Another lovely question for you all :)

[MalB]

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

?....?.... what back pass?...

Throwing a bottle to cheat is an offence.... right?......

A goal was denied..... right?.....

 

[Yacinho]

Throwing a bottle with the hand in a non violent way is considered as a handling offence.... right?......

You can't punish a GK for a handling offence in his own PA, even if it denied a goal..... right?......

 

[Joseph Proietti]

Misread OP I thought a defender played it back to him keeper wasn't getting there so threw a bottle to stop the ball going in

 

[MalB]

Throwing a bottle with the hand in a non violent way is considered as a handling offence.... right?......

You can't punish a GK for a handling offence in his own PA, even if it denied a goal..... right?......

Throwing the bottle was clearly an act of usb. Any panel would accept and back up a red card issued on the grounds of denying a goal scoring opportunity by way of an act of usb........ in my opinion....

Most answers above would tick the right boxes on assessment, as far as applying the laws of the game but I feel that managing the game is the expected thing and anyone can see that the keeper has clearly cheated and prevented a goal.

if this goes unpunished, whats stopping the keeper bring items on the pitch intentionally for this reason?....

put yourself in the position of the manager or striker of the team who is denied this goal by this cheating keepers actions...


well...... This is what refereeing is all about..... angles and opinions...... good to see

 

[deusex]

If this went to a panel they'd laugh you out of there.
MalB, you have literally made up a law because you think the current laws are unfair.
Maybe they are, but the fact is there are only 7 things you can send a player off for.
If you can't make it fit into one of them then the player stays on

 

[AlexF]

2006 Q&A has your answers under Law 12, Qs 6+7...

A player, other than the goalkeeper, standing in his own penalty area holding a shinguard, hits the ball with his shinguard to prevent it entering the goal. What action does the referee take?

The referee awards a penalty kick and the player is sent off for preventing a goal. The shinguard is regarded as an extension of the player’s hand.

And...

What happens if, in a similar situation, the player in question is the goalkeeper?

The referee stops play, cautions the goalkeeper for unsporting behaviour and play is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team*.

Surprisingly, the Laws haven't changed all that much in the last ten years and to my recollection, only 4-5 answers in the entire set are no longer valid.

 

[one]

I can't remember that far back. Does anyone know when this sentence was introduced to the laws of the game? pg 121: “the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball”.

 

[xPositor]

May I point out that p121 is in the "Interpretation of the law", and not in the "laws" itself ?
What happens p121 are interpretations

Throwing a bottle with the hand in a non violent way is considered as a handling offence

You can't punish a GK for a handling offence in his own PA, even if it denied a goal.....

As you've noted, p121 is an interpretation of the law, and not the law itself. Your second point I've quoted is also from the interpretations, and not the law itself, so you've discounted your own argument.

What I would say is that surely interpretations of the law are like case law in courts, where one judge's interpretation sets a precedent. The keeper cannot be guilty of DOGSO-H, but it could be argued that throwing a bottle to deflect a ball away from goal is DOGSO by way of USB. I would still red card and dismiss, and let the authorities sort it out afterwards, because otherwise football is opening itself up to a whole can of worms (for example, there is nothing in the laws of the game to prevent a GK from taking multiple towels out, rolling them up in to tubes, and placing them right beside the goal line, but off the FOP, to stop slow moving balls crossing the goal line; nothing you can do within the laws, but you're not going to let him do that, are you... are you?).

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Throwing the bottle was clearly an act of usb. Any panel would accept and back up a red card issued on the grounds of denying a goal scoring opportunity by way of an act of usb........ in my opinion....

Most answers above would tick the right boxes on assessment, as far as applying the laws of the game but I feel that managing the game is the expected thing and anyone can see that the keeper has clearly cheated and prevented a goal.

if this goes unpunished, whats stopping the keeper bring items on the pitch intentionally for this reason?....

put yourself in the position of the manager or striker of the team who is denied this goal by this cheating keepers actions...


well...... This is what refereeing is all about..... angles and opinions...... good to see

usb=caution not dismissal

 

[Yacinho]

As you've noted, p121 is an interpretation of the law, and not the law itself. Your second point I've quoted is also from the interpretations, and not the law itself, so you've discounted your own argument.

Sorry but I have discounted nothing, I didn't said that what was in the interpretations wasn't right, I explained why what was in the interpretations couldn't constitute an adding sending off offence to the 7 mentioned in the law.

As for the rest of your argument, there is no such thing as DOGSO by way of usb, there is DOGSO and there is usb, two different things. You want to do as easy as possible and let someone else do the job you should have done on the field, that's it and I can understand the temptation

 

[Scotty Ref]

This is certainly an interesting debate and shows that the wording of the Laws aren't as clear as we would like at times.

However in no circumstances can a red card be issued in this circumstance. The offence of throwing something at the ball, is counted as a handling offence.

The laws are very very clear, under no circumstances can a goalkeeper be guilty of misconduct relating to handling the ball within the penalty area. Therefore no matter how you spin it a red card is completely and utterly wrong in law. If you choose to give a red card in this situation it will be thrown out by a disciplinary committee and if you did it in an assessed game then be prepared for a lower mark than you expected.

The act is unsporting so the only real option you have is to caution for it and restart with an idfk under the last idfk offence

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
  play is stopped to caution or send off a player.
  
