A keeper can be sent off for deliberately handling outside of the penalty area. The exemption for keepers in DOGSO-H is in Law 12, not in the I&G: Your quote from the I&G ends a section too soon, as the I&G elaborates that not only is the keeper exepmpt from DOGSO-H for handling in the PA, but to any misconduct whatsoever related to handling a ball within the PA(this is the section I was looking for earlier and wrongly concluded I was confusing the ATR with the I&G): You absolute cannot -- under the ATR or the I&G -- dismiss (or caution) the keeper for any misonduct "related to" handling the ball. So while he can give up an IFK, the IFK cannot become misconduct.
I guess I just don't see that as all encompassing as you do. Had I known I had carte blanch to do whatever I wanted to an opponent while I was handling the ball, my playing days would have been much more rewarding. I had to turn to lacrosse to fulfill those needs.
Now you're just being disingenuous. If you give a DOGSO red for a GK handling offense it will be overturned by any remotely competent appeal panel. The I&G is clear and USSF has been equally clear. If you give a red for SFP or VC while the GK is holding the ball, the offense is not "related to" the handling and is entirely appropriate. I'm done with this conversation.
The whole point is that handling doesn't excuse you from DOGSO. They are different offenses. When the language starts with "however" and specifically says you aren't being sent off for handling, I figure that handling isn't related to the send off.
Yet Julian Carosi's CorshamRef site mirrors current USSF opinion: The two types of obvious goal scoring opportunities that can be denied are: (a) A defender (not the defending goalkeeper) who deliberately handles the ball and prevents an obvious goal. This normally covers the situation where following a shot on goal, a defender standing in front (or very near) of the goal stops the ball from entering the goal by handling it. (b) When an attacker is fouled on his way towards goal, (including when a defender deliberately handles the ball to prevent the progress of the attacker towards goal), there are a number of factors that the Referee will need to take into consideration when deciding if the chance was an obvious goal scoring opportunity or not. This is a far cry from the original requirement for a DOGSO-F foul, which required that the opponent be "intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means". Yes, but this isn't the only inconsistency in the application of the law. FIFA and the ATR have since 2006 made clear that denying a goal "by hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body" is a send-off offence. Despite the fact that there is no handling (thus no DOGSO-H) and no opponent (thus no DOGSO-F). Ask A Soccer Referee has now refuted this: DOGSO QUESTIONS (SOME UNLIKELY), December 6, 2011 declares: Question: Care to Referee? On a free kick taken from 25 yds in front of his own goal, [the goalkeeper] (red) passes the ball towards his own, unguarded net. An attacker (blue) chases after the ball. The [goalkeeper] who took the free kick chases after him. The ball and both players arrive at the top of the six at approximately the same time. Red gets a second touch with his hands, clearing the ball a fraction of a second before blue can score. Answer: DOGSO-F, IFK USSF seems to be of the opinion that if the handling illegally "prevented the progress" of an opponent, then the goalkeeper can be sent-off for DOGSO-F.
This is a second touch by the keeper which is an offense punishable by a free kick, therefore, he may be sent off for DOGSO-F.
Does that seem strange to anyone. This is a second touch violation which is not Law 12. Since we also wouldn't be able to apply advantage I don't think we can give DOGSO either. Something just feels wrong about that. Plus it couldn't be a goal scoring opportunity because you can't score on yourself. Until the opponenet touches the ball it isn't a goal scoring opportunity and thus would also negate the second touch violation. I think JA might need to rethink this one.
That JA question came from a long discussion on this board. It was specifically designed to create the situation where 1) the keeper is using his hands to do something illegal within his own PA 2) but for (1), someone had an OGSO. Mr. Allen agreed that this is DOGSO-F The point of this contrived scenario is that the keeper put that ball in play with the free kick. And someone on the other team is about to kick it in the net unless he uses his hands (second touch) to bat it away. Absurd? Yes. But it was designed to prove a point.
Fair enough but I still get a bad feeling when I read it. Seems wrong on a few levels. Basically what it is trying to say then is that while the infraction by the keeper did involve handling the ball, because we can classify it as a second touch rather than handling by the keeper within the PA we can loophole Law 12 and send them off. Eww. Another thing I want to bring up. Page 68/90 of the ATR has the same diagrams I posted earlier and said they could be send offs even under current DOGSO-H standards. Not because they ref knows the ball is going in the net but for the handling but because it is likely. Seems like USSF is backtracking their own ruling with that.
Nothing in the Laws limits the application of Advantage, much less DOGSO, to violations of Law 12. It's true that the US ATR confines Advantage to Law 12, but in practice, that seems to mean only that the referee doesn't signal PLAY ON / ADVANTAGE. A US referee can still quietly apply Wait-and-See, Doubtful, Trifling, or Common Sense in many cases where a non-US referee would apply Advantage, achieving the same result. Even if the Laws did limit Advantage to Law 12, I don't see how that would similarly limit DOGSO. Although I have heard this perspective several times before, it makes no sense to me. The 4 D's are clearly met. There is an attacker heading toward a nearby open net, within a couple feet of the ball, one touch away from scoring. How is that not an opportunity? The only defender in the vicinity is one who is ineligible to touch the ball (no second touch). That defender (the GK) is probably feeling desperate, wanting to do anything he can to correct the situation. So what are the GK's options? He can foul the attacker, verbally distract the attacker, lie down in front of the ball (PIADM), kick the ball away, swat the ball away, or pick up the ball. Those are all offenses punishable by a free kick, and if he does any of them, the Laws dictate that he be sent off. Do you really think it would be an improvement to the game if some of the offenses (the ones involving the GK's hands, for example) were exempted from the sanction for DOGSO? - QC
The card is called Denial of Goal Scoring Opportunity, until another player touches the ball, there is no oppotunity. Look at it this way. A player takes a throw-in towards their own goal, it goes over the keeper's head. Another teammate is on the goal line and swats the ball down with their hand before it can enter the net. DOGSO? How? There was no goal denied, it wouldn't have been a goal. You put the cart before the horse if you say that the infraction of DOGSO exists before there can be a goal. If we quibble over things with DOGSO like the player not facing directly to the goal and it making it impossible to give the card how can we say there is more of an opportunity for a goal if it is completely against the laws of the game to score given the scenario.
