A&H

Open Age Denial of Goalscoring Opportunity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
The Referee Store
It's an idfk only. One of those quirky laws. I remember asking about this during my ref training course oddly.
 
I'm assuming the striker does not touch the ball. As it was described as the strike pouncing on it.
Just wanted to clarify that. May sound stupid - but like to be clear in my mind.
 
What I meant was by letter of the law regarding DOGSO, which is what this thread is about
 
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...

Yes. So obviously DOGSO by handling cannot apply to the keeper.

But there's nothing which suggests that DOGSO by any other offence which results in a free kick doesn't apply to the keeper.

It's an idfk only. One of those quirky laws. I remember asking about this during my ref training course oddly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, every bit of advice that people have in training courses, and from higher officials, points to only being an IDFK - but if this is the intention, why hasn't the law been changed to reflect it before now?
 
i think when we did our course our instructor said that since it is the goalkeeper's "prerogative" to handle the ball inside the box, there can't really be any times when he can be cautioned or sent off for doing so, even if it denies a goalscoring opportunity
 
To be honest, I think I'd find it difficult to sell anything other than an indirect freekick
 
By letter of the law I meant with regards to DOGSO, as that is what this thread is about. Obviously in other examples this is not the case
 
On some occasions yes. To stop the attacker getting the ball? Granted. The goalkeeper has handled the ball purely to deny the opportunity. In this case the backpass has no relevance whatsoever.

To stop the ball going past him - not so likely. In this case I'm thinking of the Reading- Sheffield United game several years back where Paddy Kenny handles a headed pass outside the area and was rightly cautioned, but not sent off.
 
The goal keeper can not be be sent off for DOGSO-H in the area for picking a back-pass/defensive throw-in up and there's also no YC. A GK can only be given a RC for DOGSO-H outside the penalty area
 
Aled said:
The goal keeper can not be be sent off for DOGSO-H in the area for picking a back-pass/defensive throw-in up and there's also no YC. A GK can only be given a RC for DOGSO-H outside the penalty area
Click to expand...

GK handling a backpass is not a 'handling' offence in the laws, so it doesn't meet the definition of the first DOGSO clause. The question is whether it meets the definition of the second DOGSO clause, since it is an offence punishable by an IDFK. I originally thought it would, but of course to meet the definition of the second clause, the goal scoring opportunity must specifically be denied to an opponent moving towards the keeper's goal.
 
rainertheref said:
GK handling a backpass is not a 'handling' offence in the laws, so it doesn't meet the definition of the first DOGSO clause. It is an offence punishable by an IDFK, so it clearly meets the definition of the second DOGSO clause.
Click to expand...

But you're still bound by the part in law where it says goalkeepers cannot be guilty of DOGSO by means of deliberate handball in their own penalty area, so it doesn't matter what else the law says about DOGSO.

Another similar example is when a player kicks the ball into his own goal from a goal kick. By rights law 16 says an own goal cannot be scored directly from a goal kick, so the award would be a corner kick, almost the same as an own goal directly from a throw in, free kick. etc. But this is not the case as we are bound by the other part in the law, where it mentions the ball is not in play until it has left the penalty area. So the correct restart would be a retaken goal kick.
 
Sorry to re-open this thread. However, almost the exact same thing happened in the game today of Sunderland vs Everton. Phil Dowd cautioned the goalkeeper and gave an indirect free kick!
 
Charlie Acton said:
Sorry to re-open this thread. However, almost the exact same thing happened in the game today of Southampton vs Everton. Phil Dowd cautioned the goalkeeper and gave an indirect free kick!
Click to expand...

Saw this myself. I cannot believe a top level referee has made a mistake as bad as this. A goalkeeper cannot be guilty of any misconduct handling the ball in his penalty area. Indirect free kick only.

Not to say it is right in the spirit of the game. They are effectively denying a goal. It's just that is what the law says.
 
the walloper said:
Another similar example is when a player kicks the ball into his own goal from a goal kick. By rights law 16 says an own goal cannot be scored directly from a goal kick, so the award would be a corner kick, almost the same as an own goal directly from a throw in, free kick. etc. But this is not the case as we are bound by the other part in the law, where it mentions the ball is not in play until it has left the penalty area. So the correct restart would be a retaken goal kick.
Click to expand...

We had a huge discussion over similar at a coaching night - some of the weather conditions we get here, it is perfectly possible that a goal kick will leave the penalty area, and end up sailing back over the keeper's head and into the goal!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top