GK double touch

[socal lurker]

Not sure if this link will work in the UK. Discussing on a US board and thought some might be interested. GK slips before he kicks, and hits the ball. He then kicks the ball over the goal line so an attacker can’t get it. What’s the right call/sanction?

https://streamable.com/f3dxr

 

[Nij]

The ball is in play when it is kicked* and clearly moves

where * is defined by

Kick
The ball is kicked when a player makes contact with the foot and/or the ankle

But in slipping, the goalkeeper makes contact with the ball using the knee first, so that their first kick takes place on a moving ball outside the goal area, and for this, Law 16.2 is clear:

For any other offence, the kick is retaken.

which, I expect, is exactly what is intended to cover this situation.
The correct response here would be to retake the goal kick.

 

[one]

We have had a similar discussion before. Agree with @Nij here.

A more interesting question would be what is the outcome if the first contact was actually a kick. In that case I would expect a red card and IFK. However if the keeper has subsequently picked it up (instead of kicking it), it would be only a IFK with no sanction which is one of the big inconsistencies of the lotg.

 

[socal lurker]

We have had a similar discussion before. Agree with @Nij here.

A more interesting question would be what is the outcome if the first contact was actually a kick. In that case I would expect a red card and IFK. However if the keeper has subsequently picked it up (instead of kicking it), it would be only a IFK with no sanction which is one of the big inconsistencies of the lotg.

Yes, DOGSO is the more interesting part of the discussion, as the retake seems pretty clearly the right decision here. In the game, the ref decided it was a kick (bad angle? surprise?), so a second kick for the IFK, but did not give a card. Letter of the law would seem to be DOGSO send off. But does the game really expect that here? I wish we knew what his thought process was.

 

[Grayson]

Why on earth is DOGSO coming into this?

 

[socal lurker]

Why on earth is DOGSO coming into this?

What element of DOGSO do you think isn't met (if it really was a second touch violation)?

 

[one]

Letter of the law would seem to be DOGSO send off. But does the game really expect that here?

We have to be careful about when to (or not to) apply "what the games expects". It should be applied only for when the law is not clear or when there is some wiggle room. Otherwise we may as well forget about the laws of the game and referee to expectations. There are a lot of uncommon scenarios with very clearly defined outcomes in law. These outcomes, by implication of being 'uncommon', are not expected by the game but our job as referees is to apply and sell that outcome. Unfortunately a lot of top flight games/referees go with what is expected due to either not knowing the uncommon law, taking the easy option or in the name of game management (or a combination).

 

[Big Cat]

We have to be careful about when to (or not to) apply "what the games expects". It should be applied only for when the law is not clear or when there is some wiggle room. Otherwise we may as well forget about the laws of the game and referee to expectations. There are a lot of uncommon scenarios with very clearly defined outcomes in law. These outcomes, by implication of being 'uncommon', are not expected by the game but our job as referees is to apply and sell that outcome. Unfortunately a lot of top flight games/referees go with what is expected due to either not knowing the uncommon law, taking the easy option or in the name of game management (or a combination).

I think outcome of uncommon scenarios is often reached by chance derivation of Law; and the Law was not intended for those scenarios because nobody at IFAB ever dreamt of the circumstances

 

[Grayson]

What element of DOGSO do you think isn't met (if it really was a second touch violation)?

Obvious

 

[WiisardNic]

I think outcome of uncommon scenarios is often reached by chance derivation of Law; and the Law was not intended for those scenarios because nobody at IFAB ever dreamt of the circumstances

And that's when they Air-Bud rules in. Doesn't happen in Football very much, obviously.
Unrelated to football, but I have been watching a series on YouTube that explains how sports have dealt with uncommon scenarios that either are vague, or not dealt with at all in their rules.

I would think as the post intended originally (slip and hits elsewhere on their leg), would be a retake.
If the exact same thing happened in that scenario, it could quite possibly be DOGSO, especially if its right next to an attacking player.

 

[one]

Obvious

Take the keeper out and you think this is not an obvious GSO? In the words of Mr McEnroe, "You cannot be serious" . Have you ever sent anyone of for DOGSO?

 

[deusex]

I've always had it my head that a player cannot be Sent Off for commiting a technical offence (handling a backpass, double touching a GK).
Reading 19/20 LotG I can kind no such protection!
I'm a bit stumped. The law categorically states this is a retake.... but an OGSO has been denied!!
Very interested in what others are thinking here...

 

[AlexF]

I've always had it my head that a player cannot be Sent Off for commiting a technical offence (handling a backpass, double touching a GK).
Reading 19/20 LotG I can kind no such protection!

There's never been such protection for anything OTHER than a goalkeeper handling the ball within their own penalty area (ie, ball deliberately kicked to them, throw-in by teammate to them, releasing from possession and handling again, etc).

I'm a bit stumped. The law categorically states this is a retake.... but an OGSO has been denied!!

This is a retake plain and simply because it was never KICKED into play.

 

[deusex]

There's never been such protection for anything OTHER than a goalkeeper handling the ball within their own penalty area (ie, ball deliberately kicked to them, throw-in by teammate to them, releasing from possession and handling again, etc).


This is a retake plain and simply because it was never KICKED into play.

Well yes thanks.
And if he had?

 

[Nij]

Yes, DOGSO is the more interesting part of the discussion, as the retake seems pretty clearly the right decision here. In the game, the ref decided it was a kick (bad angle? surprise?), so a second kick for the IFK, but did not give a card. Letter of the law would seem to be DOGSO send off. But does the game really expect that here? I wish we knew what his thought process was.

Why wouldn't the game expect it?
Sure, it's crazy unlikely so nobody expects the situation to even occur, but once it has, it is the clear denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity by the goalkeeper committing an offence that does not fall under any exceptions.
Has to be a dismissal every time.

Why didn't this referee do it? Most likely, game management. Would you have shown the red card to a goalkeeper in a match between two teams in the top half of the Bundesliga?!

 

[socal lurker]

Well yes thanks.
And if he had?

As discussed above, it is technically meets the requirements for DOGSO, which would be a send off. Obviously the R in that game did not send off the keeper—but we don’t know why. I’d be curious if there were any statements from the German powers that be about the call.

 

[socal lurker]

Why wouldn't the game expect it?

Did you see players swarming the R seeking a send off? I doubt anyone who isn’t a R knows it should be a send off (and I agree there isn’t really room to debate whether it technically was DOGSO—I think it’s awfully clear.)I’d love to hear IFAB or a federation talk about the call, but I doubt we will. And it will be interesting to see if it leads to a call to change the DOGSO standards.

 

[afronaut81]

In the video at the end is the ref putting vanishing foam down to indicate a free kick spot?

 

[socal lurker]

Yes

 

[afronaut81]

No retake decision there then - nor DOGSO.