  
  

 

[xPositor]

...shows that the wording of the Laws aren't as clear as we would like at times...

However in no circumstances can a red card be issued in this circumstance. The offence of throwing something at the ball, is counted as a handling offence.

The laws are very very clear, under no circumstances can a goalkeeper be guilty of misconduct relating to handling the ball within the penalty area. Therefore no matter how you spin it a red card is completely and utterly wrong in law. If you choose to give a red card in this situation it will be thrown out by a disciplinary committee and if you did it in an assessed game then be prepared for a lower mark than you expected.

The act is unsporting so the only real option you have is to caution for it and restart with an idfk under the last idfk offence

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which
  play is stopped to caution or send off a player.

@Scotty Ref - you're an L3 so with some experience under your belt - but your reply confuses me. If it's a handling offence, then the keeper cannot be guilty of misconduct - you can't therefore choose to book the keeper for USB, as he's done nothing wrong in the law (per your view)? I refer to @MalB who stated that "throwing a bottle to cheat is an offence", and "a goal was denied". The GK has intentionally cheated to stop the ball crossing the line (and preventing a goal), and in my eyes that's DOGSO under this situation. People keep citing one law to say that you can't dismiss the keeper, and then contravening another law to say you can caution. We all either agree that no action can be taken (even if we would want to), or you can take action - in which case a red is as valid as a yellow.

@Yacinho - I wasn't trying to introduce a new law (DOGSO USB), instead attempting to explain that you could argue the offence isn't DOGSO-H.

@one - do you have any other bombs you want to set light to the fuse on and throw in to the forum? It's keeping the summer interesting

 

[AlexF]

I can't remember that far back.

The 2006 Q&A is a very valuable tool as it still (almost entirely) applies to modern day stuff.

Googling for "fifa q&a 2006" found this link right off the bat:
http://www.brooklynayso.org/pdfs/qa-laws.pdf

I can't (off the top of my head) respond to the second part, but I believe that came into effect along with the DOGSO-H sending off.

And for those who discount the interpretations as not being part of the Laws? Since they were introduced (2007? 2008?), they've been considered part of the Laws. Not the precise wording of the Law itself, but part of the Laws all the same.

 

[bester]

They've established a precedent where they ignore the "any misconduct related to handling" to give a yellow card so why didn't they do the same with DOGSO. The Q&A for this scenario is just a poorly thought out fudge.

 

[Yacinho]

And for those who discount the interpretations as not being part of the Laws? Since they were introduced (2007? 2008?), they've been considered part of the Laws. Not the precise wording of the Law itself, but part of the Laws all the same.

And who did that ?

 

[one]

@AlexF I am aware of the Q&A. My short memory was referring to the introduction of the clause from pg 121. The point I was making is that if it was introduced after the Q&A (and i am pretty sure it was), then its interpretation trumps the particular Q&A you referenced. 'Misconduct' (another ambiguous term in LOTG) is commonly interpreted as an act punishable by a send-off OR a caution. Then by definition this clause contradicts the Q&A and the most recent of the two must be used.

@xPositor I did throw in another bomb a little while ago. It failed to attract any attention and did not explode. I might give it a nudge once the dust from this one settles

 

[AlexF]

@AlexF I am aware of the Q&A. My short memory was referring to the introduction of the clause from pg 121. The point I was making is that if it was introduced after the Q&A (and i am pretty sure it was), then its interpretation trumps the particular Q&A you referenced. 'Misconduct' (another ambiguous term in LOTG) is commonly interpreted as an act punishable by a send-off OR a caution.

Oldest LotG I could find in a quick search was 2002. It's contained in those (also in the 2006).

2002: http://www.melroseyouthsoccer.net/coaches/fifa_rules_of_the_game.pdf
2006: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/lotg2006_e_1581.pdf

So, the Q&A clarifies. Apparently a GK throwing a shinguard within his own penalty area to stop a goal is not considered handling in the classic sense.

 

[Scotty Ref]

@xPositor sorry if my reply was confusing. First of aall a red card cannot and must not be issued in this situation, it cannot be DOGSO as a goalkeeper cannot be sent off for handling the ball in his own penalty area. The Laws do not allow for it and anyone suggesting it us just plain wrong.

Technically the handling cannot be misconduct hence no card. I think we all agree that this action requires a card. Therefore the only place to go is USB throwing an object and restart with an IFK, I will concede that this is a bit of a push within the actual Laws.

As someone else noted FIFA declared that YC and IDFK is correct!

 

[MalB]

@xPositor sorry if my reply was confusing. First of aall a red card cannot and must not be issued in this situation, it cannot be DOGSO as a goalkeeper cannot be sent off for handling the ball in his own penalty area. The Laws do not allow for it and anyone suggesting it us just plain wrong.

Technically the handling cannot be misconduct hence no card. I think we all agree that this action requires a card. Therefore the only place to go is USB throwing an object and restart with an IFK, I will concede that this is a bit of a push within the actual Laws.

As someone else noted FIFA declared that YC and IDFK is correct!

In one sentence you state how people are wrong in law and then in your next sentence you state that throwing an object is a yellow when this isnt strictly true.......

 

[MalB]

usb=caution not dismissal

I agree.



But denying a goal..... which was the case..... is ???