A&H

Stoke GK prevents a goal by handling a pass back

The Referee Store
I can't watch from my location, but assuming he does, it is not misconduct because the GK handling offenses in the PA can NEVER be the predicate for misconduct. (At least I'm guessing that is the issue you are raising.)
 
I reckon the Ref has got that one right
Yes, the back pass has been handled by the goalkeeper. As far as I am concerned the fact that the Keeper has stumbled is irrelevant
I am 100% with the ref
 
The new language was to get away from the fact that the GK using his foot would be a send off, but using his hand was nothing. The amendment was to make clear that if the offense depends upon the GK using his hand, it cannot be misconduct, but if it would be an offense from any part of the body, it is still a caution/send-off.

EDIT: That is the distinction made in the explanation on page 161:

Amended text
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. 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.

Explanation
If a goalkeeper deliberately plays the ball a second time at a restart (before it has touched another player) and stops a promising attack or denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the goalkeeper should be cautioned (YC) or sent off (RC). This applies even if the second touch was with the hand/arm, as the offence is not ‘handball’ but ‘illegally’ playing the ball a second time.
 
Kent Ref said:
I thought that but page 161 of the LOTG says a red card is required.
Click to expand...

No, that text is specific to a keeper handling the ball after a restart. i.e. they take a goal kick or free kick inside the penalty area and then handle it before anyone else can play the ball.
 
socal lurker said:
I can't watch from my location, but assuming he does, it is not misconduct because the GK handling offenses in the PA can NEVER be the predicate for misconduct. (At least I'm guessing that is the issue you are raising.)
Click to expand...
socal lurker said:
The new language was to get away from the fact that the GK using his foot would be a send off, but using his hand was nothing. The amendment was to make clear that if the offense depends upon the GK using his hand, it cannot be misconduct, but if it would be an offense from any part of the body, it is still a caution/send-off.

EDIT: That is the distinction made in the explanation on page 161:

Amended text
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. 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.

Explanation
If a goalkeeper deliberately plays the ball a second time at a restart (before it has touched another player) and stops a promising attack or denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the goalkeeper should be cautioned (YC) or sent off (RC). This applies even if the second touch was with the hand/arm, as the offence is not ‘handball’ but ‘illegally’ playing the ball a second time.
Click to expand...

Handling a 'backpass' or a throw-in is not a 'handball' either. Yeah semantics but it matters here. I do get your point though.

Where does this fall in this scale of sanction/no sanction "touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player"? I see it as somewhere between a second touch and backpass.

I think IFAB would have been better of removing the goalkeeper immunity altogether rather than just for specific cases (of second touch and thrown objects).
 
Thank you all for your replies.

I find it bizarre that an outfield player doing this gets a red but the keeper not even a yellow. I wonder if in future a keeper would get a yellow or a red for this?

The keeper PROBABLY knew he was stopping a goal here. Very strange when FIFA are trying to standardize things generally.
 
my concern for sending keepers off here would be an instance where the keeper doesnt realise the ball is coming back to him from a defenders pass and an innocent act becomes a complete game changer. might be a very infrequent occurance but i've had two 'backpasses' in my first three supply games of the season, the second of which definitely falls into the keeper being unaware category.
 
Why would handling a pass back and handling following a restart be considered differently? An oversight by IFAB?
I can't see how this inconsistency could be intended, especially when either could easily be DOGSO
More nonsense from the rule makers
 
As @es1 suggests, you can clearly see the intent behind this, but by trying to make it generic it's only ended up being confusing. Much more straightforward IMO to just make a passback a specific exception - in this one very specific case, no additional discipline should be applied.
 
Kent Ref said:
I find it bizarre that an outfield player doing this gets a red but the keeper not even a yellow. I wonder if in future a keeper would get a yellow or a red for this?
Click to expand...
Is it any more bizarre than the goalkeeper catching an attacker's shot heading for goal gets huge praise, a defender catching the same shot gets a red card (and gives away a penalty)? It's all just part of the special privilege in Law extended to a keeper.
 
Dan56 said:
Is it any more bizarre than the goalkeeper catching an attacker's shot heading for goal gets huge praise, a defender catching the same shot gets a red card (and gives away a penalty)? It's all just part of the special privilege in Law extended to a keeper.
Click to expand...

But in that case it's not a special privilege afford by law but by the fact the GK is a different position. That's a very fatuous argument.
 
Just me being picky here but even if the GK could be sanctioned for misconduct its not a question of DOGSO but of Denial of a Goal.
 
Kent Ref said:
Thank you all for your replies.

I find it bizarre that an outfield player doing this gets a red but the keeper not even a yellow. I wonder if in future a keeper would get a yellow or a red for this?

The keeper PROBABLY knew he was stopping a goal here. Very strange when FIFA are trying to standardize things generally.
Click to expand...
Comparing to a field player is apples and oranges. They aren’t allowed to use their hands in the PA, and can’t commit the offense the GK committed.

It’s really a simple concept that has been in the game a very long time: the handling offenses that can only be committed by a GK cannot be misconduct. They don’t want GKs thrown out for doing what they are trained to do.

The recent changes made it more balanced. Until the modification, a second touch by a GK that stopped a goal would be DOGSO if he used his foot, but no discipline if he used his hand. That was nuts. (And probably wasn’t really what was intended in the first place, but they took a long time to clean it up.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top