Fleetwood Vs AFC Wimbledon

[bester]

Could you always be YC/RC for double touch offences before the bit about keepers went in?

Seems a bizarre change if so. Going to make what is a very significant change to something that happens once every 10 seasons and watch the almighty storm unfold when a referee is faced with making that decision on a random Saturday in April.

The way it used to be worded, I think, the offence punishable by a free kick had to be committed against the opponent who was denied the goal scoring opportunity.

This was changed a few years ago, IFAB probably said clarified, so any free kick offence could be DOGSO..

The result of this change and the, later?, ball not having to leave the area change was that the goalkeeper handling the ball for a second touch infringement and not being punished by a yellow/red was perceived to be a loophole they had to close.

This is from memory so could be completely wrong.

 

[JamesL]

Its a difficult one, as the new law additional specifically talks about the keeper in their own area. Aside from this, don't think there is anything in law that defines whether DOGSO can happen with an IDFK offence.

So I am assuming that the principle was already there but, no one, and I mean no one would ever think on a double touch. And you are right, the law does only really specify this condition on goal keepers.

@bester good point. Can see where it came from but would probably have been better placed or at least linked to law 16 in the offences and sanctions section of that law

 

[cwyeary]

Its a difficult one, as the new law additional specifically talks about the keeper in their own area. Aside from this, don't think there is anything in law that defines whether DOGSO can happen with an IDFK offence.

Here's how I've looked at it with the double touch offense for SPA/DOGSO.

For SPA we have

• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball

For DOGSO we have

• denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)

The above is from the "Disciplinary Action" section of Law 12 and applies to everyone.

The SPA definition feels more clear that a double touch can be punished compared to DOGSO, but it goes say an offense punishable by a FK and not a DFK. So I see no reason that a double touch offense would not apply to this.

The section on the GK getting punished for a double touch that is SPA/DOGSO is to explain that this is an exception to the law that the GK cannot be punished with misconduct for touching the ball when they are not allowed. But it doesn't make it to where it applies only to the GK and only on penalty area restarts.

 

[one]

The way it used to be worded, I think, the offence punishable by a free kick had to be committed against the opponent who was denied the goal scoring opportunity.

This was changed a few years ago, IFAB probably said clarified, so any free kick offence could be DOGSO..

The result of this change and the, later?, ball not having to leave the area change was that the goalkeeper handling the ball for a second touch infringement and not being punished by a yellow/red was perceived to be a loophole they had to close.

This is from memory so could be completely wrong.

It was always an offence punishable by a free kick, and denys an opponent a GSO. In opposed to an offence against an opponent.

@JamesL this has nothing to do with the new law. The new law is only to cover when the second touch is by hand. This would have been a DOGSO with the old law as well in or outside the PA.

Once a free kick is given it has to be a DOGSO. DOGSO would be unexpected because the free kick is unexpected in the first place. In hindsight taking the kick again because 'the ball was rolling when it was taken' would have been a better option.

No one has commented about the very wrong location of the free kick contributing to the goal.

 

[cwyeary]

I think this also opens up the issue of how many times we have to judge if a player is putting the ball into play or not. It happens all the time with players kicking the ball towards where a FK or GK will be taken, perhaps rolling the ball with their foot on a corner to leave it for someone else to take, or even rarely when a player takes a legal throw (or close to legal) only for a teammate to catch it an take the throw. 99.9% of the time it's not an issue, but when it is one then watch out. Especially when you throw DOGSO into it.

 

[Russell Jones]

Could it technically be a red card? Yes, it could. But I think that would be surprising everyone and not sure many referees in the pro game would be taking that action.

I am convinced that the keeper didn't realise play had been stopped, don't know whether he didn't hear the whistle or just had a brain freeze, but I can't think of any reason why he would do that otherwise.

Appreciate that the spectacle becomes (rightly) ever more important as you ascend to the dizzying heights. What I can say is that at least 25% of the training clips being shared at National League level are where the team of four have failed to correctly implement the (more obscure) laws. Just this season we've been sent examples where a double touch by a free kick taker (shot came back off the post) incorrectly led to a goal, a drop ball was allowed with two 'attacking' players within 4m, a kick off was taken with a defending player still in the centre circle ... quickly leading to a goal etc etc. In every case, the whole team was marked down by the observer.

