The Ref Stop

ATM v ARSENIL

Status
Not open for further replies.
lincs22 said:
Law 12 specifically does not allow a goal keeper to be dismissed for picking up a back pass for a DOGSO(H).
Click to expand...
Where does it say that? the only law that you quoted says "goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction" Picking up a back pass is not a "handling offence incurring a direct free kick"

I also find that you are contradicting yourself by effectively saying the goalkeeper can not be sanctioned for an 'act' so he can't be sent off but later saying he should be cautioned (a sanction) for the same act.

EDIT: Please refer to my reasoning in the post just above yours. That part of the law was changed for a reason. To clarify this exact situation (and a couple of other similar ones).
 
The Ref Stop
Men in Black said:
To say I’m lost is an understatement, if I get a keeper picking up a back pass at the wknd, I think I’m just gonna blow for FT.
Click to expand...
It's like A-Level semantics. Although I think @one is probably right, I can't envisage dismissing any unlearned keepers anytime soon. Game Management and all that
 
Something that had no sanction for at least a decade (possibly decades) to become a send off with only a minor changing of some words is not easy to put in practice or bring acceptance to. Especially if the reason for the change was not explained. For some reason, despite the fact that the law clearly changed, the section that has the details of the law changes and explains the reason does not include this specific change.

Its my opinion anyway.
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...

But it isn't though, and I think you've missed some bits;

The way I read it is that the Law is in black and white that it cannot be a direct f/k/penalty offence for handling, but if there is a handling offence it has to be an IFK.

DOSGO still provides the exclusive immunity for handling offences from the GK in the penalty area, the rule wording only stops those handling offences from being direct in nature. And his picking up of the ball from pass back is still... well, a deliberate handball.

And to add using your own argument, the text says:

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent, whose overall movement is towards the offender's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below:
Click to expand...

Which then clarifies:

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs
Click to expand...

Whereupon, we return to the original DOSGO exclusivity: "Except a goalkeeper within their penalty area"

So the very wording of the law implies, at least to me, that even a handling offence resulting in an IFK cannot be a red card for the keeper in this scenario.
 
RobOda said:
But it isn't though, and I think you've missed some bits;

The way I read it is that the Law is in black and white that it cannot be a direct f/k/penalty offence for handling, but if there is a handling offence it has to be an IFK.

DOSGO still provides the exclusive immunity for handling offences from the GK in the penalty area, the rule wording only stops those handling offences from being direct in nature. And his picking up of the ball from pass back is still... well, a deliberate handball.

And to add using your own argument, the text says:



Which then clarifies:



Whereupon, we return to the original DOSGO exclusivity: "Except a goalkeeper within their penalty area"

So the very wording of the law implies, at least to me, that even a handling offence resulting in an IFK cannot be a red card for the keeper in this scenario.
Click to expand...
I got a bit lost but if I understand you correctly you are saying keepers cant be sent off for an offence if they handle the ball because of the DOGSO HB clause which excludes them. That clause being

"denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)"

EDIT: This may help. The offence here is not a deliberate handling of the ball. The offence is touching the ball with hands after being deliberately kicked to him by a team mate. These are two different offences (both involve touching the ball with hand). One is punishable by DFK, the other by IFK.

For me that would be a misinterpretation of the law. That clause is clearly written for a field player which commits a deliberate handball offence. By no means any part of the clause should apply to a gal keepers in their own PA. That is why the "except" caveat is there. It is not there to exempt keeper from other offences which involves handling the ball.

Having said that you can look at it a different way. The are two different DOGSO offences R4 and R5. You only have to be guilty of one of them to be sent off. R4 does not apply to our specific scenario because keepers are except. However a keeper is not exempt from R5 and as per my previous reasoning he should be sent off for R5.
 
Last edited:
This may help. The offence here is not deliberately handling the ball. It is touching the ball with hand after it has been deliberately kicked to him by his team mate. They are two different offences (both involving touching the ball). One is punished by a DFK, the other by IFK.
 
one said:
This may help. The offence here is not deliberately handling the ball. It is touching the ball with hand after it has been deliberately kicked to him by his team mate. They are two different offences (both involving touching the ball). One is punished by a DFK, the other by IFK.
Click to expand...
And yet... to commit the one, the GK must handling deliberately...

