Crewe v Bristol Rovers - Keeper Error (DOGSO-H?)

[SelbyRef]

Crewe seemingly annoyed that this incident should have been a red for the BRFC keeper, under DOGSO-H.

Thoughts? Personally I think the yellow card he eventually got was OK.

Some people seem to believe that any keeper handball outside the box must be red.

Crewe v Bristol Rovers

 

[Johnson]

Based purely on the one angle linked, clear DOGSO for me. If the keeper’s not there, the attacker is gaining possession of the ball in the middle of the field near the edge of the penalty area, facing goal, with no defenders between him and the goal.

 

[JamesL]

Because the keeper carries the ball out. Not DOGSO. Keeper is in control of the ball therefore control, or likelihood of gaining control is unlikely. Direction of play is away from goal.
Not even a caution for me. Handball. Direct free kick.

 

[SelbyRef]

Based purely on the one angle linked, clear DOGSO for me. If the keeper’s not there, the attacker is gaining possession of the ball in the middle of the field near the edge of the penalty area, facing goal, with no defenders between him and the goal.

Interesting - think my judgement would be based more on specifically if GK didn’t handball it, as opposed to him not being there at all. Not sure we can really judge it that way IMO given GK starts by legally handling it before fumbling.

At worst, he’s then right in front of striker to block if striker gets the ball (he’s not in possession & GK right next to him), defender then coming in immediately to the left.

Striker would then have to turn and shoot as ball as rolling out of area away from goal.

 

[Johnson]

I eliminated the goalkeeper as he committed the offence. No guidance I’ve come across clarifies that the general rule that the player that commits an offence isn’t considered for the purposes of DOGSO. (This doesn’t mean such instruction doesn’t exist though.)

 

[one]

Because the keeper carries the ball out. Not DOGSO.

I dont believe he "carried" the ball. What makes you say he did.

And even if he did, what is the basis for not making it dogso because of carrying the ball over the line?

 

[Russell Jones]

Really interesting. Kind of scenario where you could make a reasonable case for no sanction, YC or RC.

In terms of DOGSO considerations, distance is fine. To me it’s also clear that the attacker would gain control of the ball. And the fact that any shot that ensued would be towards an empty net is a big factor. However combining the direction of the attacker with the proximity of other defenders, casts some doubt on whether a shot would actually happen.

On balance, I think red card is most expected and ‘sellable’ but yellow card is relatively easy to justify.

 

[ARF]

Because the keeper carries the ball out. Not DOGSO. Keeper is in control of the ball therefore control, or likelihood of gaining control is unlikely. Direction of play is away from goal.
Not even a caution for me. Handball. Direct free kick.

He doesn't carry it out though - he drops it in the area, and handles it outside of the area. Big difference because the ball can be challenged for.

I dont believe he "carried" the ball. What makes you say he did.

And even if he did, what is the basis for not making it dogso because of carrying the ball over the line?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836012280246366421

Given the direction the attacker is moving and the defender in close proximity, I'm not convinced the attacker is getting a shot off before being challenged, so I think a yellow is fine here.

 

[one]

He doesn't carry it out though - he drops it in the area, and handles it outside of the area. Big difference because the ball can be challenged for.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1836012280246366421

Given the direction the attacker is moving and the defender in close proximity, I'm not convinced the attacker is getting a shot off before being challenged, so I think a yellow is fine here.

The second ifab q&a does not make sense to me. Applying the same logic to a field defender with posession who commits a foul on an opponet before the opponent gains control will nullify many DOGSOs that are given.

Another thing to consider is that (technically) direction of play/opponent is not a criterion for DODSO-H.

I think taking the GK out of the picture at the moment of the HB offence, this is an easy OGSO.

 

[ARF]

Applying the same logic to a field defender with posession who commits a foul on an opponet before the opponent gains control will nullify many DOGSOs that are given.

That logic can't be applied to a defender - if they have possession they can still be legally challenged.

 

[one]

That logic can't be applied to a defender - if they have possession they can still be legally challenged.

True but the Qand A doesn't say anything about challenging. Just that because initially they had legal posession the offence can't be SPA or DOGSO.

 

[Tealeaf]

I can’t call DOGSO on that. He fumbles and regathers almost immediately, gambling he can do so before it’s out of the penalty area. Physics means he can’t do so.

And his body is always between the attacker and the ball. I can’t take him out of the equation because he has created any theoretical opportunity by fumbling in the first place.

Schrödinger’s DOGSO maybe?

 

[ARF]

True but the Qand A doesn't say anything about challenging. Just that because initially they had legal posession the offence can't be SPA or DOGSO.

Yes, because a goalkeeper can't be challenged when they have possession.

 

[bester]

@Tealeaf Have got to love the lengths you go to support the referee's decision. Don't agree with it any it though.

 

[Tealeaf]

@Tealeaf Have got to love the lengths you go to support the referee's decision. Don't agree with it any it though.

Ha ha.

It’s actually a shortened version of a theoretical discussion with myself and where I came out on it.

Ultimately I put myself in that situation - I need to make an immediate call, what am I doing?

The clinchers - attacker appealing for handball and the guilty look of the keeper as he stands up with ball back behind the line.

Thought process - he’s dropped and dragged back in. Can’t be sure of anything else so it’s not screaming obvious (attacker too busy appealing for handball) so free kick and caution for a deliberate handling offence. Spot the ball, walk out the wall.

 

[Tealeaf]

Schrödinger reference was because it could be both DOGSO and not DOGSO at the same time. Never going to convince everyone of either argument.

 

[RustyRef]

For those saying not DOGSO would your stance change if the keeper hadn't dropped the ball and picked it back up? So the first time he handles it is where he commits the handball offence.

 

[JamesL]

I dont believe he "carried" the ball. What makes you say he did

I had him collecting the drop just on the line and then carrying over.

And even if he did, what is the basis for not making it dogso because of carrying the ball over the line?

See the IFAB post from @ARF

 

[one]

For those saying not DOGSO would your stance change if the keeper hadn't dropped the ball and picked it back up? So the first time he handles it is where he commits the handball offence.

Or if the handling offence was a yard outside the PA. None which should be a factor.

A brainfart by the keeper doesn't mitigate a DOGSO. He could have easily kicked the ball.

 

[bester]

Did notice this in that Q&A. One of the annual discussions on this forum

"The relevant point is where exactly the goalkeeper’s hand is in contact with the ball. If that contact is outside the penalty area, it is a direct free kick offence (even if the ball is not entirely outside the penalty area). The position of the goalkeeper’s feet is irrelevant"