A&H

This one caused a debate

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.
They added the no discipline last year. And then added the DOGSO from restart this year
 
The Referee Store
Looking at the tweets, Keith Hackett thinks it should be a “Penalty kick and red card” for holding the player back! I think he talked himself into justifying an earlier comment and had to find something. Now he can’t backtrack.
I can’t see any holding although the picture’s not clear, but that’s the only way it could be a red.
If he handles before bringing the forward down it’s an IDFK and no sanction. If he trips the forward first it’s a penalty and a yellow card, because he is obviously going for the ball.
The debate seems to be whether it could be a genuine attempt at the ball because he’s not allowed to handle it, but that’s academic because the law states he can’t be sanctioned for handling in his own pa except from a restart, when the offence is nothing to do with handling but is the double touch.
 
Looking at the tweets, Keith Hackett thinks it should be a “Penalty kick and red card” for holding the player back! I think he talked himself into justifying an earlier comment and had to find something. Now he can’t backtrack.
I can’t see any holding although the picture’s not clear, but that’s the only way it could be a red.
If he handles before bringing the forward down it’s an IDFK and no sanction. If he trips the forward first it’s a penalty and a yellow card, because he is obviously going for the ball.
The debate seems to be whether it could be a genuine attempt at the ball because he’s not allowed to handle it, but that’s academic because the law states he can’t be sanctioned for handling in his own pa except from a restart, when the offence is nothing to do with handling but is the double touch.
For me this just isn't a foul. He makes a clear play on the ball imo and we are looking at a back pass.
It would be very easy to miss and allow play to continue given the way play developed but I just don't see a penalty here. And if there was it has to be considered a genuine attempt.
 
For me this just isn't a foul. He makes a clear play on the ball imo and we are looking at a back pass.
It would be very easy to miss and allow play to continue given the way play developed but I just don't see a penalty here. And if there was it has to be considered a genuine attempt.

Agree, if you are somehow finding a foul there I don't see how there can be any argument that it wasn't a genuine play for the ball. Not sure how anyone could find a foul, but if they did it can't be DOGSO.

I wouldn't hold too much credence to what Keith Hackett says. I don't know whether it is because he is completely out of touch with the modern game and laws, or whether he just deliberately gets it wrong, but either way he has come out with some very strange reactions to incidents in recent years.
 
IDFK. It’s handling a back pass, nothing else. The save/challenge was actually a good one so if it wasn’t a back pass, we’d be playing on
 
“I wouldn't hold too much credence to what Keith Hackett says. I don't know whether it is because he is completely out of touch with the modern game and laws, or whether he just deliberately gets it wrong, but either way he has come out with some very strange reactions to incidents in recent years.”

I don’t, but as someone who has set himself up as the self appointed arbiter of referees he shouldn’t be getting stuff like this wrong. His profile on twitter is “FIFA Referee 1981-1991 100th FA Cup Final Referee . Former Boss PGMOL, UEFA Referee Expert. Author You are the Ref Books,”
This could convince people that his is the definitive decision when it’s totally wrong. His first tweet was “penalty and red card” and nothing more. That suggests that this is for handling the pass back when that’s wrong in Law. He then seeks to justify it by saying it was for holding, when as far as I can see that didn’t happen.
 
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.
Bit harsh/demanding there Rusty (although not aimed at me as such). Guess it depends on the 'level expectation'
I topped the class with 40/42 at my call-back night and I think I got 14/15 questions right on my 7-to-6 night. So my punters get value for money, but I ain't embarrassed to have got this wrong (in the off-season without having opened the book for donkeys)
The restart DOGSO HB is a stupid exception. Maybe that's what I remembered. Inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent

I think the Laws read the way they do by chance, rather than by any intelligent thought or design
It's an utter nonsense when one clause in the book is contradicted by another, based on (probably unintended) specificity
 
Last edited:
Bit harsh/demanding there Rusty (although not aimed at me as such). Guess it depends on the 'level expectation'
I topped the class with 40/42 at my call-back night and I think I got 14/15 questions right on my 7-to-6 night. So my punters get value for money, but I ain't embarrassed to have got this wrong (in the off-season without having opened the book for donkeys)
The restart DOGSO HB is a stupid exception. Maybe that's what I remembered. Inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent

I think the Laws read the way they do by chance, rather than by any intelligent thought or design
It's an utter nonsense when one clause in the book is contradicted by another, based on (probably unintended) specificity

It was aimed at everyone that referees, no one in particular. None of us know when one of those strange situations that hardly ever happen hit us in a game, and we have to be able to know what to do there and then and in an instant.
 
