Quite simply deliberately handling a back pass when it is the only way you can stop the opposition gaining a clear advantage !
goalie cautioned for handling deliberate pass from team mate
- Thread starter happy whistler
- Start date
That's what I said.
Sort of, all a matter of interpretation, I think we both know what we mean ;-)
Scotty Ref
Active Member
@SM im not sure what I need to tone down. This is a very simple issue,I have no idea why there are referees that cannot understand this Law
@Duncan Francis the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of any misconduct relating to handling the ball within the PA...that means no card whatever the circumstances.
@Duncan Francis the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of any misconduct relating to handling the ball within the PA...that means no card whatever the circumstances.
SM
The avuncular one
Perhaps I wasn't clear first time. Let me try again. You will abide by forum rules when posting on here. That means showing respect for other users. The post in question had more drama in it than your average episode of Eastenders. It was unnecessary and inflammatory.
You can make your point without such attitude in future please. I have asked you nicely, heed my warning or you risk being removed from discussions.
SM
The avuncular one
Last post deleted.
Heard quite enough of that kind of idiocy. Just to be 100% clear we pride ourselves on being a friendly, supportive forum. Plain old arguing with mods when very politely asked to tone it down is not acceptable behaviour. As a reminder, those not mature enough to behaviour appropriately in community discussions will be removed from said discussions.
Nothing more to see here. Back to topic please.
Heard quite enough of that kind of idiocy. Just to be 100% clear we pride ourselves on being a friendly, supportive forum. Plain old arguing with mods when very politely asked to tone it down is not acceptable behaviour. As a reminder, those not mature enough to behaviour appropriately in community discussions will be removed from said discussions.
Nothing more to see here. Back to topic please.
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Err, No. Definitely not. That's why the LOTG states 'any handling related offence'. If he handles the ball, he cannot be cautioned. There's no possible way you can caution a keeper for handling a 'backpass'.
one
RefChat Addict
Noteworthy that this in the interpretation section for law 12 under the section “handling the ball”. This law is badly worded and incomplete IMO and can be interpreted in two ways.
- Inside his own penalty area, if the goalkeeper commits any offence (including ‘backpass’, second touch…) that is caused by him handling the ball, he may not be sanctioned for it. This is the common interpretation .
- Inside his own penalty area, a goal keeper may not be guilty of or sanctioned for the offence of ‘deliberate handball’ (merely exempting the keepers for this and only this offence inside his own PA). However the can be guilty of and be sanctioned for other offences even if it is caused by them handling the ball.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Deliberate Handling from a player (or GK outside his PA) is USB.
There really is no possible way to interpret this law in any other way. It explicitly states the keeper cannot be booked for any handling related offences. Your 2nd option directly contravenes this.
A handling related offence can ONLY be USB. So people arguing that the booking is for USB for handling thus not handling is, frankly, absurd.
The law is very, very clear in this:
Did the keeper handle the ball? Is that why you want to book him?
If yes - no card.
That's all.
As for your other point - using the ball to striker is a separate offence after he has handled the ball. It's also a penal offence. It's striking, so not a handling related offence - they're 2 very separate events occurring in quick succession.
There really is no possible way to interpret this law in any other way. It explicitly states the keeper cannot be booked for any handling related offences. Your 2nd option directly contravenes this.
A handling related offence can ONLY be USB. So people arguing that the booking is for USB for handling thus not handling is, frankly, absurd.
The law is very, very clear in this:
Did the keeper handle the ball? Is that why you want to book him?
If yes - no card.
That's all.
As for your other point - using the ball to striker is a separate offence after he has handled the ball. It's also a penal offence. It's striking, so not a handling related offence - they're 2 very separate events occurring in quick succession.
one
RefChat Addict
I am simply saying I understand both side of the argument and disagree with neither. I do disagree with the law being clear.
With the example - I think DOGSO can apply to penal or non-penal offences so that should make no difference (I am not sure what the exact definition of a penal offence is).
"It's striking, so not a handling related offence", This is the whole point of the argument on the other side. Striking occurred because of the handling. yet we can sanction for striking. Similarly if the keeper, after he restarts, touches the ball a second time with his hand to stop an opponent taping it in the offence will be 'second touch' which is not a handling related offence. The offence is the same no matter if it is touched by his foot or by his hand yet interpretation No 1 allows sending off the keeper in former while no sanctions for the latter.
Two different events? I disagree given that attempting to strike with excessive force is also a send off offence and that would definitely be a single even
With the example - I think DOGSO can apply to penal or non-penal offences so that should make no difference (I am not sure what the exact definition of a penal offence is).
"It's striking, so not a handling related offence", This is the whole point of the argument on the other side. Striking occurred because of the handling. yet we can sanction for striking. Similarly if the keeper, after he restarts, touches the ball a second time with his hand to stop an opponent taping it in the offence will be 'second touch' which is not a handling related offence. The offence is the same no matter if it is touched by his foot or by his hand yet interpretation No 1 allows sending off the keeper in former while no sanctions for the latter.
Two different events? I disagree given that attempting to strike with excessive force is also a send off offence and that would definitely be a single even
Last edited:
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Ah, didn't read the 'double touch', sorry. Yeah, I can see either side of the coin there. I think 'double touch' could be considered 'non-handling related', given that the body part is irrelevant. But then there's the other question anyway over whether a double touch could be cautionable. And it's such an unlikely scenario anyway (keeper would be out of the PA to take the kick then handle it inside the PA).
one
RefChat Addict
This happened in front of me in a U14 Girls grand final game 4 seasons ago. The goal keeper took a goal kick, it clearly went out of the PA and a strong gust of wind blew it back in the PA. Opposition striker chased the ball but the keeper got to it first and picked it up. No one had a clue what should happen next including the junior referee. He gave a retake for the goal kick and the game continued with no fuss from either side.
Did he handle the ball?? Yes
Is that why I want to book him?? No I war to book him for an unspecified unsporting behaviour (c1UB), as his actions do not uphold the spirit of the game...
As referees are we not there also to uphold the spirit of the game as well as the laws??
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Callum - he committed USB by handling the ball, yes?
Yes, but also by preventing an opponent taking up the ball in an advantageous position...
Put it this way... If a keeper handles the ball in his area, resulting in an IFK, and it prevents his opponent from picking up the ball, or the ball entering the goal, then I will be cautioning him...
Put it this way... If a keeper handles the ball in his area, resulting in an IFK, and it prevents his opponent from picking up the ball, or the ball entering the goal, then I will be cautioning him...
So it does... Stupid law imo
