The Ref Stop

Hypothetically Speaking...

Ah the joys of how the lotg works, or it doesn't in many cases.

I think the DOG in DOGSO foul also relates to an opponent. I remember having some email communications with DE about that. The explanation given at the time of change was missleading/incomplete.

As IFAB 'fixes' things they inevitably break other thing, usually the edge cases.
DOGSO has been an interesting one as it has had a number of changes recently.

A good example now is the new goal kick. A player takes the goal kick towards own goal but before it goes in, touches it again

- opponent present/not present
- with hand/foot
- player is a field player/goalkeeper

Different combinations could produce different outcomes, arguably inconsistent.
 
The Ref Stop
TheRefereeFrom2003 said:
I understand this is an unlikely event to happen in a football match, but someone asked me this the other day and I was intrigued as to what other refs would say
A Player of Team A (let’s call him Player 1) is stood in an offside position. A teammate of his (Player 2) passes back to Team A’s keeper (Player 3). The keeper misses the ball and it looks like it’s rolling in for an own goal, when Player 1 with lightning pace manages to get back and clear the ball off the line. So my question is
Is it offside?
If so
Where is the indirect free kick taken from?
Is it a red card for DOGSO?
What if Player 1 accidentally put it in his own goal. Would it be an offside or an own goal?
Click to expand...
Awesome first post Clive!
 
For people rolling their eyes at the ridiculousness of the question, consider that the laws specify a sanction in the following circumstances:

A goalkeeper takes a corner. He touches the ball again, with his hands, in his own penalty area, before anyone else does.
 
Trip said:
For people rolling their eyes at the ridiculousness of the question, consider that the laws specify a sanction in the following circumstances:

A goalkeeper takes a corner. He touches the ball again, with his hands, in his own penalty area, before anyone else does.
Click to expand...
I think by sanction you mean penalise. Sanction generally refers to a card and your scenario is not necessarily a card.

While i don't think the OP is a ridiculous question (attested by my comprehensive responses) because it opened up a very informative debate, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Your scenario is covered in law out of necessity. Second touch has to be covered as in IFK - it is a common case. The exception of second touch being a handball had to be covered as DFK. The exception to the exception of HB by keeper in own area had to be covered for completeness.

There is no need for law to specifically cover OP as it is not required as an exception or completeness. It is already covered under general description of offside/DOGSO. Its just a very unusual circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Yes. That would be offside. IDFK from the top of the goal area line nearest to where the offense occurred. It is a red card for DOGSO. Luckily, nobody (and I mean nobody) is fast enough to get back that quickly and it will literally never happen.
 
socal lurker said:
Aside from the silly OS hypothetical, what offense (aside from handling) could actually deny an own goal without an opponent there with a good chance to score?
Click to expand...
Sorry to revive my old (very unlikely and strange hypothetical) question, but this brings me to a question.

A DFK and IFK can both be DOGSO offences right? So obviously an own goal that’s going on could be stopped by a handball on the line, in which case, DOGSO easy.

But another type of handling that’s an IFK could be used here to answer your question socal and that’s a back pass. A back pass could never be DOGSO right? I remember a Stoke keeper doing it last season. And a keeper can’t be sanctioned for a handling offence in his own box. Feels a bit wrong but makes sense.

Just imagine defender overhits pass back and as it flies in top corner keeper saves it. Just feels wrong to only give an IDFK in some ways but I get it
 
A GK can use their hands on a passback when the GK clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play. This shows no intention to handle the ball so, if the clearance attempt is unsuccessful , the GK can then handle the ball without committing an offense.
 
one said:
I think by sanction you mean penalise. Sanction generally refers to a card and your scenario is not necessarily a card.

While i don't think the OP is a ridiculous question (attested by my comprehensive responses) because it opened up a very informative debate, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Your scenario is covered in law out of necessity. Second touch has to be covered as in IFK - it is a common case. The exception of second touch being a handball had to be covered as DFK. The exception to the exception of HB by keeper in own area had to be covered for completeness.

There is no need for law to specifically cover OP as it is not required as an exception or completeness. It is already covered under general description of offside/DOGSO. Its just a very unusual circumstance.
Click to expand...
Why does the GK taking a corner need to be specified then? It's just a second touch IDFK.
 
bloovee said:
Why does the GK taking a corner need to be specified then? It's just a second touch IDFK.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be specified and it is not specified? Why do you think it is?

I am a bit lost by your comment. If you are refereeing to law 17 then it has to be there for completeness. Otherwise it would become a penalty kick for goalkeeper handball in his own PA.
 
one said:
Y
I am a bit lost by your comment. If you are refereeing to law 17 then it has to be there for completeness. Otherwise it would become a penalty kick for goalkeeper handball in his own PA.
Click to expand...
I was confused by this old comment...


Trip said:
For people rolling their eyes at the ridiculousness of the question, consider that the laws specify a sanction in the following circumstances:

A goalkeeper takes a corner. He touches the ball again, with his hands, in his own penalty area, before anyone else does.
Click to expand...
 
bloovee said:
I was confused by this old comment...
Click to expand...
That comment is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like that there's is a clause in the laws specifically for that scenario which is not the case.

Law 17.2 is about IFK for second touch on a corner kick. It has to be there as it is relatively common. It has to cover DFK HB as second touch for completeness. And for further completeness it has to cover the exception of keepers in their own PA.
 
one said:
That comment is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like that there's is a clause in the laws specifically for that scenario which is not the case.

Law 17.2 is about IFK for second touch on a corner kick. It has to be there as it is relatively common. It has to cover DFK HB as second touch for completeness. And for further completeness it has to cover the exception of keepers in their own PA.
Click to expand...
The issue was whether the OP scenario was ridiculous. The thread has obviously raised a question over whether in some circumstances it would be DOGSO. Should the law be clearer? If not, why does the law need to specify what happens when a GK takes a corner, kicks it toward his own goal, chases it to his own PA, gets there before anyone else (everyone else on the pitch is nearer his PA!), and handles it? That makes the OP scenario seem relatively likely.

The 17.2 bit sounds like someone's taken a ridiculous scenario and said "we'd better cover that in the laws". It seems superfluous anyway - would it not be covered by the "punish the more serious offence" rule?
 
bloovee said:
The 17.2 bit sounds like someone's taken a ridiculous scenario and said "we'd better cover that in the laws". It seems superfluous anyway - would it not be covered by the "punish the more serious offence" rule?
Click to expand...
Yes it would. But I don't think it is bad to be specific on this one as it is not hard to see someone mistaking and somehow thinking that the touch on a restart was a restart deficiency and should be the one to govern. Not everything superfluous is bad.
 
socal lurker said:
Yes it would. But I don't think it is bad to be specific on this one as it is not hard to see someone mistaking and somehow thinking that the touch on a restart was a restart deficiency and should be the one to govern. Not everything superfluous is bad.
Click to expand...
It's not hard to see how the good book is more than twice the length it used to be. Let me know when a GK takes a corner then handles it in his own PA.
 
bloovee said:
It's not hard to see how the good book is more than twice the length it used to be. Let me know when a GK takes a corner then handles it in his own PA.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well that one is silly, but really only there to be consistent with other restarts.

But we do have to be on our toes to watch for that CKs that a team scores against themselves! . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top