From the 7+7 Memo (United States only, of course): 1. is guilty of unsporting behavior o. Uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play (for example, leaning on the shoulders of a teammate, using an article of clothing to avoid direct contact with the ball, moving or removing a corner flag on a corner kick, hanging on a crossbar) The "article of clothing" in this case would be the glove that was removed from the hand. If he had done it with his shinguard, the shinguard would have also been considered an extension of the arm (not an extension of the shin!). There is clearly a hole in the laws here, though, as the I&G states that there can't be misconduct related to handling the ball. Based on that text, a goalkeeper can never be guilty of this type of UB as long as he uses the artificial aid within his own penalty area, and ensures that he gets an arm on the ball rather than a foot. Based on the I&G, if the GK had hung from the crossbar to punch the ball away, or climbed atop the shoulders of a teammate to catch a high ball, he could never be cautioned for UB. Based on that, i'd be inclined to ignore the I&G and caution for the unfair act, regardless of whether or not the goalkeepers hands were used. I'd argue that it's the act of throwing/climbing, not the handling itself, that is unsporting (though now it can be argued that DOGSO has more likely taken place, since the handling is out of the equation!). IFK for stopping play to issue a caution, in this case on the goal area line parallel blahblahblah.
We worked through this logic in some detail in one of the DG-H vs DG-F threads, even drawing JA into the fray. Without rehashing it all, here's my take-away: The goalkeeper's exemption from handling-related misconduct within the penalty area means you treat his hands the same as any other body part. It is NOT a free pass to commit fouls and misconduct simply by using the hands. What would you do if the keeper threw the ball at an opponent's head from close range with excessive force? Let him off the hook because he used his hands? Give an IFK restart because the Law 12 I&G says no DFK or misconduct for any handling by the keeper within the area? Good luck selling that decision. - QC
1. You clearly didn't read the very next paragraph of my post (or any other paragraph, for that matter), because you are actually agreeing with me. 2. This scenario, like the ones i mentioned in the rest of my post (which you really should read, by the way) has nothing to do with handling the ball. It's Striking an opponent, Red Card, and a DFK/PK where the opponent's head was hit.
Oh, I agree with your conclusion -- just not your reasoning. I don't think there's any hole in the I&G, nor any need to ignore the I&G, nor any need to focus on a second action (such as climbing). - QC
In number 3, how can anyone say that this is not a perfect example of the single most obvious and egregious instance of an act totally and utterly contrary to the spirit of the game - preventing the ball from entering the goal? I am sending this guy off for • denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
No no no. The LotG specifies quite clearly what the exemption means, you don't get to re-word and try to squeeze out a different meaning just because you don't agree with the original one. Of course not, it is however quite expressively a free pass to commit acts of handling and not have it count as fouls and misconduct (well some are offences but those are clearly stated).
You are of course free to do that, just as the GK and his club is free to appeal that red card on the basis of you having misapplied the LotG. Pretty sure that loosing such a case is never good for a refereee.
I think it is quite clear only if you decide you know what it means. The words of the I& G are "any misconduct related to handling the ball." The question of what is "related to handling the ball" is a fair question as to the breadt. I would say that it clearly captures the GK IFK offenses such that a passback (kick or TI) or second handling by the keeper can never support USB or DOGSO. And I frankly think that is all that is clear as the Law is written. (I also think it is all that IFAB was trying to say.) Is the language susceptible to your reading that it also grants the GK carte blance to toss things at the ball in the PA with no sanction whatsoever. I suppose the language is if it simply read literally. But we can get to a lot of strange places if we read the language of the LOTG too linguistically literally -- oops, no more offside!!* In my game, if a GK engages in USB and also uses his hands (or extension of his hands) on the ball, I'll take my chances with any appeal. So if a GK throws somethign at the ball and deflects it, or climbs on the goal frame and uses his hands, or climbs on at teammate to punch the ball, in each case I'm quite comfortable concluding a caution for USB is warranted -- not because he handled the ball, but because of the USB that enabled him to get to the ball. And if it is an OGSO, the buh-bye b/c the USB is being punsihed by an IFK so DOGSO can apply. _____ *Dare I reference S.B.'s strained effort to get language to justify blocking a GK punt in some cases as another example of where you just can't force that kind of literal reading on the LOTG b/c they just aren't written that way?
Same here for me (same as Errol, too). PK on Q #1, while we are at it. "Immediately the ball bobbles up and he controls it with his hand..." "Immediately bobbled up" means he never controlled it post-foul. No advantage realized. Foul. PK I think the English antipathy to handling colored his reaction. (BTW, as I have said before, I think Hackett just gives the answers from the seat of his pants, without reference to LoTG, either current or aged.)
I agree. the USB is because the GK "uses an artificial aid to unfairly assist play." It has nothing, specifically, to do with handling. In fact, the act attempts to assist in the otherwise legal handling but is misconduct because, BEFORE the handling occurred, an artificial aid was used.
Agreed, and I didn't try to infer any other meaning to it. It was QC that rephrased it and I simply didn't agree that the current text could be interpreted the way he wanted it to be. But I'm not using the "no misconduct...." language to do that. The I&G is very clear on the fact that using an object (thrown or held) against the ball is defined as a DFK handling offence and the Law is also very clear on the fact that DFK handling offences does not apply to GKs (inside their PA). As much as I doesn't think that the outcome is fair I also don't think that the question of fair/not fair is relevant here as, according to the Law, no offence has been committed.
But there is nothing in the Laws that say that using a object (or artificial aid or whatever you want to call it) is in itself an illegal act. And this really is the problem with the way the LotG is currently written.
What would you do if a field player jumped up and grabbed the crossbar so he could head out a high ball out and prevent a goal?
A bit difficult as there is nothing in the Laws or I&G that in any way, shape or form mentions that situation. Could probably consider it be USB under the lacks respect for the game clause and thus it becomes a IDFK at the GA line and a DOGSO sending off for the offender (the same would happen if it was the GK that did it btw). IIRC that was the Q&A answer way back in the day and still is the ATR answer.
Horsefeathers. Law 12: (And please don't say it can't be USB becuase the I&G doesn't specifically list it; the I&G is a list of examples it is not a list of all possibilities. But even if you feel you have to squeeze it into a narrow category, throwing something at the ball would certainly qualify as "acts in a manner which shows a lack of respect for the game.")
No what I say is that the I&G does specifically list it, but it lists it as an handling offence which GKs are exempt from. Do I like it? No. Do I think it is fair? Not even close. But I also think that this is an issue for the IFAB to deal with and not one that individual referees should get creative about. Of course if you are going to get creative about this then I have more respect for those that, like yourself, have the guts to go all the way and call it as a DOGSO than for those that stop half way and point to the old Q&A.
I understand what you are saying, but I still think you're losing the forest for the trees. (Or perhaps losing the oak while looking at the pine?) I would submit that it is discussed as a handling event for the purpose of ensuring that a DFK or PK is awarded, not for reaching the conclusion that GKs are exempt from a caution [or red if if it becomes DOGSO] when they throw somethign at the ball. I would see this as akin to the example in the ATR about hanging from the goal posts -- are we really going to caution [or dismiss if it satisifes DOGSO] the GK if he hangs from the post and kicks the ball, but not if he hangs form the post and punches the ball?!? Your reasoning would seem to suggest we would, and I don't think that is at all what IFAB or USSF is trying to teach us.