I wouldn't hold too much credence to what Keith Hackett says. I don't know whether it is because he is completely out of touch with the modern game and laws, or whether he just deliberately gets it wrong, but either way he has come out with some very strange reactions to incidents in recent years.
Exactly, there was one a couple of years ago where he said that a defender who handles an indirect free kick that was heading into the net should be sent off for denying a goal by handling. I replied that he should not be sent off because it's the same principle as the Q&A where the IFAB had said a defender who handles a throw-in is not sent off for denying a goal since a goal cannot be scored from a throw-in. His reply was that I was wrong, because a throw-in and an indirect free kick are two different things, ignoring the fact that the principle involved is exactly the same.

I actually sent a query to the IFAB and they told me I was correct that there's no dismissal in this scenario, just a yellow card (and PK).
 
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.

I remember Phil Dowd incorrectly cautioning a keeper in a PL game at Sunderland about 8 years ago.
 
The restart DOGSO HB is a stupid exception. Maybe that's what I remembered. Inconsistent, inconsistent, inconsistent

It’s not inconsistent at all, if you think it through it is quite logical although, as with much of the Laws, not necessarily written to show the logic.

A GK can never be disciplined for handling the ball in the PA if what makes it an offense is the handling.

On a restart double-touch, the offense isn’t related at all to the use of the hands, but touching the ball a second time (with any part of the body). As I posted above, it removed the oddity that a GK could be cautioned or sent off for a second touch with the foot that stopped a promising attack or was DOGSO, but not if he managed to use his hand instead. That was never logical.

(The same logic goes to the new offense of throwing something at the ball. The sole reason it was needed was to get past the GK exemption for handling offenses in the PA. Prior to the change, if a field player through a water bottle at the ball to stop the ball from going over the goal line, it was DOGSO-H and a PK, but if the GK did, you could get him for USB, but not DOGSO or a PK.)
 
Anyone want to play advantage on the handling and give DOGSO-YC for bringing the player down (even the GK touched the ball)...?

(Asking for a friend)

This is the toughest call I’ve seen in ages. At grassroots no one is going to believe you, whatever you sell, no matter how correct your logic.
 
Anyone want to play advantage on the handling and give DOGSO-YC for bringing the player down (even the GK touched the ball)...?

(Asking for a friend)

This is the toughest call I’ve seen in ages. At grassroots no one is going to believe you, whatever you sell, no matter how correct your logic.
It wouldn't be advantage, I don't think, It would be Simultaneous offences and punishing the more serious.
However I have already given my thought as to whether this is a penalty or not...
 
It wouldn't be advantage, I don't think, It would be Simultaneous offences and punishing the more serious.
However I have already given my thought as to whether this is a penalty or not...
Are any two events really simultaneous? But I take your point.

Say my friend interprets that the handling occurs before the trip...?
 
It’s not inconsistent at all, if you think it through it is quite logical although, as with much of the Laws, not necessarily written to show the logic.

A GK can never be disciplined for handling the ball in the PA if what makes it an offense is the handling.

On a restart double-touch, the offense isn’t related at all to the use of the hands, but touching the ball a second time (with any part of the body). As I posted above, it removed the oddity that a GK could be cautioned or sent off for a second touch with the foot that stopped a promising attack or was DOGSO, but not if he managed to use his hand instead. That was never logical.

(The same logic goes to the new offense of throwing something at the ball. The sole reason it was needed was to get past the GK exemption for handling offenses in the PA. Prior to the change, if a field player through a water bottle at the ball to stop the ball from going over the goal line, it was DOGSO-H and a PK, but if the GK did, you could get him for USB, but not DOGSO or a PK.)
Normally with you, but not this time old bean
 
Are any two events really simultaneous? But I take your point.

Say my friend interprets that the handling occurs before the trip...?
Depends if you think it is a trip ;)
But in another scenario where the handling occurs before a tripping offence then, yes it would be of benefit to the attacking team to play advantage
 
Anyone want to play advantage on the handling and give DOGSO-YC for bringing the player down (even the GK touched the ball)...?

(Asking for a friend)

This is the toughest call I’ve seen in ages. At grassroots no one is going to believe you, whatever you sell, no matter how correct your logic.
I'm happy with the theory, but I don't think it applies here. Given the poor video quality it took me a few watches, but I'm now convinced that it's actually, somehow, an incredibly good and clean tackle. If not for the fact it's a "backpass", this wouldn't be an offence for me.

However if we hypothesise that he did clatter through the attacker to get to the ball then yes, I think you could still justify a PK + yellow using that logic.
 
Agree, if you are somehow finding a foul there I don't see how there can be any argument that it wasn't a genuine play for the ball. Not sure how anyone could find a foul, but if they did it can't be DOGSO.
Am I missing something? Why not? I don't see a foul either but if I did, it is DOGSO.
 
Back
Top