PVancouver
21 Sep 2006, 10:57 AM
Thoughts On DOGSOs and Backpasses, 2006
As a matter of review, there are two sending-off offenses included in the 2006 FIFA Laws of the Game relating to denying obvious goalscoring opportunities (DOGSOs):
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) [DOGSO-handling]
5. denies 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 [DOGSO-opponent]
The paragraph below was added to section 12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY in the 2006 USSF Advice to Referees:
Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.
In the above case, it is not clear in the ATR whether a distinction should be made based on which team last played the ball. Since handling is not involved, the ATR must be invoking DOGSO-opponent for the punishment: “denies 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”. So if, for whatever reason, the ball is headed toward one’s own goal and the defense is not in a position to defend it legally, the ATR apparently considers this an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal, regardless of who last played the ball. This seems to be a stretch of the Laws, and an exception to the ATR’s own requirements that the 4 “D’s” be present: Number of Defenders, Distance to Ball, Distance to Goal, and Direction of Play. The Direction of Play refers to an attacker’s direction of play, which is obviously irrelevant if the ball has already been directed on goal.
In Ask A Referee (”www.drix.net/jim/past061.html”), Jim Allen/USSF answers a question in this way:
USSF answer (March 3, 2006):
Simply by jumping up and hanging on the crossbar, the defender is guilty of unsporting behavior. By using that position to deflect the ball away from the goal while committing unsporting behavior, the defender has denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity through an act punishable by a free kick. Send off the player and show the red card. Restart with an indirect free kick--the punishment for misconduct that does not involve a foul--for the opposing team.
The same could be said of a situation in which a goalkeeper pulled the bar downward and the ball hit the bar and deflected away--same punishment and restart.
Note that any reference to opponents moving towards goal is excluded, although the shot did come from an opponent in the posed question.
Note also that the DOGSO-handling offense in the LOTG includes the word “goals”, while the DOGSO-opponent offense only includes “obvious goalscoring opportunities”. The omission is apparently intentional, although the reasoning behind the omission is obscure.
FIFA includes this in their 2006 Q&A:
13 A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?
The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.
13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take?
The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.
The substitute denied an OGSO by an offense punishable by an IFK (entering the field of play without permission/unsporting behavior). Certainly play would have been stopped for the UB whether or not the ball was headed into the goal. According the ATR, this player should be sent off. Why is he not?
And if a substitute can not be sent-off for kicking the ball to deny an OGSO, why can he be sent-off for handling the ball to deny an OGSO? In the first case, I suspect that FIFA would claim that, while the substitute may have denied a goal, there was no “opponent moving towards the player’s goal” who was denied his obvious goalscoring opportunity, while in the second case, the DOGSO-handling offense does not require the involvement of opponents.
Why didn’t FIFA include the phrase “goal, or” when describing the DOGSO-opponent offense, which would allow the substitute who kicked the ball to be sent off? I’m not sure. Perhaps the writers wanted to prevent players from being sent off for most second touch and backpass offenses, while allowing indirect free kick offenses like impeding and dangerous play to be called. However, with the current law, if an attacker is in a position to kick a ball just before a defender’s second touch or a goalkeeper’s handling of a backpass, and the defense was not otherwise in a position to block the prospective kick, it seems to me that “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal” has been denied. One could quibble that since the opponent himself is not fouled, one could say that the opponent has not been denied, but I would not agree with this restriction. I believe that goalkeepers should not be exonerated from all violations regarding handling in their own penalty area, simply because of the DOGSO-handling law. If, in any case where a player is not allowed to kick a ball, and that player happens to be the goalkeeper within his own penalty area, that player should not be allowed to handle the ball, and the penalty should be the same as if he had kicked it.
I feel this way even though the ATR begs differently:
16.3 SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A GOAL KICK
A goalkeeper who takes a goal kick, which passes outside of the penalty area and then returns in the direction of the goal, attempts to prevent the ball from entering the goal by handling it. Although the attempt is unsuccessful and the ball enters the net, the goal cannot be counted as the offense of “second touch” has occurred and must result in an indirect free kick restart where the second touch occurred. Advantage is not applied because “second touch” is not a violation of Law 12 (see Advice 5.6). If the goalkeeper’s handling of the ball in these circumstances had been successful, the “second handling” offense would be called, but the goalkeeper could not be sent from the field and shown a red card for interfering with a goalscoring opportunity (goalkeeper handling, unless it occurred outside the penalty area, is exempt from the misconduct of handling to prevent a goal).
