The Ref Stop

Inconsistent rules for second touch and keeper illegal handball?

C

CrossRef

New Member
Level 7 Referee
I am writing this because of the recent match between Ipswich vs Wolves, the Ipswich keeper handled the ball passed by his teammate to avoid an own goal. That should be a obvious goal scoring opportunity, but there is no sanction for the keeper, only an indirect free kick was given.

This is in line with the rule below:
If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...

However, I find the rule is not consistent in itself. In the latter case (second touch after restart) the keeper should be sanctioned for SPA/DOGSO, why not for the other case (illegal keeper handball)?

Another point is: if it is not the goal keeper, but any other player, makes a second touch after game restart and qualifies for SPA/DOGSO, he/she should also be sanctioned, it shouldn't be limited to goal keeper.
 
The Ref Stop
CrossRef said:
I am writing this because of the recent match between Ipswich vs Wolves, the Ipswich keeper handled the ball passed by his teammate to avoid an own goal. That should be a obvious goal scoring opportunity, but there is no sanction for the keeper, only an indirect free kick was given.

This is in line with the rule below:


However, I find the rule is not consistent in itself. In the latter case (second touch after restart) the keeper should be sanctioned for SPA/DOGSO, why not for the other case (illegal keeper handball)?

Another point is: if it is not the goal keeper, but any other player, makes a second touch after game restart and qualifies for SPA/DOGSO, he/she should also be sanctioned, it shouldn't be limited to goal keeper.
Click to expand...
1) it's not limited to the goalkeeper.
2) 2nd touch applies to any body part where as handling offences refer to only those with hand/arm which is the key difference
 
Thanks for the reply.

I agree the second touch SPA/DOGSO sanction should not be limited to the goal keeper, but the wording in laws of the game is not clear enough. This seems to be an minor textual error.

I know the difference between second touch and keeper illegal handball. However, why for goal keeper illegal handball, he/she is not sanctioned for SPA/DOGSO, just like Alex Palmer did this Saturday. For this one I am wondering why the philosophy behind it is different.
 
The way the IFAB explained this apparent discrepancy, when they brought it in, was that while a goalkeeper should not be sanctioned for an illegal handling offence, in the case of a second touch offence, it isn't actually a handling offence any more. Their exact wording was as follows:

the offence is not ‘handball’ but ‘illegally’ playing the ball a second time.
Click to expand...

Some might call this sophistry, however I can kind of see a logic to it.
 
Sorry, overlapping responses I hadn't seen your second post before I composed and then posted my last effort.

In terms of why a keeper is not sanctioned for what might otherwise be seen as a SPA or DOGSO offence, while the IFAB has not given a specific explanation for it, I've always thought it was seen as a reflection of the fact that the goalkeeper is the only player on the team who is entitled - and indeed, whose job it is, to use his hands to keep the ball from entering the net. So it would seem a little perverse to then sanction them for doing exactly what they've been put on the field to do.
 
CrossRef said:
Thanks for the reply.

I agree the second touch SPA/DOGSO sanction should not be limited to the goal keeper, but the wording in laws of the game is not clear enough. This seems to be an minor textual error.

I know the difference between second touch and keeper illegal handball. However, why for goal keeper illegal handball, he/she is not sanctioned for SPA/DOGSO, just like Alex Palmer did this Saturday. For this one I am wondering why the philosophy behind it is different.
Click to expand...

I find the wording to be very clear. The text for goalkeeper handling offences is just to exempt the goalkeeper from DOGSO by an offence punishable by a free kick and SPA.

The additional bit about second touch was added as the original text was confusing as it just said keeper handling not sanctioned which I am assuming many took to include 2nd touch of by hand hence the additional clarification about 2nd touch offences
 
I got what you mean:

Any player any SPA/DOGSO get sanctioned, this is the general rule.
Among the general rule, for goal keepers handling the ball where it is not allowed, the case is carved out as a special case, not sanctioned.
Again, among this special case, goal keepers handling the ball as a second touch is carved out as a special case in the special case to follow the general rule.

I can agree it could be considered clear in the text, although it still looks like it makes the law a bit complicated and the philosophy is not consistent. IFAB may have other considerations like @Peter Grove conjectured.

Thanks both!
 
From my perspective this has never been a DOGSO because it used to be perfectly legal for a GK to handle a back-pass and when changing the law IFAB only wanted possession to be turned over and did not deem it a serious enough offence to warrant sending off the GK.

A good way for this to be resolved now would be to change the law so a corner kick is awarded rather than an indirect free kick. It would simplify the law in two ways:
  • All GK-specific handling offences being punished in the same manner
  • No longer requiring a carve-out from DOGSO as no longer punishable with a free kick
 
Last edited:
Out of interest, could someone point me in the direction of the caveat that allows a goalkeeper to play the ball with their hand inside the penalty area if they have made an attempt to clear it with their foot which goes wrong? I know it exists but struggling to locate it briefly?
 
12.2

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:

...

touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:

it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate

receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
 
Back in the days of the old IFAB Q&A, it was clear that a GK could not be sent off/cautioned for a second touch on a FK if the second touch was with the hand. This was odd—if he used his hand, no sanction, but if he used his foot, it was a send off I in a DOGSO context.

The change was relatively recent to be clear that the exemption applies only to the GK specific restrictions on use of hands. I’m really OK with this. Maybe because I’m a former GK, but sending off a GK for using hands in the PA seems a bit harsh.

As far as rationale, when those GK restrictions came into play, the focus was on time wasting. Later the dual focus of not taking the ball out of active play grew in importance. Perhaps if that had the same focus originally they wouldn’t have carved that exception.
 
JamesL said:
12.2

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:

...

touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:

it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate

receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
Click to expand...
Ah, this was why I was looking. I was trying to justify to myself in law the difference between the Ipswich scenario where keeper attempts to trap the ball (in theory, by kicking it, or at least stopping it with the foot) and where he attempts to clear it. I suppose the difference is the highlighted words.
 
RefereeX said:
Ah, this was why I was looking. I was trying to justify to myself in law the difference between the Ipswich scenario where keeper attempts to trap the ball (in theory, by kicking it, or at least stopping it with the foot) and where he attempts to clear it. I suppose the difference is the highlighted words.
Click to expand...
Those words are very odd though, since the ball is in play 🤔
 
JamesL said:
Those words are very odd though, since the ball is in play 🤔
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not worded the best. Maybe something along the lines of 'with clear intention of kicking the ball clear of the 18 yard area' would be better.
 
RefereeX said:
Ah, this was why I was looking. I was trying to justify to myself in law the difference between the Ipswich scenario where keeper attempts to trap the ball (in theory, by kicking it, or at least stopping it with the foot) and where he attempts to clear it. I suppose the difference is the highlighted words.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and just to expand on that further, it's perhaps instructive to look at the explanation the IFAB gave when introducing this change:

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 goalkeeper can then handle the ball without committing an offence
Click to expand...

If any attempt to touch the ball with the feet were enough to overcome the prohibition on subsequent handling, keepers would simply "mis-control" the ball with their feet every time and then pick the ball up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top