This one caused a debate
- Thread starter spuddy1878
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Once again the law men have been very narrow focused and fixed half the problem. The OP is not DOGSO but should be for the very principle that DOGSO was created for. The keeper has prevented an opponent from scoring a goal through committing an offence.
The principle that keepers are meant to use their hands to play the ball so they shouldn't be sanctioned for it was always flawed. Field players are meant to play the ball with their feet but they can be sanctioned for it.
What I would like to know, what is the difference between the two offences of a second touch with hand or handling a 'back pass' by a keeper, in terms of degree of severity? Is the difference in offence severity the same as the difference between no sanction and a red card? Huge discrepancy there for me.
The principle that keepers are meant to use their hands to play the ball so they shouldn't be sanctioned for it was always flawed. Field players are meant to play the ball with their feet but they can be sanctioned for it.
What I would like to know, what is the difference between the two offences of a second touch with hand or handling a 'back pass' by a keeper, in terms of degree of severity? Is the difference in offence severity the same as the difference between no sanction and a red card? Huge discrepancy there for me.
one
RefChat Addict
I am missing something then. But I don't feel bad about it because what I missing is not there
You may have considered already, I am sure, but the main difference in the offence is the fact its the keeper handling when not permitted.
An outfield player can be guilty of an offence of double touch dogso, but an outfield player is never permitted to handle the ball (save for accidentally and in the not an offence list).
Handling the ball from after being kicked to by a team mate is a specific offence only a goal keeper can be guilty of, and sometimes (not this scenario) it may often be a scenario not of the keepers making, ie put into and impossible position by a team mate for example. No one really wants to see a keeper Sent off there..
I don't really know what I am trying to say if I am honest, just that the offences are different (keeper specific and not) and I assume that has some bearing on perceived severity.
I agree it's inconsistent in some ways, but Im not sure which way the inconsistency goes.
Also bear in mind that there is a further inconsistency, keeper releasing the ball after being in control and touching a second time would not be a DOGSO or SPA either as that's not a restart....
one
RefChat Addict
The difference printed out nicely but the point of asking about the difference is "is it as big as the difference between no sanction and red card"? I think you already answered that in some way when you agreed with the inconsistency.
I don't agree that no one expects a send off. Everyone who correctly feels they were illigally robbed off a goal expects a send off.
I am going to put this from a different angle. The restarts and sanctions after an offence are there for a few reasons, the top ones, along deterrence for safety, is fairness or as otherwise described "to restore the balance of play".
So now if we are assuming for a DOGSO double touch offence by a keeper, a IFK restart, sending the keeper off restores the balance of the game and is the fair outcome, how could a backpass handling (which DOGSO's), IFK restart as well, also restore the balance of the game and a fair outcome without a send off?
I call your additional inconsistency and raise you with a recent modification to change the law when an object is thrown by a keeper at the ball from a handling interpretation to get around the no sanction law for.... well... a fair outcome.
I think you need to look more at the spirit of the law. My understanding was the so called back pass law was brought in to stop teams from playing the ball out and straight back to keeper who could then pick it up and not be challenged thus wasting time in the game, anti-football.
It wasn't brought in to stop teams having to lose a goal because of a mistake or have a keeper sent off because a team mate put him into a pickle.
Again, I do agree there is a clear inconsistency in punishment and outcome between the offences, but I don't think the law makers ever intended the back pass law to be one that can result in a player being sent off
I'm a big fan of looking at where laws came from for context, but I think in this case, the context of a law that has gradually developed is getting in the way.
If I was to scrap off the entire concept of a "goalkeeper" and then approach the problem from the direction of introducing one player with certain special powers, I think we would conclude that it makes perfect sense for this kind of handball to still come under the DOGSO umbrella. The only reason it currently doesn't is because of a grandfather-claused rule that exempts him.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I frankly think it would be cleaner to just change DOGSO to DFK offenses than the weird--and confusing--weave we have right now. While I understand the logic of where we are, it's messy. (And maybe I support the logic more because I was a GK. But I support the idea of not tossing GK's for the true GK offenses, but I never understood any logic behind why a GK should be treated differently on a second touch of a restart depending on whether the GK made the second touch with a hand or foot, and I always though the GK throwing an item to stop a goal should be punished for USB, upgraded to DOGSO, as the offense by the GK was not handling, but hte USB act of throwing an object.)
(And the GK throwing something is just a classic example of micromanaging technicalities in the LOTG--this happens world wide how many times each year?)
(And the GK throwing something is just a classic example of micromanaging technicalities in the LOTG--this happens world wide how many times each year?)
one
RefChat Addict
Spot on again and again we are looking at this From different angles. I believe I have a better one though.
What was the spirit of the law for the double touch offence (keeper or otherwise)? Was it intended for the player to be sent off? How about a careless and often unintentional (mistake) say trip? There are many more offences which their intent is far from sending players off but it is the outcome/consequence of the offence that dictates a send off.
Now look at the spirit of the DOGSO law and its intent? You illegally stop an opponent from scoring, you get sent off (if no pen) which is precisely what happened in OP. I believe you are looking at the spirit of the wrong law here. This case is not about the offence, it's about the outcome of it.
Last edited: