Dutch Referee Blog - Week 1 Laws of the Game Quiz 2020-2021

Week 1 Laws of the Game Quiz 2020-2021. The quiz season is back. You’ll get weekly quizzes on Tuesday’s from now on. The next quiz will be published on September 8th. Good luck with this new quiz, which is all about 2020-2021 Laws of the Game changes. Watch the webinar about these changes. Laden…

Continue reading...

 

[Big Cat]

Does the outcome of Q1 & Q2 depend on whether the GK played the ball for a second time with hand/arm OR elsewhere on the body?
I'm not sure the working of Q1 is specific enough to provide an answer

 

[one]

It did until 20-21. But it no longer does. Same question last year would have been ambiguous but not for 20-21.

 

[Big Cat]

It did until 20-21. But it no longer does. Same question last year would have been ambiguous but not for 20-21.

The 20-21 explanation doesn't seem specific enough to account for the GK touching the ball for a second time with some other part of the body whilst simultaneously guilty of DOGSO

 

[one]

The 20-21 explanation doesn't seem specific enough to account for the GK touching the ball for a second time with some other part of the body whilst simultaneously guilty of DOGSO

That bit is not changed and is covered under the generic DOGSO offence. Other parts of the body is not specific to any player (goalkeeper or not). In the past, a specific clause immuned goalkeepers from sanctions if the second touch was by hand. 20-21 takes that immunity away.

 

[one]

I should also mention that we had discussions not too long ago around the inconsistency that the immunity is only taken away for the second touch handling related offence after a restart. Other handling related offences such as 'backpass' or handling again after releasing it are still immuned from sanctioning.

 

[Big Cat]

That bit is not changed and is covered under the generic DOGSO offence

Yes HB-DOGSO is a dismissal, but the question does not say the GK played the ball for a second time with the hand

I should also mention that we had discussions not too long ago around the inconsistency that the immunity is only taken away for the second touch handling related offence after a restart. Other handling related offences such as 'backpass' or handling again after releasing it are still immuned from sanctioning.

Again, the Q says nothing about a second HB
Either the GK played the ball for a second time with the hand/arm, some other part of the body, or with any part of the body after wiping out the attacker first. Are you saying the answer is independent of these considerations?

 

[socal lurker]

Yes HB-DOGSO is a dismissal, but the question does not say the GK played the ball for a second time with the hand

Again, the Q says nothing about a second HB
Either the GK played the ball for a second time with the hand/arm, some other part of the body, or with any part of the body after wiping out the attacker first. Are you saying the answer is independent of these considerations?

It’s not a DOGSO-H issue (which never applies to the GK in the PA), but a DOGSO-F offense for the second touch on a restart. (There is nothing in the Q about wiping out the attacker.)

What part of the body (hand or not) is irrelevant to the offense. Until the new Laws, we had the quirky result that the GK could be sanctioned for DOGSO if he kicked it, but not if he punched it, which was always a bit nuts. The new Laws remove that distinction. (As @one noted, the GK is still exempt from sanction for the GK-only offenses.

 

[one]

Are you saying the answer is independent of these considerations

Yes (wipe it the wiping out attacker as it is not part this question). The answer is the same regardless of what part of the body the keeper used. This is 20-21 only. Prior to that there was a distinction.

 

[Big Cat]

It’s not a DOGSO-H issue (which never applies to the GK in the PA), but a DOGSO-F offense for the second touch on a restart. (There is nothing in the Q about wiping out the attacker.)

What part of the body (hand or not) is irrelevant to the offense. Until the new Laws, we had the quirky result that the GK could be sanctioned for DOGSO if he kicked it, but not if he punched it, which was always a bit nuts. The new Laws remove that distinction. (As @one noted, the GK is still exempt from sanction for the GK-only offenses.

Yes (wipe it the wiping out attacker as it is not part this question). The answer is the same regardless of what part of the body the keeper used. This is 20-21 only. Prior to that there was a distinction.

OK, so this once in a lifetime occurrence requires us to piece together dis-contiguous sections of the book to reach a conclusion that was never foreseen or intended. I'll maybe take a look again later as to how this conclusion is reached. Of course, these incidents are largely dreamt up for quizes and promotion tests, but the logic of this is typical of a book with many, many contributors that's evolved organically into a wordy mess
I admire both of you (and others) for your knowledge, but I lost heart with the hideous detail when I stopped believing in it

 

[socal lurker]

OK, so this once in a lifetime occurrence requires us to piece together dis-contiguous sections of the book to reach a conclusion that was never foreseen or intended. I'll maybe take a look again later as to how this conclusion is reached. Of course, these incidents are largely dreamt up for quizes and promotion tests, but the logic of this is typical of a book with many, many contributors that's evolved organically into a wordy mess
I admire both of you (and others) for your knowledge, but I lost heart with the hideous detail when I stopped believing in it

I’d disagree that is not intended or foreseen—the Laws were expressly amended just to address this scenario:

“However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.”

This concern for the GK handling exemption

Of course it’s super unlikely, but so is the other recent change they made relating to the GK handling exemption that made it a new offense to use or throw an object and contact the ball. The sole reason for that offense was to be able to sanction GKs for doing it, since it was always a handling offense.

Yup, on consecutive years they have amended the laws to create specific consequences for GKs I. Narrow circumstances that never happen. When they could have easily fixed it by simply specifying that the GK-only offenses can’t be sanctioned as misconduct. That would have solved both of these scenarios while keeping to general concepts rather than creating more specific situational rules. (I.e., the second touch would be sanctioned and could lead to a send off, and the GK throwing something would be USB, upgraded to DOGSO if it denied an OGSO). This kind of drafting has been the plague of the Laws for the last several years.

 

[one]

When they could have easily fixed it by simply specifying that the GK-only offenses can’t be sanctioned as misconduct.

Not sure this would be clear on what can be sanction and what can't be. It is a bit cryptic. For me they should just remove the handling related exemptions for keepers. Field players using their feet can be sanctioned. Why not goalkeeper using their hands.

 

[Degnann]

Just to be blunt, what is the correct answer for 1 and 2?

 

[Dino Ref]

Just to be blunt, what is the correct answer for 1 and 2?

Red card and indirect free kick.

 

[Degnann]

Red card and indirect free kick.

Perfect. Thats what I thought

 

[socal lurker]

Not sure this would be clear on what can be sanction and what can't be. It is a bit cryptic. For me they should just remove the handling related exemptions for keepers. Field players using their feet can be sanctioned. Why not goalkeeper using their hands.

I’m Ok with the idea that it is not misconduct for the GK to use hands in the PA in violation of the special GK restrictions. That was always the purpose of the exemption. I’d also be ok with taking it awyay.