A&H

This one caused a debate

The Referee Store
Penalty and yellow as the keeper was making a genuine attempt to play the ball when he brought the attacker down.
 
Without check the Law, I'd be dismissing the GK and awarding the attacking team an IDFK
Similar principle to DOGSO distraction
 
Big Cat said:
Without check the Law, I'd be dismissing the GK and awarding the attacking team an IDFK
Similar principle to DOGSO distraction
Click to expand...
Yes I think you're right, I thought the attacker got a touch, but perhaps not!
 
Mintyref said:
Yes I think you're right, I thought the attacker got a touch, but perhaps not!
Click to expand...
We'll soon find out when the Rules Men login!
spuddy1878 said:
For the back pass you mean ?
Click to expand...
The backpass is not an offence in itself. The GK handling a ball which was intentionally kicked to him, is the offence (in a manner of words). It is the GK who commits an offence, for which the restart is an IDFK. I recall from previous discussions, that there are circumstances like these, in which a technical DOGSO is the right call
I'm not 100% tho. If I was the ref, I'd have been tying my shoelaces to buy some thinking time
 
To correct my previous post you can send a player off for DOGSO by any offense that is punishable by a free kick, not just a direct free kick (that'll teach me to post when not wearing my glasses).

So if the player hasn't touched the ball first then a red card for the keeper and an IDFK seems to be the correct out come
 
zarathustra said:
To correct my previous post you can send a player off for DOGSO by any offense that is punishable by a free kick, not just a direct free kick (that'll teach me to post when not wearing my glasses).

So if the player hasn't touched the ball first then a red card for the keeper and an IDFK seems to be the correct out come
Click to expand...

NO! Law 12 is clear that a GK cannot be disciplined for a handling offense in the PA (except if the handing is a second touch of a restart, in which case the offense is not 5e handling but the fact of a second touch of a restart). A GK cannot be cautioned or sent off for handling a “back pass.”
 
socal lurker said:
NO! Law 12 is clear that a GK cannot be disciplined for a handling offense in the PA (except if the handing is a second touch of a restart, in which case the offense is not 5e handling but the fact of a second touch of a restart). A GK cannot be cautioned or sent off for handling a “back pass.”
Click to expand...

That's what I initially thought, however after checking the laws a player can be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by any offence punishable by a free kick:

Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

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)

serious foul play

biting or spitting at someone

violent conduct

using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

receiving a second caution in the same match

entering the video operation room (VOR)

A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.
Click to expand...

A goal keeper handling a back pass is punishable by a free kick, and in this case it would appear that by doing so he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
 
zarathustra said:
That's what I initially thought, however after checking the laws a player can be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by any offence punishable by a free kick:



A goal keeper handling a back pass is punishable by a free kick, and in this case it would appear that by doing so he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Click to expand...
DOGSO by entering VOR room.. How could anyone entering a VOR room be a DOGSO? (I know it's excluded, but how would it ever be that you were considering it.)
Kudos for your post Zara but I will raise you the explanation for the change from last year...
Screenshot_20200725_225431.jpg

That and the wording of the law is clear that no discipline is taken for keeper handling in area when not permitted


Also from. Your own post
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
 
Last edited:
This is something that every referee must know. I observed a referee several years who sent a goalkeeper off for handling a back pass as he deemed it was DOGSO. Aside from the fact I was far from convinced it was going into the goal, even if the handling had stopped a certain goal it cannot be DOGSO or even a caution. I asked him to talk me through his thought process after and even once I'd told him the correct law he wasn't having it and was insistent it was DOGSO.

Without wanting to sound too harsh, clubs pay referees for a service and they expect them to be fully knowledgeable and qualified, and that means knowing the laws back to front. Not dissimilar to if you get a gas engineer in to fit your new boiler, you would be expecting that he knows all of the regulations back to front. I know that these types of match scenarios don't happen regularly but you could be unlucky and they happen in one of your games, and if you don't know the law off by heart you are stuffed and in a right old mess.
 
See that's what I thought, and then re-read that part of the laws and second guessed myself.

If you are specifically looking up information on dogso dismissals the laws aren't worded in the best way.

They make a special effort to say that a goal keeper can't be sent of for DOGSO-H in their own penalty area. But they don't specify that when they say a player can be dismissed for any offence punishable by a free kick that it doesn't apply to a goal keeper handling a back pass etc.
 
zarathustra said:
See that's what I thought, and then re-read that part of the laws and second guessed myself.

If you are specifically looking up information on dogso dismissals the laws aren't worded in the best way.

They make a special effort to say that a goal keeper can't be sent of for DOGSO-H in their own penalty area. But they don't specify that when they say a player can be dismissed for any offence punishable by a free kick that it doesn't apply to a goal keeper handling a back pass etc.
Click to expand...
I think the mistake is not saying for fouls. There are two types of dogos.. HB and dogso for other free kicks. So you would need to look at the bit I highlighted for these type of offences.

I agree though, another example of poor wording and conflict
 
JamesL said:
I think the mistake is not saying for fouls. There are two types of dogos.. HB and dogso for other free kicks. So you would need to look at the bit I highlighted for these type of offences.

I agree though, another example of poor wording and conflict
Click to expand...

It didn't occur to me this consider the handball section, because I wouldn't class handling a back pass as a hand ball offence as such, because it is a technical offence the same as holding the ball for more than 6 seconds etc.
 
zarathustra said:
See that's what I thought, and then re-read that part of the laws and second guessed myself.

If you are specifically looking up information on dogso dismissals the laws aren't worded in the best way.

They make a special effort to say that a goal keeper can't be sent of for DOGSO-H in their own penalty area. But they don't specify that when they say a player can be dismissed for any offence punishable by a free kick that it doesn't apply to a goal keeper handling a back pass etc.
Click to expand...

It could be formatted better, but it really is clear. For years this created the oddity (at least at a theoretical level) that if the GK took K clumsily so that it created an OGSO for an opponent, and the GK committee a double touch to stop the OGSO, it was a send off if he did it with his foot, and just n IFK if he did it with his hand, as the exemption has been in the Laws a long time. This year or last, they added the change that The exemption doesn’t apply to a second touch of a restart—which just made it more clear that i applies to the GK offenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top