Since it can be assumed that there is no nearby opponent in the case, I would agree that the goalkeeper cannot be sent-off, but to say that the goalkeeper is completely exempt paints with too broad a brush.
As a side note, it has never been clear to me why the opponent must be moving toward the goal. I can think of numerous obvious goal-scoring opportunities that do not require the opponent to be moving toward the goal.
There is a possibility that I have been barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps FIFA Q&A 13 and 13.1 can best be explained because FIFA believes that UB is not a foul and thus is not an “offence (to an opponent) punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”; while 13.1 represents a send-off offense because DOGSO-handling does not have any such requirement. It would be helpful if the FIFA Q&A described how it arrives at its conclusions.
The ATR claims that a substitute cannot be cautioned for a reckless tackle, only for unsporting behavior (12.28.8). He cannot be sent off for serious foul play (even if the substitute fouls the player on the field of play while the ball is in play), only for violent conduct (12.33). So perhaps FIFA does not consider these to be fouls, and thus not are “offences punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Since DOGSO-handling does not have this requirement, a substitute may be sent-off for DOGSO-handling, but not for DOGSO-opponent.
Personally, I find it silly and capricious if a substitute can be sent-off for one offense and not the other, when he obviously isn’t permitted to do either, and both offenses deny a goal.
DOGSO generally requires some type of foul. Handling is generally considered to be a type of foul, even though it is not committed directly against an opponent player. If a substitute cannot commit a foul--and he cannot--then how can he commit a DOGSO offense? If a substitute runs onto the field and deliberately handles the ball, the restart is an indirect free kick, not a direct free kick. Why isn’t similar logic applied to DOGSOs? In my opinion, the DOGSO laws should only apply to players, not to substitutes.
Whatever your viewpoint, FIFA does not make it clear whether an “offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” refers only to those offenses made directly against opponents (i.e. fouls), or includes any offense resulting in a free kick or penalty kick that happens to deny an opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal (e.g. unsporting behavior, handling of backpasses, second touch handling by goalkeepers, and second touches by any player on free kicks).
As noted above, the USSF ATR is fairly clear:
12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.
This mirrors the answers given on Jim Allen’s Ask a Referee website. The question notes that the shot came from an attacker. Again, the response was:
USSF answer (March 3, 2006):
Simply by jumping up and hanging on the crossbar, the defender is guilty of unsporting behavior. By using that position to deflect the ball away from the goal while committing unsporting behavior, the defender has denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity through an act punishable by a free kick. Send off the player and show the red card. Restart with an indirect free kick--the punishment for misconduct that does not involve a foul--for the opposing team.
The same could be said of a situation in which a goalkeeper pulled the bar downward and the ball hit the bar and deflected away--same punishment and restart.
So the free kick offense apparently does not need to be made directly against an attacker, despite the ATR’s requirement that the 4 D’s be met. Curiously, the response claims both offenses denied “a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity”, mimicking the DOGSO-handling law, yet neither offense involved handling.
Unfortunately, the ATR is in direct conflict with the FIFA Q&A. Even though it is not clear exactly why FIFA does not allow the player to be sent off in question 13 for playing the ball with his foot, the ATR seems to indicate that it does not matter if there is no “opponent moving towards the player’s goal” and it does not matter if the offense is not a foul but only unsporting behavior. This eliminates both possible reasons for FIFA’s answer to Question 13.
Both the USSF ATR and the English FA Advice on Applications provide some interesting discussions about goalkeeper handling of backpasses.
In the ATR:
12.20 BALL KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER
A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 if he or she touches the ball with the hands directly after it has been deliberately kicked to him or her by a teammate. The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot. The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the ‘keeper can legally handle the ball. The requirement that the ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected.
NOTE: (a) The goalkeeper is permitted to dribble into the penalty area and then pick up any ball played legally (not kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can easily play it) by a teammate or played in any manner by an opponent. (b) This portion of the Law was written to help referees cope with timewasting tactics by teams, not to punish players who are playing within the Spirit of the Game.
[The entire note is new text for 2006, the italics are present in the original.]
Is this supposed to imply that backpasses that are not solely intended for timewasting may legally be handled by the goalkeeper? Just exactly how can a goalkeeper be playing within the Spirit of the Game by handling a backpass? The only acceptable reasons to me are if the goalkeeper is either not aware that the pass came from a teammate or assumed that the ball was not deliberately kicked to him, or the backpass arrived too quickly to prevent his natural reflexes from handling the ball. While these reasons for handling backpasses are quite common, another very common reason to handle a backpass is that it offers the goalkeeper the most sure, possibly only, way of stopping or preventing an opponent’s attack. Wouldn’t allowing a goalkeeper to handle a ball for this reason, without penalizing with an IFK, eliminate any potential benefit of the timewasting feature of the rule? The rule is obviously not enforced this way in practice, so what is the meaning behind the ATR’s 12.20 Note (b)?
According to the English FA’s Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game[url]:
Law 12 (3): DENYING GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITIES
....
If the ball is deliberately kicked directly towards his own goalkeeper by a colleague and the goalkeeper prevents an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling the ball, the restart will be an indirect free kick from where the offence occurred notwithstanding the special circumstances covered in Law 8.
No one would disagree with this. The next paragraph is quite confusing:
Further action could be taken against the goalkeeper if it was felt that he knew that without his illegal intervention, the ball would enter the goal. His action in intervening could be construed as unsporting behaviour by arguing that he could have chosen not to handle the ball deliberately but rather use another part of his body to change the path of the ball.
These two sentences are in conflict with each other. If the goalkeeper felt an illegal intervention, i.e. handling the backpass, was required to prevent a goal, then he could not have chosen to use another part of his body. It is difficult to determine the intent of this paragraph because it makes no sense.
Generally, keeper handling of backpasses is not considered to be unsporting behavior. Since the keeper must give up an indirect free kick in his own penalty area, it is generally considered punishment enough. He no longer has the ability to “waste time”. Of course, illegally denying a goal scoring opportunity is more serious. But if the keeper could have chosen to play the ball by using another part of his body, it is unlikely that a goal is being denied because of the handling. If a goal is denied because of the handling, it might be considered unsporting behavior, but the Spirit of the Game (apparently) would prefer not to send off the goalkeeper, because normally whenever a goalkeeper is allowed to play the ball with his feet, he is also allowed to play the ball with his hands (within his own penalty area). While the backpass rule was designed to improve the game, it was (apparently) not intended to put goalkeepers at risk of being sent-off for handling the ball in their own penalty area.
The FA acknowledges that a goal can be illegally prevented by a goalkeeper handling the ball and in some context can be unsporting, yet does not offer to send-off the player for denying the goal. This reinforces the concept that a shot on goal from an opponent is not “an obvious goalscoring opportunity”. It is either a goal or not a goal. The goalkeeper can not be sent off for denying a goal by handling., if it does not deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent....
Of course, if it is unsporting behavior, the USSF ATR seems to indicate that the goalkeeper can be sent off.
[url=”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-15.htm”]Ken Aston (”http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/corshamref/sub/fabooks.htm”) permits a goalkeeper to DOGSO-opponent on a throw-in, and does not even caution the keeper for unsporting behavior:
Question 21: When a goalkeeper receiving the ball direct from a throw-in taken by a teammate, has to dive and palm the ball away from entering the goal. - And thus prevents an oncoming nearby attacker from making contact with the ball and shooting towards goal. Should the Referee Send off the goalkeeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity and restart with an indirect free kick, or should the Referee just give the goalkeeper a caution and restart with an indirect free kick for touching the ball after it has been received directly from a throw-in taken by a team mate?
Answer 21: Indirect free kick, no caution, as the goalkeeper is permitted to handle the ball in his own area.
When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick (for example, when he handles the ball after receiving it directly from a colleague taking a throw-in).
Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he cannot therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).
However, this is another backpass situation in which the goalkeeper would legally be able to deny the goalscoring opportunity by playing the ball with his feet. I speculate that if Law 15 were changed so that goalkeepers were not permitted to touch a throw-in from a teammate in any way, he could indeed be sent-off for DOGSO-opponent by handling (or kicking) the ball. With the current law, the goalkeeper is technically guilty of DOGSO-opponent, but current advice is not to prosecute for this infraction. I would like to see a Decision to the Laws to make this more clear.
Here, Ken Aston discusses the consequences of a goalkeeper handling the ball after releasing it into play (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-IDFK.htm”):
Question 22: When a goalkeeper who has released the ball at his feet, purposefully picks it up again to prevent an oncoming nearby challenging attacker gaining possession and shooting towards goal. Should the Referee Send off the goalkeeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity and restart with an indirect free kick, or should the Referee just give the goalkeeper a caution and restart with an indirect free kick for touching the ball a second time after he has released it.
Answer 22: As the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player, it is not a clear goal scoring opportunity. An indirect free kick should be awarded. The additional punishment of a caution is not automatic. If the Referee considers that the goalkeeper has gained an unfair advantage over his opponent, he would judge this as unsporting behavior and caution him.
When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws as in this question, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick.
Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he can not therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).
Again, another case where the goalkeeper would legally be able to deny the goalscoring opportunity by playing the ball with his feet. Unfortunately, Aston claims that “the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player”. Well, if the goalkeeper could only beat the player to the ball by illegally handling it, one would think that the ball was not clearly in his control. Aston reiterates that under NO circumstances may a keeper be sent-off for DOGSO-opponent by handling the ball..
Ken Aston neatly summarizes (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-IDFK.htm”) many of the issues I have discussed here in Question 5.
Question 5: If a goalkeeper picks the ball up from a deliberate 'back pass' by a team-mate, which may have led to a goal scoring opportunity - what would be the correct course of action from the Referee?.
Answer 5. Denying a goal by deliberate handling refers to situations where the ball would enter the goal but is stopped from doing so by a defender (other than the goalkeeper). There is nothing in the Laws to specifically state that the goalkeeper must be sent off for handling the ball from a 'back pass' (even if it prevented a goal scoring opportunity). As the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player, this is not an offence committed against that opponent which denies that opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity – the offence is committed by the goalkeeper on himself!. The restart is an indirect free kick to the attacking team at the place where the goalkeeper touched the ball with his hands. Goal scoring opportunities refer to fouls made on attacking players, and when a defending player (not the goalkeeper) handles a goal bound shot. It does not cover those instances when a player commits an infringement by himself, such as touching the ball a second time, or when the goalkeeper handles a ball received directly from a team-mate taking a throw-in (or from a deliberate 'back-pass'). An indirect free kick is awarded in all instances. These incidents are not deemed by Law to be preventing an opponent from scoring an obvious goal. (Even though they might be!)
“There is nothing in the Laws to specifically state that the goalkeeper must be sent off for handling the ball from a 'back pass' (even if it prevented a goal scoring opportunity).” That is true if you believe that no one can deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent by handling the ball.
“Goal scoring opportunities refer to fouls made on attacking players, and when a defending player (not the goalkeeper) handles a goal bound shot.” So if a defending player handles a goal bound shot, is he denying a “goal scoring opportunity”? Or is this just poor grammar?
“It does not cover those instances when a player commits an infringement by himself, such as touching the ball a second time, or when the goalkeeper handles a ball received directly from a team-mate taking a throw-in (or from a deliberate 'back-pass').... These incidents are not deemed by Law to be preventing an opponent from scoring an obvious goal. (Even though they might be!)” Translation: even though we might consider these infringements to deny an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, somehow the Law does not.
And finally we discover an important distinction. Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity (the “It” in the above paragraph) does not include illegal second touches by ANY player, according to Aston. This is not indicated anywhere in the Laws and rarely found in advice. It can hardly be seen as playing within the Spirit of the Game. In fact, Aston acknowledges that a keeper can be cautioned for picking up a ball he released into play if he “gained an unfair advantage”. However, it does mean that goalkeepers do not have any special status compared to field players. Apparently, neither goalkeepers or field players can be called for DOGSO-opponent if their indirect free kick offense is of a technical nature.
Aston gives another view on goal-scoring opportunities (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-CAUTIONS.htm”).
Question 6: The Law says it's a red card to "deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" through a deliberate foul. It is also a sending of offence to "deny a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball." What is the difference between the two offences?
