The Ref Stop

Dutch Referee Blog - Laws of the Game Quiz 2024-2025 #3 December

The Ref Stop
one said:
The climbing offence is not what denied the goal, its the handling. Agree that it's inconsistent "if they didn't use their hand". This was the issue before they brought in the double touch DOGSO for keepers to make it consistent with "what if they dont use their hands". However similar offences have not been included. If the keeper releases the ball after control, and picked it up again because an attacker is about to tap it in, it would be similar to double touch but still no sanction.
IFAB need to bring more consistency into this.
Click to expand...
Think you are confusing this tbh. It's not a GK specific handling offence.
If an outfield player did it it would be the same. If they used their hand the more serious offence would be handball of course but this is not a GK specific offence and therefore the goal keeper handling clause is irrelevant.
This would be an offence punishable by free kick so a sanction for DOGSO is on the table.
 
The Ref Stop
JamesL said:
If an outfield player did it it would be the same. If they used their hand the more serious offence would be handball of course
Click to expand...
I think you proved the point here yourself. By saying for an outfield player it would be handling you would penalise. Then the handling act is there not matter what player does it.

JamesL said:
but this is not a GK specific offence and therefore the goal keeper handling clause is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
This is really not the condition used though. It is your assumption that for goalkeeper handling clause to be relevant it has to be a goal keeper specific offence. The law says "If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction." and then makes double touch as an specific exemption (but not all non-GK specific offences). If the keeper jumps using the bar to climbs higher but does not handle the ball or even attempts to, there is no offence. He is not "permitted" to handle the ball in that situation and the handling in this instance is essential to makes the entire event an offence.

Your point is not totally lost on me though. That's why I said IFAB has to make this more clear. If it were up to me I would rid of the non-sanction clause altogether.
 
one said:
I think you proved the point here yourself. By saying for an outfield player it would be handling you would penalise. Then the handling act is there not matter what player does it.


This is really not the condition used though. It is your assumption that for goalkeeper handling clause to be relevant it has to be a goal keeper specific offence. The law says "If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction." and then makes double touch as an specific exemption (but not all non-GK specific offences). If the keeper jumps using the bar to climbs higher but does not handle the ball or even attempts to, there is no offence. He is not "permitted" to handle the ball in that situation and the handling in this instance is essential to makes the entire event an offence.

Your point is not totally lost on me though. That's why I said IFAB has to make this more clear. If it were up to me I would rid of the non-sanction clause altogether.
Click to expand...
Im not sure much amendment are needed. I am saying that if an outfield player handled it that would be a simultaneous offence. Handball is a direct free kick restart. That doesn't make the keeper stopping the ball going in whilst hanging off the cross bar, not an offence. It means it's a lesser offence.

The offence here, similar to the restart clause, is not about anything to do with the keeper using his hands/arms.

Idfk are awarded for any offence not mentioned in law for which play is stopped to issue a caution.
If that offence is DOGSO it's a red card.

You are too focussed on use of hands. It's irrelevant to the offence. Plus any goalkeeper will do well to save using their hands when said hands are holding on to the crossbar.

What you're pretty much saying keeper can use hands but no other body part. Make it make sense...
 
one said:
He is not "permitted" to handle the ball
Click to expand...
JamesL said:
What you're pretty much saying keeper can use hands but no other body part.
Click to expand...
On the contrary I am saying he can't use hands. But if he does he can't be sanctioned. The law is not about if it is a handling offence, it is about "If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area" [as part of any offence] "there is no disciplinary sanction."

I understand there is an inconsistency on hands vs other body parts. But this law is just inconsistent no matter what. How can a goalkeeper deliberately commit an offence (say backpass) to DOGSO but not be sanctioned? The double touch exception removed of instance of this inconsistency but there are other ones left, this instance is another.
 
While I see the technical drafting argument @one is making, in the (extraordinarily unlikely!) event I ever saw this play, I’m absolutely going with the @JamesL interpretation—and an appeals panel can do what they will. (Though in almost all of the games I do, there are no appeals.) I think the clear intent of IFAB was that the GK exemption really means that GK cannot be cautioned in connection with the GK offenses. IIRC, this also came in at the same time that the throwing object DFK came into place, which has the sole objective of having it be a PK if a GK throws something at the ball in the PA. IFAB doesn’t want GKs to get away with stupid stuff because of that exemption.
 
I think Q8 is flirting with the Law change which involves downgrading a red card to yellow for accidental HB DOGSO that involves unnatural biggering.
But you would not downgrade an accidental SPA-HB caution involving biggering to no sanction as that was not stated in the Law change
 
Big Cat said:
I think Q8 is flirting with the Law change which involves downgrading a red card to yellow for accidental HB DOGSO that involves unnatural biggering.
But you would not downgrade an accidental SPA-HB caution involving biggering to no sanction as that was not stated in the Law change
Click to expand...
Yes you would. As per law change. Both DOGSO and SPA are covered by the changes to non-deliberate HB offences Screenshot_20250102-163745.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top