Question on GK Picking up the Ball

[NOVARef]

So a player plays a way too strong of a through ball to his teammate right down the middle. The GK runs up and scoops up the ball before the forward gets anywhere near him. The problem is that the GK had a brain freeze and was outside the box by 4 yards when he scooped it up. The ball definitely had enough on it that it could have been seen as a shot but I know it wasn't. Is that just a DFK? I'm a new referee and trying to understand when a GK should and shouldn't get a card. Thanks. PS just gave a DFK and no one complained but I wonder.

 

[JH]

It's a DFK unless you deem the GK handball offence to be stopping a promising attack (SPA, yellow card) or denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO, red card).

You mention the forward was nowhere near him, in which case a DFK will suffice.

 

[NOVARef]

Yes, that's exactly what I wonder. The "pass" definitely had enough to go into the goal, so is that a goal scoring opportunity?

 

[JH]

Without the handball offence, would it have almost certainly resulted in a goal? (No matter what the GK could have done) If yes, it's probably DOGSO.

Within this, you need to consider what would have happened without the offence:
Could the GK have caught up to the ball?
Would it have hit them anyway?
Was it actually on target?

 

[one]

You have picked up on one of the intricacies (some may say anomalies) of the laws of the game.

In theory when considering DOGSO, you don't just take the foul/offence out of the picture to think what would have happened. You take the offending player out of the picture. You don't think about what else he could have done if he didn't commit the offence.

So in your case you take the goalkeeper out of the picture and if you are almost certain it would have been a goal, then its a DOGSO.

Think of it as a defender (non -keeper) on the goal line between the posts facing the field with no one else near him. A shot coming in directly at his chest. However instead of letting it hit his chest, he catches the ball in front of his chest. The advice (by most referees and assessors/observers) is to penalise that as DOGSO.

 

[JH]

In theory when considering DOGSO, you don't just take the foul/offence out of the picture to think what would have happened. You take the offending player out of the picture. You don't think about what else he could have done if he didn't commit the offence.

I'd agree except in this specific case, because without the offence, there still probably wouldn't be a goal depending how fast the ball is travelling. Add to that the lack of expectation for a red card here.

 

[one]

I'd agree except in this specific case, because without the offence, there still probably wouldn't be a goal depending how fast the ball is travelling. Add to that the lack of expectation for a red card here.

Do you mean without the the offence or without the keeper. They are two different things and that is one of the points of my post. For DOGSO you should not think "without the offence", you should think "without the offender".

Assuming you mean without the offender/keeper, if the ball is not travelling fast enough to get to to goal then you can't be "almost certain it would have been a goal" which is a condition I put in place in my post. Even if the keeper could have caught up to it, it is still DOGSO. If another defender could have caught up to it, then it is not DOGSO.

There certainly are referees out there who disagree with me on this and it has been the subject of debate on this forum before.

 

[Trip]

In theory when considering DOGSO, you don't just take the foul/offence out of the picture to think what would have happened. You take the offending player out of the picture. You don't think about what else he could have done if he didn't commit the offence.

This is interesting. Can you point to the bit in LOTG or official guidance where it says that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.

 

[one]

This is interesting. Can you point to the bit in LOTG or official guidance where it says that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.

It doesn't. Neither does it say take out the offence (instead of the offender). So it is an interpretation you have to make. It is the way I was taught and I am fairly certain taught at higher levels. Unfortunately I don't have any other official material I can refer you to either.

It would make more sense of you go by my other example of a defender on the goal line.

 

[TSHudson]

As everyone has pointed out, this really is a case of interpretation of law and it's not clear. I think classifying this as DOGSO would be extremely harsh and unfair. Given the OP, seems like the keeper could've easily allowed the ball to come into the area and picked it up normally, would've easily had time to control it and kick it without pressure. So to then deem it DOGSO because the keeper had a brain fade and lost where they were on the pitch and accidentally picked it up is harsh. So I would say the attacking team did not have a goal scoring opportunity denied to them. . I understand the point about the offender not being there, but if a defender had taken the attacker out who was running onto it and the keeper kicked it away, you wouldn't deem that DOGSO based on the OP due to where the attacker was vs the keeper.