Derivative of typical DOGSO question...

[mrgifted]

Yellow is attacking red. Red wins possession just outside it's own PA, and attempts to pass back to own GK for a long clearance. Red GK gets sudden pressure from Yellow attacker and picks up the (intentional) backpass before the attacker can poke it in the net.

Clearly, we have a case for a yellow IFK going in (and since it happened inside the 6, we would take this from the nearest point parallel to the goal line etc.) However, a reputable instructor watching the match also commented that there was a strong case for DOGSO on the GK for picking up the ball. He noted that this rule is applicable "whenever a (defender) did something punishable by a free kick (which in this case, would be illegal handling by the GK, which is an IFK) that prevented an obvious opportunity...

Comments?

[HeadHunter]

I follow the logic of this idea though I am not comfortable with the end result-not sure why though. I too would be interested in the response.

[Ref Flunkie]

I would say since the red player didn't have clear possession (basically it's a 50/50 ball), I don't see how it could be DOGSO. I could be wrong.

[BentwoodBlue]

I can't rememeber where I read it. But since it was a passback it is determined that it is not DOGSO. It is the same theory if the defender passes it back with enough velocity the keeper has to make a "save"

[Crowdie]

Clearly, we have a case for a yellow IFK going in (and since it happened inside the 6, we would take this from the nearest point parallel to the goal line etc.) However, a reputable instructor watching the match also commented that there was a strong case for DOGSO on the GK for picking up the ball. He noted that this rule is applicable "whenever a (defender) did something punishable by a free kick (which in this case, would be illegal handling by the GK, which is an IFK) that prevented an obvious opportunity...

Comments?

Sack the instructor!!!

A goalkeeper cannot be found guilty of DOGSO for handling the ball inside his/her penalty area as he/she has custodian rights (can legally handle the ball) within his/her penalty area. If it was a deliberate backpass then an IFK should be awarded to the attacking team where the goalkeeper picked up the ball.

If the goalkeeper leaves the penalty area (hence losing custodian rights) and handles the ball then he/she can be found guilty of DOGSO.

Crowdie

[addickfan]

A goalkeeper cannot be found guilty of DOGSO for handling the ball inside his/her penalty area as he/she has custodian rights (can legally handle the ball) within his/her penalty area.
Crowdie

Surely the goalkeeper can only legally handle the ball within the penalty area under certain circumstances. i.e when the ball hasn't been deliberately passed to them by a teammate. What if a player overhits a backpass and the ball flys towards the top corner of the goal until the goalkeeper pulls off a spectacular save with his hands. How can than not be a DOGSO?

[billf]

I'm inclined to agree with this line of thinking and I'd be interested in some sort of official position on this. The USSF ATR does state that an offense need not be a direct kick offense to be DOGSO. In a case where a goalkeeper handles a delibrate backpass under pressure because not doing so would result in a near sure goal has to be DOGSO. I saw one play in the EPL that fit this to a T, the keeper just didn't pick up the ball.

[Crowdie]

FIFA Laws Of The Game 2003 (http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,3,00.html)
Law 12
Page 26

Sending Off Offences

A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

4) denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Crowdie

[Alberto]

I'm inclined to agree with this line of thinking and I'd be interested in some sort of official position on this. The USSF ATR does state that an offense need not be a direct kick offense to be DOGSO. In a case where a goalkeeper handles a delibrate backpass under pressure because not doing so would result in a near sure goal has to be DOGSO. I saw one play in the EPL that fit this to a T, the keeper just didn't pick up the ball.

The example above is not DOGSO since the attacking team did not play the ball. It was played back by a teammate of the keeper.

[MassachusettsRef]

USSF had asked for clarification from FIFA on the issue of whether or not a DOGSO situation had to be a direct free kick, or merely just a free kick. To my knowledge, FIFA still hasn't clarified, and as such, some federations instruct their referees to apply DOGSO for all situations that result in a free kick, while some limit DOGSO red cards to penal fouls.

The basic answer to this question is that, until FIFA actually rules on this, there is no answer.

[billf]

The example above is not DOGSO since the attacking team did not play the ball. It was played back by a teammate of the keeper.

I'm thinking of a situation where a keeper is put in a bad spot by a defender and the ONLY way he can prevent an opponent from playing the ball into the goal is by cynically snatching the ball up with his hands or by taking him down. Handling the ball isn't a case of DGH, but clearly the goalkeeper cheated to deny an opportunity. It's a technical foul and I think it can be written up as DGF under certain conditions. He has commited an offence just as severe as a defender punching the ball off the goal line. I think we need to think outside the box on this. At the higher levels of the game, this is calculated. The keeper would know what he's doing and should not be let off on a technicality. Why should the attacker have to play the ball? If he did, the keeper could pick it up anyway. The key is that he is violating the laws delibrately to prevent a goal scoring chance.

