Could the keeper have saved him?

[micky2001]

At a U15 game today watching it and red team take a shot from a direct free kick. Blue defender handles the ball right in front of goal about 3 yards out but keeper was right behind him and could have saved it had he left it. Referee gave RC for DOGSO and penalty but I was wondering, with the keeper being directly behind, could the ref have given a YC just for hand ball and a penalty?

 

[SteveAustinRef]

I think this is going to be one of them you need to be there and see it to make a full informed decision on.

You have to look at and ask yourself what are the chances of scoring?
Most DOGSO is when the player only has the keeper to beat, it has to be an obvious goal scoring opportunity that has been denied.
The fact that the keeper was stood behind the outfield player wouldn't be enough to stop me issuing a red, would the keeper of saved it? You just don't know, so has the opportunity of scoring been taken away. Well yes defiantly.

 

[Mick.]

I agree with Steve. The relevant bit here is the goal scoring OPPORTUNITY. In most other DOGSO events the player as the OPPORTUNITY to score a goal which can only really be denied by the keeper saving it. By handling the ball the defender has effectively denied the attacker that opportunity of finding out whether the keeper is up to the job or not.

 

[Martiju]

If you're saying, if the keeper had let it in could it just have been a yellow - the answer (technically) is yes. No GS opportunity has been denied - a goal has been scored.

I would generally go with that - although this only really works if it happens quickly - if the ball rolls slowly towards the line, attackers are rushing in, etc., you really have no choice but to blow up for the penalty and go for the red card.

 

[ref craig]

Yellow as keeper could saved it

 

[Mick.]

But surely on that basis every DOGSO where the attacker is brought down by a defender should only be a yellow as the goalkeeper 'could save it.' The opportunity to score a goal assumes a keeper to beat or an open goal. It isn't DOGSO when there is only an open goal. Red card all the way.

 

[Alex71]

Mick puts it perfectly - OPPORTUNITY is the key word ...

What if though the defender's belly was directly behind their raised hands - without the hands the ball will certainly hit him and rebound out away from the goal!?!?

 

[ASM]

The key with this one is not about opportunity but whether a goal would result.

Don't forget that DOSGO handball covers both the denial of an obvious opportunity or a goal. As the shot has already been taken in this instance the the opportunity is not a concern, the question then really is does the handling offence deny a goal?

If the ball would have entered the goal without the illegal intervention then yes it's red, if it wouldn't then it would be yellow.

However, sometimes being absolutely certain on these sorts of things is very difficult as you have to be absolutely certain it wouldn't have gone in to yellow card the offender in my view. Certainly the expectation for most people would be a red card.

 

[Mick.]

As the shot has already been taken in this instance the the opportunity is not a concern, the question then really is does the handling offence deny a goal?

If the ball would have entered the goal without the illegal intervention then yes it's red, if it wouldn't then it would be yellow.

That's my point. The fact that the goalie is there or not does not come into it. If the defender's illegal move (handball/foul) denies the goal, it matters not where the goalie is standing. If the ball went in you would give a goal and caution for handball. If the ball bounced off his hands, bounced out of play, or even bounced into the goalkeepers hands the DOGSO would be complete.