In the OP, the referee could (just about) legitimately choose to retake the FK as having been taken from the wrong place or before he was ready. However, having given the double touch offence, continuing without a DOGSO red is simply wrong in law.

 

[Big Cat]

I won't be studying this one in any great depth or looking at it again
For me, if there's any reasonable possibility of a misunderstanding on the GK's behalf (possibly caused by an unclear signal from the R etc.), I'm heavily leaning towards taking the restart from the correct location and according to what was intended. The LOTG are not intended to foresee every eventuality, so I'd lean away from micro-dissecting the book. That said, once the R chooses to determine the outcome of the game based on an honest mistake, he's in a bad place because he's up a DOGSO alley and in too deep. Otherwise, it's just another page in the book that need's tearing out. The R won't be fairing well with the outcome he's selected, that has to be the case. So he and the GK have had a bad day
Take the easy option out and the whole drama passes off largely unnoticed and correct in Law. A bad day at the office otherwise ensues

Armchair Reffing is a cinch

 

[Mooseybaby]

Interestingly, from the comments I have read online about this incident, none of the AFCW fans are complaining about the referee's decision or where the free kick was taken from. They generally say their keeper is a liability and this sums up his season.

The referee hasn't determined the outcome of this game, the keeper did and the penalising of the double kick was met with minimal complaint from the AFCW players.

 

[JamesL]

It was always an offence punishable by a free kick, and denys an opponent a GSO. In opposed to an offence against an opponent.

@JamesL this has nothing to do with the new law. The new law is only to cover when the second touch is by hand. This would have been a DOGSO with the old law as well in or outside the PA.

Once a free kick is given it has to be a DOGSO. DOGSO would be unexpected because the free kick is unexpected in the first place. In hindsight taking the kick again because 'the ball was rolling when it was taken' would have been a better option.

No one has commented about the very wrong location of the free kick contributing to the goal.

I agree. But that clarification has introduced a concept which I think most of football, referees included, would never have imagined without that goalkeeper clarification being inserted.

 

[one]

I agree. But that clarification has introduced a concept which I think most of football, referees included, would never have imagined without that goalkeeper clarification being inserted.

But that's not exclusive to that clarification though. A lot of clarifications or cases covered in law hardly ever happen in real life. Extra person, thrown objects, offences off the FOP, various interferences including very rare ones, and the list goes on. I'd say close to if not more than half the book is to cover edge cases. They are there, and rightly so, to make sure when an edge case happens they are dealt with fairly and consistently.

Having said that I don't agree with adding clarifications that could possibly happen once in ten life times and/or are already covered in other laws, like the goalkeeper DOGSO for next year's changes.

 

[RustyRef]

I won't be studying this one in any great depth or looking at it again
For me, if there's any reasonable possibility of a misunderstanding on the GK's behalf (possibly caused by an unclear signal from the R etc.), I'm heavily leaning towards taking the restart from the correct location and according to what was intended. The LOTG are not intended to foresee every eventuality, so I'd lean away from micro-dissecting the book. That said, once the R chooses to determine the outcome of the game based on an honest mistake, he's in a bad place because he's up a DOGSO alley and in too deep. Otherwise, it's just another page in the book that need's tearing out. The R won't be fairing well with the outcome he's selected, that has to be the case. So he and the GK have had a bad day
Take the easy option out and the whole drama passes off largely unnoticed and correct in Law. A bad day at the office otherwise ensues

Armchair Reffing is a cinch

I think at grass roots, or even semi-pro, levels you would get away with having it retaken. A bit more tricky when it is being filmed and there can be no dispute about what you've done. All you can really do is say you were acting in the spirit of the game, such as you would if a player stopped because he heard a whistle from the crowd, but you'd be putting yourself in the hands of the observer. Unfortunately at that level one incorrect KMI can be the difference between still refereeing in League 1 or spending next season in the National League.