Answer 6: Denying a goal by deliberate handling refers to situations where the ball would enter the goal for a score but is stopped by a defender (other than the goalkeeper) using his hands. It also covers situations where the goalkeeper (or any other defending player) handles the ball outside of their penalty area, thus denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The farther away from the penalty area and goal, the more difficult it becomes for the Referee to be sure that the ball would have gone 'in' for a goal, or whether there was a an obvious goal-scoring opportunity or not . Denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity" through a deliberate foul is when a defending player, and the foul fouls an attacking player moving TOWARDS goal prevents the attacking player from a goal scoring opportunity
This states clearly that DOGSO-opponent must in fact be a foul on an opponent. This would exclude touching the ball a second time just before an opponent was to smash it into the goal, and hanging from the crossbar to block a goal-bound ball with one’s chest.. This is excellent evidence, but it is tainted by the fact that Aston declares that a “deliberate foul” is required by the Law, and not simply an “offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Delete the word “deliberate”, and the paragraph may be accurate.
The original IFAB Decision in 1990 said this:
If, in the opinion of the referee, a player who is moving towards his opponents' goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal is intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means, i.e. an offence punishable by a free-kick (or a penalty-kick), thus denying the attacking player's team the aforesaid goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).
This was converted to its present form and made part of Law 12 in 1997:
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he... denies 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.
Clearly, it is present form, an attacker need not be intentionally impeded. How does “physically impeded” differ from “impeded”? I am not sure. It would be reasonable to assume that there was no intention to drastically change the meaning of the rule during its simplification in 1997. Quite possibly, DOGSO-opponent probably does require that a foul must be committed directly against an opponent. This would eliminate all second touch offenses and all acts of unsporting behavior as potential DOGSO-opponent offenses. Unfortunately, it is not clear from reading the new version of the law that this is its intent, and certainly there is some debate about how second touch and UB DOGSOs should be treated. Something needs to be done.
When the LOTG were changed in 1997, Sepp Blatter claimed (”http://www.fifa.com/fifa/pub/newsletter/fifanews.5-97.html”) that the new text contained “nothing new as such,..., you may say it is the old song sung to a simpler melody.” But clearly, a number of minor but clearly visible changes to the Laws were made. The IFAB has reworded a number of laws since 1997. In my opinion, either the enforcement, or the wording, of the DOGSO-opponent law needs to be changed.
Some of the issues I have discussed here are raised in The Referee Forum (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000371”) sponsored by Official Sports. MattE discusses a Question he gave to Julian Carosi, (” http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000224”) about whether or not goalkeeper handling in a backpass situation that can be considered a send-off offense. Julian Carosi quotes (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000224”) the English FA’s Law 12 (3), as given above. He then emphasizes the first part of the controversial paragraph, concluding “In short, an indirect free kick and a definite caution is the correct action to take if the goalkeeper knew that without his illegal intervention, the ball would enter the goal.” Carosi considers the action unsporting, but cannot send off the goalkeeper . But he is not cautioning the player for time wasting. When MattE specifically asks (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000225”) why DOGSO-opponent does not apply, Carosi declares “Its just one on those idiosyncrasies of the Laws, where the words should not be taken literally.... Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball inside his own penalty area, the offence is not as serious as when a player does it.” Of course, one might normally think that a goalkeeper is only allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area when he can not be punished for handling it!
If the English FA/Carosi can caution this goalkeeper for unsporting behavior, what about the case of goal or free kicks within one’s own penalty area? If a player intentionally touches a ball before it leaves the penalty area, in order to prevent an impending obvious goal scoring opportunity by an opponent that could not have been prevented without the illegal touch, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behavior? (He can’t be sent off, because the ball is not in play and the restart is not a free kick for the opponent.) Presumably a player could be cautioned, in the same way a player should be cautioned for time wasting for persistent infringement should a team repeatedly fail to kick the ball hard enough to have it leave the penalty area or repeatedly touch the ball before it leaves the goal area.
To summarize, the questions that need to be answered are:
Why can’t a player be sent-off for denying a goal by any illegal means?
Why can (or can’t) a substitute player be sent-off for denying a goal by any illegal means?
Does “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal“ require that an individual opponent be fouled in some way?
If not, can denying a shot on goal from an opponent be construed as “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal”?
If so, can preventing a ball headed toward one’s own goal not coming from an opponent be construed as “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal”?
