The Ref Stop

Handball DOGSO and goalkeeper

R

Redref34

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
What are people’s views and considerations when deciding on a red card for DOGSO handball in the penalty area from a defender if the goal keeper is there as well.

Example .. shot comes in blocked by a handball in six yard area and heading for goal penalty given, goalkeeper may have got there and saved it. Would this be a consideration for DOGSO or is it irrelevant what the keeper would or would not have done?

Thanks
 
The Ref Stop
Depends. It’s not just the GK being there but whether the GK realistically had a play on the ball. The Q for the R is whether a G was obvious in the absence of the HB.
 
socal lurker said:
Depends. It’s not just the GK being there but whether the GK realistically had a play on the ball. The Q for the R is whether a G was obvious in the absence of the HB.
Click to expand...

So .. if the goalkeeper was likely to save it .. no red card?

And if so.. how is this different to a ‘last man’ tackle outside the area when the goalkeeper is still to beat and could save the ball
 
Redref34 said:
What are people’s views and considerations when deciding on a red card for DOGSO handball in the penalty area from a defender if the goal keeper is there as well.

Example .. shot comes in blocked by a handball in six yard area and heading for goal penalty given, goalkeeper may have got there and saved it. Would this be a consideration for DOGSO or is it irrelevant what the keeper would or would not have done?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Many variables but reasons I’d still go red in your scenario include the defender making a goalkeeper style save in front of the actual keeper.

Others may be deliberately slapping the ball away from an attacker to prevent a shot at goal.

Also consider that a red card for a defender for handling the ball is more likely to be for denying a goal, rather than denying a goal scoring opportunity.

In your second example, the difference with the “last man” challenge is that presumes the attacker retaining, maintaining or recovery possession with the clear chance to shoot at goal without the foul.
 
santa sangria said:
Go back to the considerations in the LotG and think if you are talking about DOGSO or DOG.
Click to expand...

If the keeper is in the vicinity and could potentially make a save surely it can only potentially be DOGSO .. my point is, if the keeper is likely to make a save had the handball not occurred does that not make it a red card. Or is it irrelevant what the keeper may or may not have done as you can’t predict if the keeper would make a blinding save or not
 
Look at it logically, had the player not handballed then as you say, the keeper might save it or might not. But it would have been a goal scoring opportunity. And the handball denied it.
 
Last edited:
Dan56 said:
Look at it logically, had the player not handballed then as you say, the keeper might save it or might not. But it would have been a goal scoring opportunity. And the handball denied it.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Once the shot is taken, we are talking about DOG, not DOGSO. Am I going to err on the side of DOG for a cynical HB? Sure. But it has to have a good chance of scoring. Am i going to err on the side of SPA for a noncynical HB (unnatural position)? yes.

(Even if DOGSO instead of DOG were to apply, it still has to be an OBVIOUS opportunity—and that would depend on the actual shot.)
 
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).

...

The following must be considered:

  • distance between the offence and the goal
  • general direction of the play
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
  • location and number of defenders
Click to expand...
The above is from Law 12 - it makes no mention as to whether there is a likelihood of a goal being scored to decide whether it is a DOGSO or not.

You have to decide whether it is obvious that the goalkeeper will save the ball (and hold it, because a rebound would be a GSO), to judge whether it is a YC or RC. My view, any deliberate move by the defender to block the shot, regardless of the position of the goalkeeper would be a RC. If the ball hit him (and his arm was in an unnatural position) and the keeper was behind him, then a YC.

But the answer the original questions - IT DEPENDS
 
It's been referenced several times already in this thread but I think it's important to be aware of the differences between denying a goal scoring opportunity, and denying a goal.

In the former, you have to have an opponent who has a likelihood of either keeping or gaining control of the ball and who will, subsequent to said ball-keeping or gaining, then have a clear chance of scoring a goal.

In the latter, you have the ball heading directly towards the net, with no opponent having a chance to keep or gain control of the ball.

In the former, you have to judge whether an obvious goal-scoring opportunity would have ensued, whereas in the latter you have to judge whether a goal would have ensued.

