A&H

Open Age Denial of Goalscoring Opportunity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matty, if it's a place-kick, it would be a corner!

I'm still not sure on this incident and Dowdy's confused me more!
 
The Referee Store
Aled said:
Doesn't it say in the LoTG
A player should be sent off if he/she denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball with the exception of the GK in their own penalty area? Or something along those lines?
Click to expand...

He's not a player, he's a substitute or a substituted player.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/...he-ref-nigel-adkins-reading#start-of-comments

Hey guys, this relates to the goalkeeper passback scenario on the above link. A lot of comments claim that there is this rule that goalkeepers can't be sent off for DOGSO if handling the ball in their penalty area and the correct answer on the website matches this.

However, I found this hard to believe and after a look in the LOTG, i can find things which could be interpreted either way. Despite there being a rule that states that DOGSO by deliberately handling the ball does not apply to goalkeepers in their penalty box (Page 39, bullet point 4), it also says that DOGSO applies to an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick (bullet point 5) with no mention of goalkeepers, and as we know a passback is an offence punishable by a free kick.

To add to the confusion, page 126(bottom bullet point) says: the offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick. This therefore supports DOGSO for the goalkeeper.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts guys, because its a red card for me, and everyone tells me i'm wrong.
 
Thanks, it seems to be a recurring topic, they should probably define it properly in the LOTG.
 
Nathan (I know that this area is grey and has also been covered as mentioned above), in the guardian example you could not send the goalie off for DOGSO as he has not denied a goal scoring opportunity, just a goal. There is no opportunity for the opposition to "score" a goal, merely the opportunity for the ball to go into the net. If you awarded DOGSO for this example you would have to award it for everytime the ball went back to the goalie when he was stood in front of his net. Had he not touched it an own goal would be likely.
 
Not quite, Mick. He'd have to be guilty of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by committing an offense that would be punished by a free kick.
 
But surely there is no opportunity to score a goal if a defender passes the ball back to his goalie? There is the chance of an own goal if the goalie misses, but I would argue that there is no goal scoring opportunity.
 
Oh I agree with that. I disagree with the part where you said " If you awarded DOGSO for this example you would have to award it for everytime the ball went back to the goalie when he was stood in front of his net. Had he not touched it an own goal would be likely."
 
I play in goal for my local team and we were in a top of the table clash.. and I picked up the ball after a throwing as a player was easily going to go through clean on goal... Now I know as a referee I shouldn't of done it but when your playing its a spur of the moment action, I however didn't receive any card as the referee wasn't the most alert of refs I had ever seen! If on the other hand I was refereeing I would of shown a yellow card simply because in my age group a sending off would cause all sorts of problems so I just think its common sense on what will control the situation the best with avoiding confrontation.
 
JackBedsFA said:
I play in goal for my local team and we were in a top of the table clash.. and I picked up the ball after a throwing as a player was easily going to go through clean on goal... Now I know as a referee I shouldn't of done it but when your playing its a spur of the moment action, I however didn't receive any card as the referee wasn't the most alert of refs I had ever seen! If on the other hand I was refereeing I would of shown a yellow card simply because in my age group a sending off would cause all sorts of problems so I just think its common sense on what will control the situation the best with avoiding confrontation.
Click to expand...


Referee not the most alert? He was right on this occasion.

As a goalkeeper, you cannot be cautioned or sent off for handling offences in the penalty area. Handling offences are only punishable by indirect free kick only.

For your reference, have a read at page 115 in the LOTG.
 
Pretty Sure Simon Mignolet was cautioned for this though... Haven't got my LOTG in the office to check what it says on p115 but I'm sure you could still caution for USB

 
Alex Clark said:
Pretty Sure Simon Mignolet was cautioned for this though... Haven't got my LOTG in the office to check what it says on p115 but I'm sure you could still caution for USB

Click to expand...


Mr Dowd was wrong in this instance. It's in black and white on page 115. A goalkeeper cannot be guilty of ANY misconduct relating to a handling offence in the penalty area.
 
MGatiss said:
Can only be sent off for an offence punishable by a direct free kick. Letter of the law
Click to expand...

Quoting from the Laws of the Game; In the sending off offenses section the law states; "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

This doesn't say anything about the type of free kick.

Also under "Denying a goal or a goal scoring opportunity" (interpretations of the laws for referees section) Page 70 of the 2013 Handbook.

The law states; "the offence which denies and opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick"

Given these two sections of the law, the Goal-Keeper should be sent off.
 
While I agree that this is a very grey area in Law, I would have thought that the attacker would have to be in possession of the ball in order for him to have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

If the ball is travelling to the GK, I would have to think that the defending team have possession as the ball is being passed between two defending players. Until the attacker touches it, he can't be seen to have possession, and therefore, doesn't have an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

The goalkeeper has denied him possession of the ball, by handling it, but the attacker never had the opportunity to score.

As I was coached as a junior player, 'They can't score if they haven't got the ball'
 
Hugh's The Ref said:
Quoting from the Laws of the Game; In the sending off offenses section the law states; "denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or penalty kick"

This doesn't say anything about the type of free kick.

Also under "Denying a goal or a goal scoring opportunity" (interpretations of the laws for referees section) Page 70 of the 2013 Handbook.

The law states; "the offence which denies and opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick"

Given these two sections of the law, the Goal-Keeper should be sent off.
Click to expand...


Check page 39 of the laws of the game.

Sending off offences:
Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handing the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
While I agree that this is a very grey area in Law, I would have thought that the attacker would have to be in possession of the ball in order for him to have an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

If the ball is travelling to the GK, I would have to think that the defending team have possession as the ball is being passed between two defending players. Until the attacker touches it, he can't be seen to have possession, and therefore, doesn't have an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

The goalkeeper has denied him possession of the ball, by handling it, but the attacker never had the opportunity to score.

As I was coached as a junior player, 'They can't score if they haven't got the ball'
Click to expand...


It's not really a grey area. It says it in black and white, a goalkeeper cannot be guilty of any misconduct relating to handling offences within his own penalty area, no matter the circumstance.

Indirect free kick only in all instances.
 
the walloper said:
It's not really a grey area. It says it in black and white, a goalkeeper cannot be guilty of any misconduct relating to handling offences within his own penalty area, no matter the circumstance.
Click to expand...
I think the point that Matty is making is (the point that I made some time ago) that you cannot be denied a goal scoring opportunity if you do not have possession of the ball in order to score. If you could, then it could be argued that any ball back towards the goalkeeper was a goal scoring opportunity and the goal keeper would never last five minutes on the pitch!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top