The Ref Stop

GK handling DOGSO

S

steakbridie

New Member
Incident at 18:45. Championship deciding match. GK collects ball inside the penalty area but momentum takes him outside and he drops the ball. Red/white attacker 5 yards away when the GK commits the handling offence. Assuming you as the ref have decided it's handball, is it also a red card for DOGSO-H?

 
The Ref Stop
No. Control would have been a big issue. Had he released it just inside, given the momentum of the attacker and other defenders, another defender would have been first to the ball (even if you discount the keeper himself)

Screenshot_20190506-104707.jpg
 
Had the keeper come outside the area before handling the ball perhaps it could have been a slightly different scenario but even then, there was no forward in a position to take advantage (or to gain control of the ball). However, since the goalkeeper had the ball clearly in his possession/control before leaving the area and by the time the handling offence occurred the forward is pretty much out of the equation, there was actually no goal scoring opportunity at all by the time the offence occurred.
 
I was going to mention that but then forgot - the offence does not even stop a promising attack for the same reasons that it's not DOGSO. The attack was already stopped by the keeper's perfectly legal handling of the ball inside the area and by the time the handling offence occurs, there's no forward within range of the ball.
 
Last edited:
Definitely not red. I don't think yellow, either.

For me, this is tricky on even a fundamental level. Is there an argument that the handling was not deliberate? The GK appears to try almost immediately to avoid handling the ball illegally, but is beaten by momentum. Not sure what I would do
 
It has to be a free kick but thats all for me.

No goal scoring opportunity denied here as no player in obvious position to capitalise.
 
Redster said:
Is there an argument that the handling was not deliberate? The GK appears to try almost immediately to avoid handling the ball illegally, but is beaten by momentum. Not sure what I would do
Click to expand...

I can see your argument but I think we have to ask, what was it that was accidental - the handling or the stepping over the line? He's definitely handled it deliberately to start with and then he's continued with the ball in his hands, outside the area. So do we consider the whole thing to be a single case of deliberate handling with part of it outside the area (and therefore an offence) or do you see it as two separate instances of handling, one of deliberate handling inside the area which is legal and then another, separate instance of accidental handling outside the area?

I think I'd tend to see it as one instance of deliberate handling, partly legal but then partly illegal. Also, be prepared to see your match control go out the window if you don't give at least a free kick for this.
 
Red is just plain wrong, even a yellow would be unnecessary. Although I suppose when you have one team baying for a red giving a caution could be seen as a compromise and "what the game expects". I suspect the referee doesn't know why he has shown red, as it can't be for DOGSO as there was no OGSO at all.
 
Peter Grove said:
I can see your argument but I think we have to ask, what was it that was accidental - the handling or the stepping over the line? He's definitely handled it deliberately to start with and then he's continued with the ball in his hands, outside the area. So do we consider the whole thing to be a single case of deliberate handling with part of it outside the area (and therefore an offence) or do you see it as two separate instances of handling, one of deliberate handling inside the area which is legal and then another, separate instance of accidental handling outside the area?

I think I'd tend to see it as one instance of deliberate handling, partly legal but then partly illegal. Also, be prepared to see your match control go out the window if you don't give at least a free kick for this.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree. I think football expects (though I dislike using this as an interpretive measure) that a freekick would be given here. That being said, if this was an instance where DOGSO was a consideration (though I can't think of a circumstance where it would be) I think the lawmakers would consider it very harsh to send the GK off for a handling offence which is really not deliberate or lazy or reckless or advantageous.
 
Peter Grove said:
I was going to mention that but then forgot - the offence does not even stop a promising attack for the same reasons that it's not DOGSO. The attack was already stopped by the keeper's perfectly legal handling of the ball inside the area and by the time the handling offence occurs, there's no forward within range of the ball.
Click to expand...

And this is the reasoning I went through when I didn’t give a YC in my instance.

Worryingly (but not surprisingly) I had calls for red card and yellow card from various players and the bench, including the old chestnut from the assistant manager that any hand ball outside the area by a keeper must b a red card (and I know he was a keeper in his playing days.)
 
Thanks for the replies. The referee took his time to think about it, presumably speaking to his AR via comms as well, surely he was having some doubts. I mean it wasn't an obvious case like if the GK had ran outside the box and handled to stop the ball going straight to an attacker.

