The Ref Stop

Open Age Denial of Goalscoring Opportunity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ELP

Everyone's Favourite Member
Hi all,

Imagine this -

Player takes a throw-on back to his goalkeeper. Striker pounces on it before the goalkeeper, striker looks set to get the ball but goalkeeper dives at his feet and picks up the ball. The striker would've scored if the GK didn't.

Goalkeeper has effectively deliberately handballed the ball (back from a throw-in). Nothing in the laws says this warrants anything more than an IDFK, though.

I got into a sticky situation as this happened to me last week. I decided to award the IDFK and caution the goalkeeper.

I know that was wrong, but it seemed like the best course of action to diffuse the situation at the time.

So, question is - Red card, or no further action?
 
The Ref Stop
I think, by the book, it should be IDK and RC. However, I think I'd also choose the YC option and sell it as such. Be interested to hear others opinions on this, especially assessor's.
 
DanCohen17 said:
I think, by the book, it should be IDK and RC. However, I think I'd also choose the YC option and sell it as such. Be interested to hear others opinions on this, especially assessor's.
Click to expand...

Well, from reading the LOTG, nowhere there says that this action warrants any further punishment, so I am inclined to say that it should be no further action. Funny thing is that I knew this before I reffed the game, and it was just something I did in the spur of the moment - To me, it didn't seem right to let him get away with it completely, but I also thought to myself, how am I gonna sell the red on the misconduct form if I'm wrong?
 
its Denying Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) and therefore a Red Card and IDFK (unless outside box, in which case DFK and RC).

im sure the wording is something like "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by committing an offence punishable by DFK or IDFK". so i think it is RC and IDFK by law- having said that, I would probably YC this as well but its difficult to sell as anything other than DOGSO...maybe just a YC for Unsporting Conduct if its out wide and the defender had a chance of getting back or the striker was heading away from goal? :S
 
IDFK and YC for USB for me as well

A goalkeeper can't be guilty of any type misconduct with relation to handling the ball within his own penalty area so therefore he can't be sent off for DOGSO (similarly that he can't be sent off he deliberately stops the ball going into his own goal if it was directly from the throw in).

So he can't be sent off or cautioned in his own penalty area for handling the ball.
 
I agree with the majority of you here. IFK, YC for USB

Something similar happened in a Premier League game a few years back. As a Sunderland fan I remember it, Sunderland V Wolves:

Not from a throw, but a backpass.

Kieron Richardson (S'land left back) sends a pass back to Craig Gordon in goal. He hadn't realised that Gordon had already moved towards the left hand touchline to receive the ball, so Richardson's pass back is heading into the open goal.

Gordon charges after it and dives full stretch to tip it round the post. Ref gave a IFK on the goal area. No caution as it wasn't really USB. I remember thinking the Ref had got it right (I wasn't qualified at the time) but the commentators were debating that he should have been sent off.

Anyway, he wasn't and Wolves scored from the resulting free kick anyway!

I'll see if there's a Youtube clip of it somewhere
 
No, no, no , no no red card.

The goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area. The only mandatory thing here is the IDFK. The caution here is also on shaky ground. Because the 'keeper is allowed to handle in his own area, he arguably cannot be cautioned for that either. There was something in the older copies of the LOTG that said similar.

I'm inclined just to go with the kick.
 
Its a back pass - nothing more. The striker, while he may have been about to get the ball, did not have possession of the ball so cannot have had a goal scoring opportunity. You can't score a goal if you don't have the ball. No YC as we don't normally issue them for back pass. IDFK and get on with it.
 
Tealeaf said:
No, no, no , no no red card.

The goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area. The only mandatory thing here is the IDFK. The caution here is also on shaky ground. Because the 'keeper is allowed to handle in his own area, he arguably cannot be cautioned for that either. There was something in the older copies of the LOTG that said similar.

I'm inclined just to go with the kick.
Click to expand...
Mick. said:
Its a back pass - nothing more. The striker, while he may have been about to get the ball, did not have possession of the ball so cannot have had a goal scoring opportunity. You can't score a goal if you don't have the ball. No YC as we don't normally issue them for back pass. IDFK and get on with it.
Click to expand...

Providing the goalkeeper has deliberately committed this offence to prevent the striker from gaining possession of the ball (which is what I assumed from the OP) would you not caution for the "act of unsporting behaviour". That is what I was insinuating, not cautioning for the handball as rightly said the goalkeeper can not be cautioned/sent off for handling within his own penalty area.
 
On my game the other day a similar thing happened without the striker.

Defender took thrown in and threw in to his GK. for some reason the GK didn't pick it up but just kicked it out. Me and my assessor spoke about this and didn't understand why he didn't pick it up as there is nothing in the LoTG to say he can't pick it up.
 
refdave83 said:
as there is nothing in the LoTG to say he can't pick it up.
Click to expand...


Law 12 IDFK offences by goalie if he (among other things)

- touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a
throw-in taken by a team-mate

Disappointing that your assessor didn't know this one.
 
One of the specific lessons taught to me when I was originally going through referee classes was that a goalkeeper CANNOT be shown a straight RC for handling the ball inside his box to concede an indirect free kick regardless of the circumstances.

I can't remember the specific reason for it but that's all I came away with, although I'm not sure whether or not IFAB's official position on this has changed.
 
MGatiss said:
Can only be sent off for an offence punishable by a direct free kick. Letter of the law
Click to expand...

What about a fight before or after KO? You can re-start play as game hasn't started or its finished
 
First of all, "can only be sent off for an offence punishable by a direct free kick" is clearly NOT the letter of the law. Obvious examples include violent conduct which does not constitute a DFK offence, or OFFINABUS. This is also very clear from the clause mandating IDFKs for any offence, not otherwise mentioned under DFK/IDFK, for which play is stopped to issue a caution or send off a player.

As for this particular example, the law mandates a red card for DOGSO by "an offence punishable by a free kick or penalty kick." So in my opinion the letter of the law says this should be a red card, since a goalkeeper handling a passback has committed an offence punishable by a free kick, and has denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top