[Jeff from Michigan]

This question keeps resurfacing for some reason, from time to time.

As our friend Crowdie notes, Law 12 specifically exempts the keeper from a red card for handling the ball in his own PA. And ATR 12.36, dealing with DOGSO send-offs, specifically excludes a "goalkeeper in his own penalty area who handles the ball." This is consistent with both the purpose of the rule, and the spirit of the game.

The whole point of the backpass rule is to avoid timewasting. It is not to give one side a cheap chance at an easy goal...or to send off players who are only doing what they normally do, but commit a technical infraction in the process, because the rule they're violating is intended to address a different problem.

The DOGSO rule, on the other hand, is intended to prevent the defense from denying a goal by FOULING their opponents...by changing the calculus on the equation from "Do I want to allow the goal or hack the attacker and stop it?" (or, if G>Cost of Foul, then OGSO->Foul) to "Hmmm...if I foul NOW, then I'm out of the game." (Or, OGSO+Foul=RC+FK).

The "reputable instructor" who insisted that a backpass infraction presented a "strong case" for a red card may need some additional instructing.

[Ref Flunkie]

If ATR specifically says that, sounds like a pretty open and shut case.

Hey Jeff, I think I'm AR with you on some O-40 Cup game at Founders field on May 17th or so. Hopefully they don't whine as much as the last O-50 players did!

[chrisrun]

I'm thinking of a situation where a keeper is put in a bad spot by a defender and the ONLY way he can prevent an opponent from playing the ball into the goal is by cynically snatching the ball up with his hands or by taking him down. Handling the ball isn't a case of DGH, but clearly the goalkeeper cheated to deny an opportunity. It's a technical foul and I think it can be written up as DGF under certain conditions. He has commited an offence just as severe as a defender punching the ball off the goal line. I think we need to think outside the box on this. At the higher levels of the game, this is calculated. The keeper would know what he's doing and should not be let off on a technicality. Why should the attacker have to play the ball? If he did, the keeper could pick it up anyway. The key is that he is violating the laws delibrately to prevent a goal scoring chance.

But the keeper isn't just as guilty as a defender, because the laws specifically give the goalkeeper a break for handling a backpass. If a defender picked up a backpass in the box with no pressure on him, PK. A keeper does it, IFK.

Aside from just having a brain fart, the only time the keeper would handle a backpass is when there is pressure from an attacker. So in just about every case you could argue that he is guilty of DOGSO. But I think you open a can of worms if you say the keeper can be guilty of DOGSO by handling a backpass. If he's on the edge of the box, the attacker is approaching fast and he picks the ball up. All the criteria are met, but do you want to give a red card for that? If not, where do you draw the line?

Keepers have special exceptions, and this is one of them.

[Gary V]

As Crowdie has posted, a GK can NEVER be sent off for handling within his penalty area, because that's the way the Law is written. It's a loophole, if you will. Yet since that wording has been in effect for many years now, it is evidently what IFAB/FIFA intended it to say. There have been other instances when the text of a Law changes, and the following year it is changed again to make it say what they really meant.

USSF's unanswered question to FIFA regarding DOGSO is not whether it could be applied to any IFK offense. It most certainly is true that DOGSO can apply to IFK's, although the only IFK offense I can envision in which the "4 D's" for DOGSO could also be met is PIADM.

The question USSF had is whether pure misconduct without a foul for which play is stopped to caution (resulting in an IFK) can be "upgraded" to a sendoff if DOGSO conditions are met. USSF's position is that DOGSO does apply, until they are told differently by FIFA/IFAB.

[refmike]

Keep in mind that a keeper recieving a backpass is not a handling violation, it is a backpass violation (IFK, not DFK/PK situation). Therefore it does not qualify for DOGSO. Also, since there was no discussion of the attacker having control of the ball, it again cannot be a DOGSO.

DOGSO applies to denying a goal to an attacker taking or about to take a shot. It does not apply to an attacker who may or may not recieve the ball with a good opporutnity for a shot after getting the ball. That can only be a simple foul.

[MassachusettsRef]

Keep in mind that a keeper recieving a backpass is not a handling violation, it is a backpass violation (IFK, not DFK/PK situation). Therefore it does not qualify for DOGSO. Also, since there was no discussion of the attacker having control of the ball, it again cannot be a DOGSO.