Either way -- the directive from IFAB hasn't changed on this (yet).

A GK who commits one of the "handling" technical offences cannot be sanctioned for doing so within their own penalty area.

That means no caution for SPA, that means no dancing around to try to get a DOGSO offence out of it.

IFAB stated in their Fair Play proposal that this was something that they were looking at (along with about 400 other really bizzarre things), and considering allowing for cautions for such circumstances.

In short -- if IFAB intended to change the behaviour/direction, they would include it in the change explanations. It is in neither the 16/17 nor 17/18 change explanations (and not in the 18/19 material released to this point in time either).
 
@one is on the ropes, hes been tripped, he’s down on one knee, the referee is counting, six, seven, eight..It’s nearly over.... any chance of a comeback from the knowledgeable One?? :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: one
Sheffields Finest said:
@one is on the ropes, hes been tripped, he’s down on one knee, the referee is counting, six, seven, eight..It’s nearly over.... any chance of a comeback from the knowledgeable One?? :p
Click to expand...
Good heavens who opened this can of worms?

Get them to put them back straight away.... I turn my back for a few hours and look what happens!
 
AlexF said:
And yet... to commit the one, the GK must handling deliberately...
Click to expand...
That is precisely what i said the similarities were. But using different words so not to confuses it with the offence of "deliberately handling the ball" which is not what the IFK is for.

AlexF said:
Either way -- the directive from IFAB hasn't changed on this (yet).
Click to expand...
Are you saying there is a directive that says this hant change? or are you saying ther is no directive that is has changed?

Either way, the law has changed and that overrides any directive or laws prior to it. If there are any directive after that i'd be interested to see it.

AlexF said:
if IFAB intended to change the behaviour/direction, they would include it in the change explanations. It is in neither the 16/17 nor 17/18 change explanations (and not in the 18/19 material released to this point in time either).
Click to expand...
So why do you think they changed the law which gives it a clear different application and outcome now. Pre 16, "any misconduct related to handling the ball". Post 16 "handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction". Was it a mistake? Try this and see if anyone notices? Anything else?

Sheffields Finest said:
@one is on the ropes, hes been tripped, he’s down on one knee, the referee is counting, six, seven, eight..It’s nearly over.... any chance of a comeback from the knowledgeable One?? :p
Click to expand...
So what are your thoughts on this? Or are you just happy sitting on the fence enjoying the show :)
 
one said:
That is precisely what i said the similarities were. But using different words so not to confuses it with the offence of "deliberately handling the ball" which is not what the IFK is for.


Are you saying there is a directive that says this hant change? or are you saying ther is no directive that is has changed?

Either way, the law has changed and that overrides any directive or laws prior to it. If there are any directive after that i'd be interested to see it.


So why do you think they changed the law which gives it a clear different application and outcome now. Pre 16, "any misconduct related to handling the ball". Post 16 "handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction". Was it a mistake? Try this and see if anyone notices? Anything else?


So what are your thoughts on this? Or are you just happy sitting on the fence enjoying the show :)
Click to expand...
Happily retired from having to know! I’ll leave the legal eagles to chew on this. I prefer the easy life now, my refereeing race is done! Probably 👀
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
one said:
So why do you think they changed the law which gives it a clear different application and outcome now. Pre 16, "any misconduct related to handling the ball". Post 16 "handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction". Was it a mistake? Try this and see if anyone notices? Anything else?
Click to expand...
It's one of the many attempts at language cleanup that wasn't entirely successful.

Another example? Law 15.

By the current wording, it suggests that if you do not follow procedure to throw the ball, but it doesn't enter the field of play, then it's a retake. But... it was a wording cleanup that had the explanation of "we cleaned up language here, no intent change" -- but the older wording was much clearer that if you do not follow procedure, it doesn't matter where the ball goes... the other team gets the throw-in.

Has IFAB's intent changed? No. Did the wording change and (unfortunately) get less clear? Yes.
 
The only sorry excuse i've heard for the splurge in the book, is that the grammar is such that it can be translated easily into other languages (except English)
 
I guess i'll have to concede but Its funny that DE did not quote the law and just a reference to it. He left out the bit "incurring a direct free kick" after handling offences :) .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top