Are there any situations where second touches can be considered “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal“?
If so, does the goalkeeper’s allowance to handle a ball in his own penalty in DOGSO-handling override any possible culpability for DOGSO-opponent via handling?
If not, when may a goalkeeper be sent-off for handling the ball in his own penalty area?
Why must an opponent be “moving towards the player's goal” in order for a player to be penalized for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity?
Can an act of unsporting behavior be considered “an offence punishable by a free kick”?
Does a goalkeeper commit an IFK offense for handling a backpass if he does it to stop or prevent an opponent’s attack, not simply to waste time?
In what way was the goalkeeper’s actions in the English FA’s AA Law 12 (3) to be considered unsporting?
As a matter of review, there are two sending-off offenses included in the 2006 FIFA Laws of the Game relating to denying obvious goalscoring opportunities (DOGSOs):
4. denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) [DOGSO-handling]
5. denies 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 [DOGSO-opponent]
The paragraph below was added to section 12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY in the 2006 USSF Advice to Referees:
Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.
In the above case, it is not clear in the ATR whether a distinction should be made based on which team last played the ball. Since handling is not involved, the ATR must be invoking DOGSO-opponent for the punishment: “denies 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”. So if, for whatever reason, the ball is headed toward one’s own goal and the defense is not in a position to defend it legally, the ATR apparently considers this an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal, regardless of who last played the ball. This seems to be a stretch of the Laws, and an exception to the ATR’s own requirements that the 4 “D’s” be present: Number of Defenders, Distance to Ball, Distance to Goal, and Direction of Play. The Direction of Play refers to an attacker’s direction of play, which is obviously irrelevant if the ball has already been directed on goal.
In Ask A Referee (”www.drix.net/jim/past061.html”), Jim Allen/USSF answers a question in this way:
USSF answer (March 3, 2006):
Simply by jumping up and hanging on the crossbar, the defender is guilty of unsporting behavior. By using that position to deflect the ball away from the goal while committing unsporting behavior, the defender has denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity through an act punishable by a free kick. Send off the player and show the red card. Restart with an indirect free kick--the punishment for misconduct that does not involve a foul--for the opposing team.
The same could be said of a situation in which a goalkeeper pulled the bar downward and the ball hit the bar and deflected away--same punishment and restart.
Note that any reference to opponents moving towards goal is excluded, although the shot did come from an opponent in the posed question.
Note also that the DOGSO-handling offense in the LOTG includes the word “goals”, while the DOGSO-opponent offense only includes “obvious goalscoring opportunities”. The omission is apparently intentional, although the reasoning behind the omission is obscure.
FIFA includes this in their 2006 Q&A:
13 A substitute, warming up behind his own goal, enters the field of play and prevents the ball entering the goal with his foot. What action does the referee take?
The referee stops play, cautions the substitute for unsporting behaviour and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.
13.1. If the player prevents the goal with his hand, what action does the referee take?
The referee stops play and sends-off the substitute for denying the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball and the match is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team where the ball was when play was stopped *.
The substitute denied an OGSO by an offense punishable by an IFK (entering the field of play without permission/unsporting behavior). Certainly play would have been stopped for the UB whether or not the ball was headed into the goal. According the ATR, this player should be sent off. Why is he not?
And if a substitute can not be sent-off for kicking the ball to deny an OGSO, why can he be sent-off for handling the ball to deny an OGSO? In the first case, I suspect that FIFA would claim that, while the substitute may have denied a goal, there was no “opponent moving towards the player’s goal” who was denied his obvious goalscoring opportunity, while in the second case, the DOGSO-handling offense does not require the involvement of opponents.
Why didn’t FIFA include the phrase “goal, or” when describing the DOGSO-opponent offense, which would allow the substitute who kicked the ball to be sent off? I’m not sure. Perhaps the writers wanted to prevent players from being sent off for most second touch and backpass offenses, while allowing indirect free kick offenses like impeding and dangerous play to be called. However, with the current law, if an attacker is in a position to kick a ball just before a defender’s second touch or a goalkeeper’s handling of a backpass, and the defense was not otherwise in a position to block the prospective kick, it seems to me that “an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal” has been denied. One could quibble that since the opponent himself is not fouled, one could say that the opponent has not been denied, but I would not agree with this restriction. I believe that goalkeepers should not be exonerated from all violations regarding handling in their own penalty area, simply because of the DOGSO-handling law. If, in any case where a player is not allowed to kick a ball, and that player happens to be the goalkeeper within his own penalty area, that player should not be allowed to handle the ball, and the penalty should be the same as if he had kicked it.
