The Ref Stop

Passback or not?

The Ref Stop
Law is very specific on this, issuing a caution for a keeper handling the ball in his penalty area would be incorrect in law.

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 action
 
RustyRef said:
Law is very specific on this, issuing a caution for a keeper handling the ball in his penalty area would be incorrect in law.

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 action
Click to expand...
(sorry i am going OT a bit) Law is also very inconsistent and contradictory.

A player... is sent off: 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)

Nowhere in law says one of these trumps the other. But lets say your quote trumps my quote. A keeper takes a short goal kick to a defender who doesn't see it and runs away. Opponent striker runs in and just as he is about to tap the ball in

a) keeper taps the ball away with his hands.
b) keeper kicks the ball away with his foot

Same offence, both cases IFK, the former has no sanction but the latter gets the keeper sent off.
 
one said:
(sorry i am going OT a bit) Law is also very inconsistent and contradictory.

A player... is sent off: 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)

Nowhere in law says one of these trumps the other. But lets say your quote trumps my quote. A keeper takes a short goal kick to a defender who doesn't see it and runs away. Opponent striker runs in and just as he is about to tap the ball in

a) keeper taps the ball away with his hands.
b) keeper kicks the ball away with his foot

Same offence, both cases IFK, the former has no sanction but the latter gets the keeper sent off.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right about the contradiction (of which there are many)
For me, the quote by @RustyRef wins because its more specific (but it shouldn't win 'by chance' just because the scenarios in question have not been properly considered by IFAB)
 
one said:
(sorry i am going OT a bit) Law is also very inconsistent and contradictory.

A player... is sent off: 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)

Nowhere in law says one of these trumps the other. But lets say your quote trumps my quote. A keeper takes a short goal kick to a defender who doesn't see it and runs away. Opponent striker runs in and just as he is about to tap the ball in

a) keeper taps the ball away with his hands.
b) keeper kicks the ball away with his foot

Same offence, both cases IFK, the former has no sanction but the latter gets the keeper sent off.
Click to expand...

This oddity has been out there for a long time. We’re I the grand high mucky muck of the Laws, I would slightly tweak the language on GK discipline so that it was simply that none of the special GK IFK infractions can be misconduct. It would remove the oddities when the GK committed two infractions at once like in this example.

(IFAB did address the oddity in the law that a GK could not be sent off for DOGSO for throwing something at the ball—of course, they solved this “problem” that no one has ever seen in the real world on a clumsy way. So I’m not sure I want them to try to solve for these incredibly unlikely scenarios.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top