This seems to be one area which pundits and commentators get wrong a lot of the time, saying handball should be a card when it's just a free kick to begin with.

Fortunately, the yellow team which had the GK sent off recovered to win the match and the championship.
 
@Peter Grove hit the nail on the head: the handling was clearly deliberate, it is going over the line that was not. That is still handling. And I think this is different from a GK releasing the ball on a throw or a punt where going a bit over is trifling. On a play like this, the PA boundary is a limit on what the GK can do--he violated the limit to make the play, and it needs to be called. (But the R (or AR) must be really sure before making this call.)
 
By the time the offence has occurred the attack has already ended. No card for me
 
Redster said:
Definitely not red. I don't think yellow, either.

For me, this is tricky on even a fundamental level. Is there an argument that the handling was not deliberate? The GK appears to try almost immediately to avoid handling the ball illegally, but is beaten by momentum. Not sure what I would do
Click to expand...
The goalkeeper took the risk of getting that close to the line that fast. They knew they were going to be holding the ball - they made more sure of that than of staying inside the box.
Can't call it DOGSOH, the original legal catch has stopped any chance of attack or scoring. Can't let it play on, the goalkeeper has handled when the ball is outside the box.
It isn't a card (definitely not RC!) but it is a DFK.
 
Peter Grove said:
I was going to mention that but then forgot - the offence does not even stop a promising attack for the same reasons that it's not DOGSO. The attack was already stopped by the keeper's perfectly legal handling of the ball inside the area and by the time the handling offence occurs, there's no forward within range of the ball.
Click to expand...
Spot on, just a free-kick. I'm afraid the referee has got this one very wrong.
 
RefJef said:
Should it have even been a YC (definitely not a RC)?

I had a similar incident this season: keeper dives onto ball and, with momentum, he slides out of area (this was to the side of the penalty area)

I gave free kick, but no card.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I had one years ago - GK wide of goal heading towards boundary of PA parallel to touchline, tries to pick up the ball fumbles, tries again hits his shin, ball rolls out of pen area and he finally 'succeeds' in picking the ball up. Had a 5 minute 'conversation' with oppo manager afterwards who insisted he had a 'friend' who was a 'qualified referee' and he had told him ALL handballs by GKs outside PA (obviously) were a red card.

Told him there were 7 red card offences and what the GK had done wasn't one of them!
 
socal lurker said:
I've heard that myth in a few places, too.
Click to expand...
In truth, it's a pretty pervasive myth. We've had discussions on here over incidents where even relatively highly qualified referees seem to subscribe to this belief - possibly this one, although I think it's more of a misinterpretation of DOGSO than anything else.

The weirdest example of it that I've come across was in a youth tournament in Denmark one time, where it was actually written into the rules of competition that any handling offence by a goalkeeper outside their penalty area was a mandatory red card. I was coaching, not refereeing in the tournament and I remember it distinctly as our U-14 goalkeeper was sent off for it in our first match (clear non-DOGSO, there wasn't an opponent even in the same post-code). Our head coach insisted on going and querying it with the tournament judges. I expected it was going to be explained as a non-reversible referee judgement call but instead they pointed to the tournament rule-book and said, "Look, here, it's part of the rules."
 
Peter Grove said:
In truth, it's a pretty pervasive myth. We've had discussions on here over incidents where even relatively highly qualified referees seem to subscribe to this belief - possibly this one, although I think it's more of a misinterpretation of DOGSO than anything else.

The weirdest example of it that I've come across was in a youth tournament in Denmark one time, where it was actually written into the rules of competition that any handling offence by a goalkeeper outside their penalty area was a mandatory red card. I was coaching, not refereeing in the tournament and I remember it distinctly as our U-14 goalkeeper was sent off for it in our first match (clear non-DOGSO, there wasn't an opponent even in the same post-code). Our head coach insisted on going and querying it with the tournament judges. I expected it was going to be explained as a non-reversible referee judgement call but instead they pointed to the tournament rule-book and said, "Look, here, it's part of the rules."
Click to expand...

Was that not 5/6 a side football where the players aren't allowed into the penalty area either though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top