DOGSO applies to denying a goal to an attacker taking or about to take a shot. It does not apply to an attacker who may or may not recieve the ball with a good opporutnity for a shot after getting the ball. That can only be a simple foul.Though I am not arguing that this situation (the passback possibly intercepted) is DOGSO, I'd re-think the statements you've made above.

First, as has been stated, it's quite possible that IFK situations can amount to DOGSO. FIFA has yet to rule on the query from USSF regarding this.

Second, an attacker certainly need not be in "control" of the ball for a DOGSO to occur. Look at the red card last week from the Revs game (the video is on MLSnet.com) that Jair Marruifo gave. A long through ball was sent over the top and the Rapids attacker timed his run inside the Revs defender, giving him a clear path to the ball. Joseph, the defender, pulls him back as the ball passes over them in the air (the ball is probably about 6-7 yards in front of the Rapids player and bouncing when he goes down). The Rapids player never had control of the ball or anything close to control. However, there was only one defender, he was about 25 yards from goal, he was moving directly towards goal, and he was most likely going to get the ball before anyone else (there was a small chance the keeper could have intercepted). All of the "4 D's" were met.

Unlike what you say, DOGSO can certainly apply to a fouled attacker who "may or may not recieve the ball with a good opportunity for a shot after getting the ball". Referees have to weigh the chance of him getting that ball in their decision. Certainly, if it is more likely that he "may not" receive the ball, then DOGSO cannot be applied as the opportunity is not "obvious". However, if it is more likely he will get the ball (again, it doesn't have to be certain, and he definitely doesn't have to "control" the ball), then one of the four criterion for DOGSO has been met.

[PVancouver]

A player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

4) denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)They had to include the disclaimer for the goalkeeper in this rule. They could have added "unless the ball is deliberately kicked toward the goalkeeper by a teammate", but chose not to. It is my belief that this line was not added to keep the rules simple, not because the spirit of the law prefers to allow goalkeepers to handle backpasses without danger of being sent off.

If a goalkeeper is obviously receiving a backpass, and then plays the ball with his hands to deny an on-rushing attacker, isn't he guilty of...

5) denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick?

Clearly, "free kick" includes both "direct" and "indirect" free kicks (the USSF states this bluntly in the ATR). The goalkeeper is also clearly DOGSO by an offense punishable by an IFK.

The goalkeeper should get no special exemption in this case. And, although case 4) may literally exempt goalkeepers, the spirit of the laws do not. If, as a GK, you use your hands to DOGSO resulting from an obviously deliberate kick from a teammate, you should be sent off, IMO.

If this situation were added to the ATR (it currently is not mentioned), then referees should be permitted to send goalkeepers off for this offense.

[MassachusettsRef]

Maybe I'm being too practical here, but if a goalkeeper can get to the ball before the attacker and handle it (ie, dive on it or bend over and pick it up), doesn't it also follow that he would also be able to kick it first? Subsequently, where is the obvious goal-scoring opportunity if the goalkeeper is guaranteed to get to the ball first? Even if the goalkeeper kicks it into more pressure, no scoring opportunity here is "obvious".

The only scenario I can see where a person could make a legitimate argument for DOGSO based on the techincal wording of the law is when a deliberate passback is inadvertantly sent past the goalie and towards an empty net and the goalkeeper dives to prevent the goal with his hands (I saw this in the MFL a few years ago). Even here though, there is doubt, because did the defender "deliberately" play the ball back into his own goal?

[Jeff from Michigan]

If this situation were added to the ATR (it currently is not mentioned), then referees should be permitted to send goalkeepers off for this offense.


Well...I think we're getting a bit far afield, here.

I do not, as a referee, regard it as a question of whether I "should be permitted" to send off a keeper...or anyone else. Quite frankly, I prefer to end the game with the same number of players as I started...and if there's a legitimate way to AVOID sending someone off, I'll take that option: I derive no pleasure from dismissing someone, and I don't go looking for reasons, or excuses to do so.

I will send players off because (a) the player NEEDS to be sent off, because he has shown himself to be a menance, or (b) because the rules REQUIRE me to do so --- generally because of some major affront to sportsmanship or to the game itself --- not because they PERMIT me to.

Keepers are entitled to use their hands to defend their goal...and are trained to do so. The backpass rule was not designed to change this, but to prevent teams from (a) running out the clock by passing the ball back to their keeper and (b) changing the game from "soccer" to "let's stand around and watch the keeper hold the ball." This is, in my humble opinion, one of the reasons why keeper-handlings are exempted from the DOGSO rules: quite aside from being a "loophole" in the spirt of the game, I think the exemption fits perfectly.