The Ref Stop

Goalkeeper handball DOGSO (inside penalty area)?

Reffing4Life

Reffing4Life

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
Hi everyone!

If the keeper touches the ball with his hand in the penalty area from a back-pass and you award an IDFK, but the keeper has DOGSO’d by using his hand, is further action taken beyond the IDFK (e.g yellow/red card)?

Thanks very much!
 
The Ref Stop
A GK can NEVER be cautioned or sent off for a use-of-hands infraction inside the PA. Full stop.

(Law 12 was recently tweaked to be clear that using hands to commit a different offense does not immunize the GK. Most notable, if the the GK touches a goal kick/free kick a second time, that can be SPA or DOGSO, as the offense is a second touch, not a GK hands offense.)
 
socal lurker said:
A GK can NEVER be cautioned or sent off for a use-of-hands infraction inside the PA. Full stop.

(Law 12 was recently tweaked to be clear that using hands to commit a different offense does not immunize the GK. Most notable, if the the GK touches a goal kick/free kick a second time, that can be SPA or DOGSO, as the offense is a second touch, not a GK hands offense.)
Click to expand...
Sorry, that second part confused me.

So a GK can’t be shown a card for touching the ball with his hands exclusively, but if the use of their hands to touch the ball is SPA or DOGSO, then they could be shown a card?

Is that what you mean? Sorry to be a pain!
 
Jacktscallaghan said:
Sorry, that second part confused me.

So a GK can’t be shown a card for touching the ball with his hands exclusively, but if the use of their hands to touch the ball is SPA or DOGSO, then they could be shown a card?

Is that what you mean? Sorry to be a pain!
Click to expand...
There is only one scenario where goalkeepers can be cautioned or sent off for touching the ball with their hands inside their own penalty area, and that is if they use their hands to touch the ball after taking a free kick (or other restart) without the ball touching another player first. In this case, the caution or sending off is if the goalkeeper stops a promising attack or denies a goal or goalscoring opportunity.

Other than this, goalkeepers cannot be cautioned or sent off for touching the ball with their hands inside their own penalty area.
 
Mr Dean said:
There is only one scenario where goalkeepers can be cautioned or sent off for touching the ball with their hands inside their own penalty area, and that is if they use their hands to touch the ball after taking a free kick (or other restart) without the ball touching another player first. In this case, the caution or sending off is if the goalkeeper stops a promising attack or denies a goal or goalscoring opportunity.

Other than this, goalkeepers cannot be cautioned or sent off for touching the ball with their hands inside their own penalty area.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for the clarification 🙏
 
Jacktscallaghan said:
Sorry, that second part confused me.

So a GK can’t be shown a card for touching the ball with his hands exclusively, but if the use of their hands to touch the ball is SPA or DOGSO, then they could be shown a card?

Is that what you mean? Sorry to be a pain!
Click to expand...

Think of it this way:
  • If it is an offense that only GKs can commit (back pass, etc.) the GK can NEVER be cautioned or sent off, regardless of SPA or DOGSO
  • If, however, it would have been an offense if the GK touched the ball with his foot (the second touch on a restart), it can still be a caution even if the GK uses his hand. (It used to be that it would not, so there was weirdness in the Laws that a GK could be cautioned/sent off for a second touch with the foot, but not if he used his hand. A recent law change brought this to where it makes sense.)
 
I think it (nearly) always helps to read the actual text issued by the IFAB, especially the explanation given with each amendment. For this change, it goes as follows:
Screenshot_2021_0507_082113.png
 
QuaverRef said:
Disappointed about the lack of advantage signal from Marriner though, really sell the decision. Commentator even said after he might have played on ‘by accident’
Click to expand...

At senior levels you are encouraged not to signal advantage until it has accrued. Which in this case was when it was in the back of the net.
 
I'm not sure there is a better advantage signal than signalling for the goal . . . .

Though in youth games I have had parents--and even coaches--screaming about fouls that happened a second or two before a goal was scored by their team. . . .
 
socal lurker said:
I'm not sure there is a better advantage signal than signalling for the goal . . . .

Though in youth games I have had parents--and even coaches--screaming about fouls that happened a second or two before a goal was scored by their team. . . .
Click to expand...
They probably expect a penalty on top of the goal 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Clueless commentators on the channel I was watching saying it would have had to be an IFK on the goal line if he'd given the offence against the keeper.
 
socal lurker said:
I'm not sure there is a better advantage signal than signalling for the goal . . . .

Though in youth games I have had parents--and even coaches--screaming about fouls that happened a second or two before a goal was scored by their team. . . .
Click to expand...
Seen it in the past though where referees give big advantage signals when the goals go in, really just for show. MO and MD are big culprits of it. I think maybe I’d just prefer that though to shut the commentators up as they initially seemed unwilling to give Marriner any kind of credit :wall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top