction is meant.
 
socal lurker said:
We can go round and round on what the better interpretation is. And we have! One quirky thing about the location of the hands argument is that, applied literally, we can have a HB PK against the kicker. If the GK touches a ball that is still in play on the goal line, but touches the ball beyond the goal line, the hand-ball contact isnā€™t in the PA. The DFK handling offense off the field is moved onto the field at the closest spot, resulting in a PK.

I really donā€™t care which way we apply the Law to GKā€™s. (OK, I marginally prefer the location of the ball model as being easier to identify in active play.) But either way, the language of the Laws remains unclear and should be reframed to give a clear answer. It would be so easy to make this clear, whichever direction is meant.
Click to expand...
Or we just go back to the sensible interpretation that everyone applied for over a century before the Americans managed to overthink it.
 
one said:
The social media Q&A seem to be individual views/interpretations of IFAB employees. I see major problems with these sort of "clarifications" when something can be interpreted with different outcomes.

For starters in a few years a different IFAB employee may change the interpretation in new Q&A not being aware of the existing one.
As we have discovered some Q&A clearly contradict the actual laws, while some are corrected, others are ignored.
The biggest problem is that most can agree "social media" should not be the official source of the laws of the game. Not every referee is 'obliged' to follow the postings of IFAB social media, but they are obliged to be aware of content of the LOTG and official circulars.

A good example here is holding that starts outside the PA and continues inside. Imagine how inconsistently it would be applied if it wasn't in the LOTG but in some old social media Q&A post.

Rant over.
Click to expand...
IFAB Q&A used to be official, and effectively part of the laws. They could still be variable. Heading the ball when held by the GK was ruled an offence after the Crosby goal (link below for new readers), ruled permissible the following year, then ruled an offence again the year after.

It may be Q&A then and now weren't pored over by the full board, but they were stronger than just advice.

 
socal lurker said:
Under the old interpretation (only location of the ball matters), I would agree with you. But under the new ā€œwhere the hand makes contact with the ballā€ interpretation, I think his first touch picking it back up is a HB offense.

If he carried it out, there should be no card at all, as before the foul it was GK possession.

A caution for SPA feels better to me than a sendoff despite the fact I think the case for DOGSOH is pretty strong. At the levels I do, Iā€™m definitely sticking with SPA.
Click to expand...
See above. Your "old" interpretation dates only from 2003. This is reverting to the "really old" interpretation.
 
bloovee said:
See above. Your "old" interpretation dates only from 2003. This is reverting to the "really old" interpretation.
Click to expand...

As I said, I donā€™t really care what it is. But the Laws need to be clarified either way, not just social media posts. VAR has really highlighted it, as without VAR there are very, very few plays where this is going to matter.
 
The ball was loose and the goalkeeper took the risk by going for it with his hands. The wide angle clearly shows it is an OGSO.
 
one said:
Or if the handling offence was a yard outside the PA. None which should be a factor.

A brainfart by the keeper doesn't mitigate a DOGSO. He could have easily kicked the ball.
Click to expand...
If he could easily have kicked the ball, doesn't that argue against DOGSO? Because if he hadn't handled it and kicked it the attacker couldn't have had an OGSO.

If he'd dropped it like that and then picked it up in the area (second touch after releasing it), it wouldn't be DOGSO: "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." Is that relevant?
 
bloovee said:
If he could easily have kicked the ball, doesn't that argue against DOGSO? Because if he hadn't handled it and kicked it the attacker couldn't have had an OGSO.

If he'd dropped it like that and then picked it up in the area (second touch after releasing it), it wouldn't be DOGSO: "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." Is that relevant?
Click to expand...
No a DOGSO offence does not only apply when the offending player is already 'beaten', and alternative options available to the offender is not a consideration.

A goalkeeper handling outside their own penalty area is supposed to be penalised in the same manner as any other player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top