Own Goal advantage double touch?
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The OP has two questions, I think. (1) Can you apply advantage to a second touch on a goal kick/free kick, and (2) if you did that here would it be a goal.
The answer to 1 is yes as it is an infraction while the ball is in play. If instead of going directly into the goal a teammate then touched it and the ball went into the goal, so long as the referee had not blown the whistle, advantage could be played and the goal given.
The answer to 2 is less pellucid. Law 16 says that the ball can score directly only into the other team's goal and if it "directly enters the kicker's goal" it is a CK. Directly (of course) is not defined and is used differently in various places within the Laws. While one could argue that once it is touched a second time it is no longer "directly" entering the goal, I agree with @RobOda that the best interpretation of the intent of "directly" would be that another player is required such that the result (if advantage were applied) should be a CK.
Since an IFK in the PA is more advantageous than a CK, the R should not apply advantage and should simply award the IFK.
The answer to 1 is yes as it is an infraction while the ball is in play. If instead of going directly into the goal a teammate then touched it and the ball went into the goal, so long as the referee had not blown the whistle, advantage could be played and the goal given.
The answer to 2 is less pellucid. Law 16 says that the ball can score directly only into the other team's goal and if it "directly enters the kicker's goal" it is a CK. Directly (of course) is not defined and is used differently in various places within the Laws. While one could argue that once it is touched a second time it is no longer "directly" entering the goal, I agree with @RobOda that the best interpretation of the intent of "directly" would be that another player is required such that the result (if advantage were applied) should be a CK.
Since an IFK in the PA is more advantageous than a CK, the R should not apply advantage and should simply award the IFK.
one
RefChat Addict
We have discussed this in details in another thread a couple of years ago. The scenario was possible even before the new goal kick. While this is not directly (pun intended) covered in law, there are a couple places that support @RobOda 's answer:
1. The definition of direct free kick in glossary suggests 'directly' means without touching another players (note the underline is part is new this year and i suspect was added after my email for clarification
- see below).
2. A variation of this was in law when a goal was scored 'directly' from a dropped ball. The same question was raised a single player took multiple touches and scored. IFAB changed the law so that the ball has to touch more than one player for a goal to be scored. Aging this can apply to OP s well.
And here is this email:
1. The definition of direct free kick in glossary suggests 'directly' means without touching another players (note the underline is part is new this year and i suspect was added after my email for clarification
- see below).2. A variation of this was in law when a goal was scored 'directly' from a dropped ball. The same question was raised a single player took multiple touches and scored. IFAB changed the law so that the ball has to touch more than one player for a goal to be scored. Aging this can apply to OP s well.
And here is this email:
Last edited:
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I don't see how this is any different, in terms of the underlying principles involved, from the following scenario that used to be in the FIFA Q&A's:
OK, we're talking about a different category of IFK offence (double touch as opposed to deliberately handling a throw in from a team mate) and a different restart (goal kick as opposed to throw in) but as it seems to me, the basic legal premise remains the same. Even though a goal could not be awarded if the ball gone in directly, once the touch which would otherwise be an IFK offence occurs, the advantage can be applied.
OK, we're talking about a different category of IFK offence (double touch as opposed to deliberately handling a throw in from a team mate) and a different restart (goal kick as opposed to throw in) but as it seems to me, the basic legal premise remains the same. Even though a goal could not be awarded if the ball gone in directly, once the touch which would otherwise be an IFK offence occurs, the advantage can be applied.
one
RefChat Addict
The fundamental difference is in the Q&A the ball touches another player but in OP it does not. Laws have now (since Q&A) made it clear that indirect means touching another player.
So the equivalent of the OP to the Q&A is that an outfield player takes the goal kick and before it enters own goal, it is touched by own keeper. A goal is awarded then.
Not that I can think of.
This season's law changes pretty much rule it out now in 12.1 the handball offences rewrite. They can't be cautioned for SPA handling offences either.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
No. Full stop. No.
"The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. 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. "
In fact, IFAB added a new DFK offense because GKs cannot be disciplined for handling within the PA. The DFK for using an object or throwing an object at the ball was included so that (if it ever happens in the real world) a GK doing so would result in a PK and appropriate caution or send off.
I'll add a different reply here. If that happens I'd have to question why the game is being played at all, you would have to be talking gale force winds and in those conditions the ball wouldn't stay still at any restart. Even in Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis conditions of the past two weekends I doubt that happened in any of the very few games that were played, so the answer is obvious here. Pick up the ball and go home.
one
RefChat Addict
With the new law we don't necessarily have to have very strong wind for this to happen. The kick is across the goal only hard enough to get from one side of goal area to the other side (say half way up the goal area) which is quite common now. You don't really need a very strong wind to make the ball move towards goal. Id say the OP scenario is quite plausible.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
What law change are you referring to?
If, after a throw-in or deliberate kick from a team-mate, the goalkeeper unsuccessfully kicks or tries to kick the ball to release it into play, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Misunderstood--thought you might be referring to GKs not being cautioned for handling offenses, which wasn't new.
one
RefChat Addict
I can see why you may think he was referring to that. But to be clear, handling a back-pass by keeper in the area, as an offence on it's own, even to save a goal, is not a caution (or send off).