In the former, you have to consider the four specified criteria (distance, direction, defenders and control) in order to arrive at a decision, in the latter you only have to apply one criterion (would the ball have gone into the net).

Very often, you see people referring to a handling offence that potentially stopped the ball going into the goal as a potential DOGSO offence, which is a conflating of the two different "denying" offences. It can only be a DOGSO offence if the handling stopped the ball going to an opponent.

If the question is whether the ball would have gone into the goal directly (and not via an opponent) the offence is denying a goal, rather than DOGSO, with all the differences that that entails.
 
There is only one denying offence in law, and that is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

And I think it brings us back round to the age old question of does all 4 considerations have to be met? And I think the answer is... it depends.

Denying a goal, is denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity in law. But in this case, or at least how I see it, we ignore the consideration that doesnt matter which is control, or likelihood to regain control.

General direction of play matters i.e. is the ball heading towards the goal

Number and location of defenders matters, what the OP is asking i.e. are any of them likely to prevent the goal scoring opportunity

Distance to goal also matters.

But that doesn't take away the fact that it's still DOGSO. There isn't an offence or denying a goal, although that is generally what we are looking for when considering HB DOGSO although not always which again comes back to... It depends
 
Peter Grove said:
It's been referenced several times already in this thread but I think it's important to be aware of the differences between denying a goal scoring opportunity, and denying a goal.

In the former, you have to have an opponent who has a likelihood of either keeping or gaining control of the ball and who will, subsequent to said ball-keeping or gaining, then have a clear chance of scoring a goal.

In the latter, you have the ball heading directly towards the net, with no opponent having a chance to keep or gain control of the ball.

In the former, you have to judge whether an obvious goal-scoring opportunity would have ensued, whereas in the latter you have to judge whether a goal would have ensued.

In the former, you have to consider the four specified criteria (distance, direction, defenders and control) in order to arrive at a decision, in the latter you only have to apply one criterion (would the ball have gone into the net).

Very often, you see people referring to a handling offence that potentially stopped the ball going into the goal as a potential DOGSO offence, which is a conflating of the two different "denying" offences. It can only be a DOGSO offence if the handling stopped the ball going to an opponent.

If the question is whether the ball would have gone into the goal directly (and not via an opponent) the offence is denying a goal, rather than DOGSO, with all the differences that that entails.
Click to expand...
What differences? DOG or DOGSO, the sanction is the same.
 
JamesL said:
... There isn't an offence of denying a goal, although that is generally what we are looking for when considering HB DOGSO although not always which again comes back to... It depends
Click to expand...
"A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

  • denying the opposing team a goal ...."
 
Denying a goal for DOGSO-FK was only separated (clarified) from denying a opportunity relatively recently.

Old text

denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty

Change in 2017/8 to


• denying a goal or an obvious
goal-scoring opportunity to an
opponent whose overall movement
is towards the offender’s goal by an
offence punishable by a free kick
(unless as outlined below).

Explanation
• Clarifies that denying a goal by committing an offence is a sending-off (RC)
offence.
• Use of ‘offender’ clarifies the text, which was potentially misleading/incorrect.
• Use of ‘overall movement’ clarifies that if, in the final stage, the attacker
moves diagonally to go past a goalkeeper/defender an obvious goal-scoring Opportunity can still exist
 
bester said:
Denying a goal for DOGSO-FK was only separated (clarified) from denying a opportunity relatively recently.

Old text

denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty

Change in 2017/8 to


• denying a goal or an obvious
goal-scoring opportunity to an
opponent whose overall movement
is towards the offender’s goal by an
offence punishable by a free kick
(unless as outlined below).

Explanation
• Clarifies that denying a goal by committing an offence is a sending-off (RC)
offence.
• Use of ‘offender’ clarifies the text, which was potentially misleading/incorrect.
• Use of ‘overall movement’ clarifies that if, in the final stage, the attacker
moves diagonally to go past a goalkeeper/defender an obvious goal-scoring Opportunity can still exist
Click to expand...
DOG other than handball rarely ever happens. DOG handball is the case in discussion here which has been in law for a very long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top