Another lovely question for you all :)

[one]

I think variations of this may have been discussed in the past.

The goal keeper dives to one side to save a shot from outside PA. The ball takes a deflection from a player, loses speed and roles to the opposite side of goal. The goalkeeper takes a water bottle next to the post near him and throws it at the ball which is about to go in near the other post, deflecting it out. What now?

 

[padiman]

Personally for me , it would be an indirect free kick and caution for unsporting behaviour , as it's a handling offence for a goalkeeper.

 

[Yacinho]

Caution for a handling offence from a keeper inside his own PA ?

 

[Yampy]

Hmmm, methinks @one spends too much time in the LOTG looking for loopholes but if it can happen, it will happen. And knowing the LOTG inside out is no bad thing.

• Law 12 - Handling The Ball states that "hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement"
• The Law continues to mention (under Disciplinary sanctions) - "A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored" The restart is a DFK/PK.
  
• As this is related to a goalkeeper, let's consider this - "Inside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball."

It's a puzzle but it wouldn't be unreasonable for a referee to conclude that an infringement has occurred but by a goalkeeper in his own penalty area. He/she could further reason that the punishment is for unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored therefore, not a handling offence. This would lead to a red card for the goalkeeper and a penalty kick awarded to the opposition as the restart.

Or he could reach an entirely different conclusion all together.

 

[one]

Hmmm, methinks @one spends too much time in the LOTG looking for loopholes but if it can happen, it will happen. And knowing the LOTG inside out is no bad thing.

Haha @David Sutton I take that as a complement. The reality is that I do spend too much time in the LOTG looking for ‘answers’. When I don’t find them, there is a good chance that I have found a loophole

 

[deusex]

The GK cannot be sent off in law for this.
I believe most would issue a caution for USB and an IFK.
Would you be incorrect in law to give nothing though? I can find nothing that says this is specifically is not allowed.

 

[Yampy]

The GK cannot be sent off in law for this.
I believe most would issue a caution for USB and an IFK.
Would you be incorrect in law to give nothing though? I can find nothing that says this is specifically is not allowed.

You're probably right about what the majority would do and that was my initial thought, too. However, I've worked out the MO of @one (he likes to keep us on our toes ) and he asked the question for a reason - there's more than 1 conclusion, some would say a loophole.
I looked at it and believe it would not be wrong in law to send off the GK and gave a reason for it. Law 12 states an infringement has taken place so, doing nothing is less of an option than my suggestion.
I conclude that if a red card is wrong then doing nothing is more wrong !
So, who knows? Where's the definitive answer to this conundrum?

 

[xPositor]

There does indeed appear to be a [yet another] loophole in the LOAF here. A GK cannot be guilty of a handling offence within the penalty area, and throwing and hitting the ball with an object is considered to be handling. If we read a bit further in the good book though, we get to this (my emphasis):

"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored."

So for me, its DOGSO - red card and penalty. When you get home and come to write it up online and get stuck as to what it could be, then its an email to your RDO... And if the team whose GK got sent off don't like it, they can appeal it.

But at the time, the most fair and just decision is to send the GK.

 

[deusex]

But if we RC for this wouldn't we have to RC a GK picking up a passback as a striker bears down on them?

 

[xPositor]

But if we RC for this wouldn't we have to RC a GK picking up a passback as a striker bears down on them?

No, because that's explicitly covered, and isn't DOGSO: "if he touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate", IDFK from where the keeper touches it.

 

[Yampy]

But if we RC for this wouldn't we have to RC a GK picking up a passback as a striker bears down on them?

No. As one of the seven RC offences, "denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)". Therefore, we don't send off and show a red card in that example.

In the OP, the ball has been hit and deflected away by a water bottle and Law 12 states
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
...
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
...
This makes it look like a handling offence by the goalkeeper in his own penalty area but the sanctions clause (see my original post) gives you an opportunity to punish not for the handling but for preventing a goal being scored.

 

[Yacinho]

This makes it look like a handling offence by the goalkeeper in his own penalty area but the sanctions clause (see my original post) gives you an opportunity to punish not for the handling but for preventing a goal being scored.