No, that would not be DOGSO. It would not be DG-H because there was no scoring opportunity. It would not be DG-F because there was no opponent within playing distance, heading toward the goal. For DG-F, you need an opponent. - QC
That was kind of the point of my scenario. I was pointing out that it couldn't be DOGSO. I was simplifying it so that it could be compared to the OP's original scenario. Thank you for taking it out of context though.
If, ITOOTR, the attacker was within playing distance of the ball when the second touch occurred, whether the attacker had touched it or not, the infraction would meet the DOGSO criteria. The keeper committed an infraction resulting in a free kick that prevented an opponent within playing distance of the ball the opportunity to score a goal. This would apply whether the keeper used his hands, his feet, or any other part of his body. If the keeper had been wise, he would have screened the attacker (as long as he is in playing distance of the ball himself) and allow the ball to roll into the goal. It would have resulted in a corner kick and we would not even be having this discussion.
So if the defender's faulty plan was to do the reverse of your suggestion and shield the ball all the way into the goal and the keeper/defener touched the ball then what? They wouldn't have scored so where was the goal denied? You are saying the defender has to play with the assumption that the attacker will touch the ball. If this is the case then the attacker is in complete control and can basically force the player to get red carded. Fair? I understand everyone's point; the D's are there the attacker is there but the opportunity for a goal is not. The sequence of events does not go in good chronological order. It's bassackwards.
Just because I am confused (and don't wish to drag others down with me ), let me try to state the full scenario: On a free kick taken from 25 yds in front of his own goal, [the goalkeeper] (red) passes the ball towards his own, unguarded net. An attacker (blue) chases after the ball. The [goalkeeper] who took the free kick chases after him. The ball and both players arrive at the top of the six at approximately the same time. Red attempts to shield the ball from the attacker. If he does so legally until the ball crosses the end-line, I think we can all agree that he has spent too much time with refontherun, and that he did not commit a DOGSO offense. Corner kick (if I remember my restarts correctly). On the other hand, if he commits a foul, any violation punishable by a FK, he has just re-opened the can of worms. Remember, we created this bizarre scenario to prove that DOGSO-F could be applied to infractions committed by the keeper with his hands in his own PA. We did not create it to remove common sense from refereeing. So, if a ref were to only see 3.5 D's (or something not quite "obvious" if that sounds better) and not declare DOGSO, good for him.
USSF has not refuted -- and cannot refute -- the clear dictates of the I&G set out by IFAB. As JA would probably say, you are comparing apples and applesauce. The I&G is clearly intended to eliminate DOGSO for the GK handling offenses. Where the offense has nothing to do with whether the hand was used (such as a second touch) the provision doesn't apply (though there had been some indications that maybe it did, which led to the Q series on DOGSO after a discussion here. (As I recall, some argued that what became 1D, for example, would fall within the exemption.) A goalkeeper may NEVER be sent off -- or cautioned -- for a violation of the handling offenses specifc to goalkeepers. If you really believe that JAs answer contradicts the I&G and vitiates that rule, I'd suggest you post the question to him on Ask a Soccer Referee.
Your post also brings something to mind that might assist in fairplay's understanding of our point of view. There is no "T" (i.e. touches the ball) in the 4Ds. The closest thing we have is "Distance to the Ball". This is ITOOR and can vary greatly depending on the the other Ds (distance to goal, defender's nearby, etc.). The same applies to the keeper if he should elect to sheild the ball. If he is within playing distance, yet elects not to "touch" the ball, he is still controlling the ball by electing not to touch it. Now, we could go into the semantics of, "if the keeper can elect to play the ball without actually touching it, shouldn't that be perceived as a vitual second touch thereby creating an infraction?" NO. It is a well known tenet in the game of football (at least where I come from) that touching the ball and playing the ball can be two totally different things.
Just to be annoying: The 'keeper cannot be in playing distance of the ball no matter how close he is because he cannot legally play the ball. So whistle for impeding--which is a free kick offense--and send the miscreant off!
OK, yes. That's annoying . I think you can legally shield the ball, even if you cannot legally play the ball. Let's just say, I know of no place where it has been outlawed (other than you apparently reasonable inference).
JA agrees with Dadof6 http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/?cat=87 "In other words, the concept of “playing distance” must include being able to play the ball legally."
So essentially with all the things we have brought together for this, we have a guaranteed red card if the attacker wants that to be the outcome. This cannot possibly be what the framers of the Laws had in mind. He's my new solution, if this happens in my game: before they can even turn around for me to make the call I will be half way to the parking lot. Frankly, and I know I am in the minority, the fact that so many want and apparently are backed up that this is a DOGSO is a huge let down for me on the part of those charged with the care of the Laws of the Game.