GK double touch

[socal lurker]

No retake decision there then - nor DOGSO.

Correct. He just gave the IFK with no misconduct.

 

[one]

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.

I think you are mixing the expectations of an event happening and the expectations of how to handle it when it happens.

In the case of the OP (if first contact was a kick), no one expects for it to happen. It is very rare.

However by definition of an event being rare, we cant know what the expectation are of how to handle it, because it happens so very rarely, no one has any expectations, they haven't seen it before. They don't know how to react to it. Another example, if an attacker is in the PA when a goal kick is taken (or before the ball is in play in previous years) and he ends up scoring a goal, you wont see players surrounding the referee to disallow the goal (attested by some goals having been allowed this way in the past). Expectations are only formed on event that are frequent.

 

[Russell Jones]

Another example, if an attacker is in the PA when a goal kick is taken (or before the ball is in play in previous years) and he ends up scoring a goal, you wont see players surrounding the referee to disallow the goal (attested by some goals having been allowed this way in the past)

Whilst your overall point is extremely valid, the example you've used to illustrate it isn't a great one. It's entirely possible for an attacker to quite legitimately do as you describe above. IF he genuinely hasn't had time to leave the penalty area because the GK has taken the goal kick quickly ....

 

[one]

Whilst your overall point is extremely valid, the example you've used to illustrate it isn't a great one. It's entirely possible for an attacker to quite legitimately do as you describe above. IF he genuinely hasn't had time to leave the penalty area because the GK has taken the goal kick quickly ....

Something I havn't had any practice on yet as was always going to be a retake in the past But even that is a good example . There just hasn't been enough of these to form expectations .

 

[socal lurker]

I think you are mixing the expectations of an event happening and the expectations of how to handle it when it happens.

And I think you’re over reading what I’m saying. I’m not arguing against applying DOGSO, I’m asking questions. A send off here seems harsh — but in part because there wasn’t actually an offense it was a botched call. And a ref far better than Indecided to make the call and not send off the keeper.

 

[Nij]

And I think you’re over reading what I’m saying. I’m not arguing against applying DOGSO, I’m asking questions. A send off here seems harsh — but in part because there wasn’t actually an offense it was a botched call. And a ref far better than Indecided to make the call and not send off the keeper.

How can there not be an offence if the player has played the ball twice consecutively at a goal kick as in the video?
Either they are not following procedure, for which the sanction is to retake it, or they are touching the ball after it is in play, for which the sanction is an IFK (and, if also DOGSO, a dismissal).

 

[WiisardNic]

I would tend to think that previously (as someone posted earlier), until the laws were re-written recently, that this would be a retake in the past.

But in the event the mis-kick comes off the foot, and then it's played at a second time after it is in play, then it could be DOGSO, and IFK (again, as posted just earlier)

 

[onthebrink]

So in many instances of a possible double touch by a goalkeeper VAR should intervene for a possible red card offence? Will be interesting to see if that ever happens!

 

[socal lurker]

How can there not be an offence if the player has played the ball twice consecutively at a goal kick as in the video?
Either they are not following procedure, for which the sanction is to retake it, or they are touching the ball after it is in play, for which the sanction is an IFK (and, if also DOGSO, a dismissal).

Not sure what your disagreeing with. I’ve said it should have been a retake, as there was no offense. I think the fact that the R was wrong in calling for an IFK is part of why a send off here seems harsh—we are reacting, in part, to the particular circumstance. And i think I’ve been very clear that I think, if it had been an offense, it is unambiguously DOGSO by the book. It is p, however, interesting to me that a top level refereee did not appear to give any thought to DOGSO or SPA—nor, it seems, did any of the players.

Anyone see any comments from German authorities on this play? (I ouldnt know where to start to look.)

 

[Nij]

Not sure what your disagreeing with. I’ve said it should have been a retake, as there was no offense.

If there was no offence, there is no reason to intervene at all.
The offence is the incorrectness of procedure by the goalkeeper, who kicked the ball while it was moving and not in the goal area, and for which is prescribed a retake.