So you would send off a GK for say, deflecting a ball with his hand just before it enters the goal after a throw in from a team mate ?

You just quoted the " "denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)" " and a few lines below you say that we have the opportunity to punish for preventing a goal being scored, but preventing a goal being scored isn't an offense, preventing a goal being scored BY DOING AN OFFENSE is an offense, you can't have the DOGSO without acknowledging that the offense is "handling the ball" and that... it doesn't apply to the GK in his PA

 

[Yampy]

So you would send off a GK for say, deflecting a ball with his hand just before it enters the goal after a throw in from a team mate ?

No, a goal can't scored direct from a throw in, team mate or otherwise. If the GK chooses to deflect it, that's his problem for not knowing the LOTG.

The GK hasn't handled the ball, he's thrown a water bottle at it. Law 12 states it is an infringement and the disciplinary sanctions allow you to send off the GK for the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored. I believe these conditions allow a referee to send off the player and in this case it happens to be a GK.

I've never used the term DOGSO or DOGSO-H.

And if you've read the thread, you'll have seen that I would have probably done what the majority would have done but playing devil's advocate, I also believe it is possible for a referee to red card and stated the reasons for that conclusion.

 

[Yacinho]

to send off the GK for the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored. I believe these conditions allow a referee to send off the player and in this case it happens to be a GK.

I've never used the term DOGSO or DOGSO-H.

Wait, there are 7 justifications to send off a player, none of them is "unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored"

The only magic trick we have is the caution for USB, which we can use to caution a player for pretty much any reason that doesn't fit the others.

In that situation, if you can't send off the GK for 2nd caution, DOGSO-H or DOGSO, you can't send off the GK at all

 

[Yampy]

Wait, there are 7 justifications to send off a player, none of them is "unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored"

The only magic trick we have is the caution for USB, which we can use to caution a player for pretty much any reason that doesn't fit the others.

In that situation, if you can't send off the GK for 2nd caution, DOGSO-H or DOGSO, you can't send off the GK at all

Then, please explain the relevance of the statement which appears on page 121 of the latest LOTG (2015/16 season)? And expand your answer to explain why that disciplinary sanction clause is in the LOTG?

(@one must be laughing his socks off by now)

 

[Yacinho]

Then, please explain the relevance of the statement which appears on page 121 of the latest LOTG (2015/16 season)? And expand your answer to explain why that disciplinary sanction clause is in the LOTG?

(@one must be laughing his socks off by now)

The law says :

"There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball"

and then that there are also circumstances when a player is sent off, but it can't be for deliberately handling the ball as above, it can only be if he prevent a goal or a goal scoring opportunity

Conclusion : The law invites us to look to the DOGSO situation, which is the only RC situation when it comes to handling, and which can't exist for a GK in his own PA

Even if you were right, you send off the GK, you say it's not DOGSO nor DOGSO-H, ok, what do you write on your report ?

 

[Yampy]

In the LOTG, the term "denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity" is used freely throughout why change it to "unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored" in these circumstances if they don't have an alternative meaning and relevance?

And the report for the RC would say exactly what the LOTG sanction says. Let the disciplinary committee decide if the player appeals.

 

[Yacinho]

May I point out that p121 is in the "Interpretation of the law", and not in the "laws" itself ?
You have the Sending-off offences p40, can't be more clear
What happens p121 are interpretations, thus, the difference of language, the book is just trying to explain that the only possible send off situation when it comes to handling is if the handling was deliberately done to prevent a goal or a goal scoring situation to happen, the phrasing "unacceptable and unfair intervention" insist on the fact that a handling offense constitute of a deliberate contact between the ball and the hand, while simple DOGSO can happen without any lack of fair play, just because a defender missed a tackle.

 

[Joseph Proietti]

I think I would caution the keeper for circumventing the back pass law award a indirect freekick

 

[mikedn]

YC for the keeper,circumventing the laws of the game.. and an IDFK from where he threw the bottle