I've had this discussion with @one before. I lost
ATM v ARSENIL
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
- Status
Based on David Elleray's own guidance? (post-101402)I've started this discussion in my local RA facebook group chat. Interestingly, Dave Elleray would consider every single one of us wrong - looks like we're the mickey mouse brigade
Please expand on your RA discussion. I've gone into a quivering cold sweat brought on by this distressing uncertaintyI've started this discussion in my local RA facebook group chat. Interestingly, Dave Elleray would consider every single one of us wrong - looks like we're the mickey mouse brigade
Do we? I've never actually heard or read that from any authority. I hear it a lot from players and pundits.
Personally I just stop my watch while the substitution occurs, effectively adding on whatever time it actually takes.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Elleray's answer doesn't cover this scenario. I'm with the "GK can't be sanctioned for a handling offence in own PK" but willing to be educated!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
...but he doesn't cover the GK handling conundrum...He covers the fact that you can be dismissed for an IDFK - I may have been too quick to admit defeat there
Same David Roland Elleray who failed to send off Tony Adams for calling him a ‘F’kin Cheat’ straight in his face v Millwall?? Yeh, that bastion of upholding the LOTG 
Last edited:
A goal keeper can be guilty of a handling offence punishable by an IDFK (not a DFK) inside the penalty area. A DOGSO does not need to be a DFK offence, therefore it's implied that there's nothing to preclude the keeper from DOGSO by picking up the back pass. It is equivalent to the IDFK awarded for verbal distraction in the other thread. Because a penalty kick cannot be awarded, a caution is not an option, therefore the keeper must be sent off. Again, this scenario is not explicitly defined in the book, so it takes some ludicrous interpretation of what's being implied by the pigeon English used
Oh god, here we go again.
Why does handling have its own clause for DOGSO in Law 12? Because deliberate handling is not an offense against an opponent. The other DOGSO clause is for when an offense is committed against an opponent (whether it's one of the DFK fouls listed at the beginning of law 12, impeding without contact, or PIADM). If it was needed to be made clear that deliberate handling (the DFK offense) was not committed against an opponent, so it needed it's own DOGSO clause. Then it follows that a GK handling a backpass is not an offense against an opponent and therefore would also require it's own DOGSO clause, which doesn't exist.
Why does handling have its own clause for DOGSO in Law 12? Because deliberate handling is not an offense against an opponent. The other DOGSO clause is for when an offense is committed against an opponent (whether it's one of the DFK fouls listed at the beginning of law 12, impeding without contact, or PIADM). If it was needed to be made clear that deliberate handling (the DFK offense) was not committed against an opponent, so it needed it's own DOGSO clause. Then it follows that a GK handling a backpass is not an offense against an opponent and therefore would also require it's own DOGSO clause, which doesn't exist.
Okay, but looking at Law 12:
OK, fair point. This is explicit and therefore eclipses the implied stuff I decked you all with. I guess there's nothing explicit about the verbal offence to negate the implicit DOGSO associated with the distraction scenario; so that still stands...
How difficult would it be to depict all this 'ball in play' stuff in a tree like logic instead of loose terminology in fragmented paragraphs? Define the offence, who did it to who, the disciplinary action, whether the game needs to be stopped, where it happened and what the restart is. The resultant chart could even be digested successfully by your average footballer or pundit. Or maybe IFAB prefer nonsense...
one
RefChat Addict
Ok DA's email/guidance was only to reject the assertion of technical offences can not be DOGSO which is one of the myths floating around. That also seemed to be something that @HarryD originally mentioned.
The law up to and including 15/16 (from as far back as at least 2007) version stated: "Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player. 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. He can, however, be guilty of several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
This was ambiguous and created some debate on what is considered a "related to handling the ball". Is a second touch after restart related to handling the ball? Is picking up a back pass? How about throwing an object at the ball?. The majority believed it means anything that involved keeper touching the ball (which included all three cases above). And that is what was taught.
However, the 16/17 version of the law clarified the ambiguity by changing the paragraph to: "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
The new wording links the sanction immunity to DFK handling instead of handling related offences. That takes care of and removes the ambiguity in the first two cases above but the case of throwing an object at the ball can still remain unsanctioned. This later case is taken care of in the 18/19 version of the law.
So the latest version of the law is very clear, the goal keeper is only immune from sanctions for DFK handling related offences in their PA.
Now let's look at the DOGSO clauses. R4 does not apply to goalkeepers in their own area so its irrelevant. R5, "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"
Lets not complicate this any more by the DOGSO yellow (the unless part). Note the opportunity is 'to' and opponent and not 'against'. Not sure that it makes any difference. If an opponent has a GSO then this can apply. Also note the offence can be punishable by any FK, direct or indirect.
So lets go back to the original scenario:
1. Does the opponent have a goal scoring opportunity: Yes
2. Has the goal keeper committed an offence: Yes
3. Is the offence punishable by a free kick: Yes
4. Is the offence a handling offence incurring a direct free kick: NO
1., 2., 3. : All DOGSO criteria satisfied
4. The goal keeper is not immune from sanctions.
The outcome is send the keeper off for DOGSO and restart with IFK
The law up to and including 15/16 (from as far back as at least 2007) version stated: "Outside his own penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player. 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. He can, however, be guilty of several handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
This was ambiguous and created some debate on what is considered a "related to handling the ball". Is a second touch after restart related to handling the ball? Is picking up a back pass? How about throwing an object at the ball?. The majority believed it means anything that involved keeper touching the ball (which included all three cases above). And that is what was taught.
However, the 16/17 version of the law clarified the ambiguity by changing the paragraph to: "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
The new wording links the sanction immunity to DFK handling instead of handling related offences. That takes care of and removes the ambiguity in the first two cases above but the case of throwing an object at the ball can still remain unsanctioned. This later case is taken care of in the 18/19 version of the law.
So the latest version of the law is very clear, the goal keeper is only immune from sanctions for DFK handling related offences in their PA.
Now let's look at the DOGSO clauses. R4 does not apply to goalkeepers in their own area so its irrelevant. R5, "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)"
Lets not complicate this any more by the DOGSO yellow (the unless part). Note the opportunity is 'to' and opponent and not 'against'. Not sure that it makes any difference. If an opponent has a GSO then this can apply. Also note the offence can be punishable by any FK, direct or indirect.
So lets go back to the original scenario:
1. Does the opponent have a goal scoring opportunity: Yes
2. Has the goal keeper committed an offence: Yes
3. Is the offence punishable by a free kick: Yes
4. Is the offence a handling offence incurring a direct free kick: NO
1., 2., 3. : All DOGSO criteria satisfied
4. The goal keeper is not immune from sanctions.
The outcome is send the keeper off for DOGSO and restart with IFK
How about a goalkeeper that denies a clear goal scoring opportunity by picking up a bad back pass when a striker is baring down on him.
I believe that particular offence doesn’t even warrant a caution under current law.
I’d say that is a lot worse than gamesmanship knicking a few seconds coming off the pitch that the ref can add on anyway.
Come on let’s write the wrongs in the lotg
Dear all
I have copied numerous message into this one. Lets start with Law 12
"Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)"
From the wording on handling offences:
"The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick."
Law 12 specifically does not allow a goal keeper to be dismissed for picking up a back pass for a DOGSO(H).
The correct decision is a IDFK for the offence and a YC for USB (and in particular, stopping a promising attack).
The only manner for a goal keeper to be dismissed (correctly) is as a second YC. There will be referees who will dismiss but they are wrong in law!
- Status