I feel this way even though the ATR begs differently:
16.3 SCORING DIRECTLY FROM A GOAL KICK
A goalkeeper who takes a goal kick, which passes outside of the penalty area and then returns in the direction of the goal, attempts to prevent the ball from entering the goal by handling it. Although the attempt is unsuccessful and the ball enters the net, the goal cannot be counted as the offense of “second touch” has occurred and must result in an indirect free kick restart where the second touch occurred. Advantage is not applied because “second touch” is not a violation of Law 12 (see Advice 5.6). If the goalkeeper’s handling of the ball in these circumstances had been successful, the “second handling” offense would be called, but the goalkeeper could not be sent from the field and shown a red card for interfering with a goalscoring opportunity (goalkeeper handling, unless it occurred outside the penalty area, is exempt from the misconduct of handling to prevent a goal).
Since it can be assumed that there is no nearby opponent in the case, I would agree that the goalkeeper cannot be sent-off, but to say that the goalkeeper is completely exempt paints with too broad a brush.
As a side note, it has never been clear to me why the opponent must be moving toward the goal. I can think of numerous obvious goal-scoring opportunities that do not require the opponent to be moving toward the goal.
There is a possibility that I have been barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps FIFA Q&A 13 and 13.1 can best be explained because FIFA believes that UB is not a foul and thus is not an “offence (to an opponent) punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”; while 13.1 represents a send-off offense because DOGSO-handling does not have any such requirement. It would be helpful if the FIFA Q&A described how it arrives at its conclusions.
The ATR claims that a substitute cannot be cautioned for a reckless tackle, only for unsporting behavior (12.28.8). He cannot be sent off for serious foul play (even if the substitute fouls the player on the field of play while the ball is in play), only for violent conduct (12.33). So perhaps FIFA does not consider these to be fouls, and thus not are “offences punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Since DOGSO-handling does not have this requirement, a substitute may be sent-off for DOGSO-handling, but not for DOGSO-opponent.
Personally, I find it silly and capricious if a substitute can be sent-off for one offense and not the other, when he obviously isn’t permitted to do either, and both offenses deny a goal.
DOGSO generally requires some type of foul. Handling is generally considered to be a type of foul, even though it is not committed directly against an opponent player. If a substitute cannot commit a foul--and he cannot--then how can he commit a DOGSO offense? If a substitute runs onto the field and deliberately handles the ball, the restart is an indirect free kick, not a direct free kick. Why isn’t similar logic applied to DOGSOs? In my opinion, the DOGSO laws should only apply to players, not to substitutes.
Whatever your viewpoint, FIFA does not make it clear whether an “offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick” refers only to those offenses made directly against opponents (i.e. fouls), or includes any offense resulting in a free kick or penalty kick that happens to deny an opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player’s goal (e.g. unsporting behavior, handling of backpasses, second touch handling by goalkeepers, and second touches by any player on free kicks).
As noted above, the USSF ATR is fairly clear:
12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goalscoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include misconduct or those fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick. An example would be a player, including the goalkeeper, hanging from the crossbar to play the ball away with his or her body.
This mirrors the answers given on Jim Allen’s Ask a Referee website. The question notes that the shot came from an attacker. Again, the response was:
USSF answer (March 3, 2006):
Simply by jumping up and hanging on the crossbar, the defender is guilty of unsporting behavior. By using that position to deflect the ball away from the goal while committing unsporting behavior, the defender has denied the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity through an act punishable by a free kick. Send off the player and show the red card. Restart with an indirect free kick--the punishment for misconduct that does not involve a foul--for the opposing team.
The same could be said of a situation in which a goalkeeper pulled the bar downward and the ball hit the bar and deflected away--same punishment and restart.
So the free kick offense apparently does not need to be made directly against an attacker, despite the ATR’s requirement that the 4 D’s be met. Curiously, the response claims both offenses denied “a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity”, mimicking the DOGSO-handling law, yet neither offense involved handling.
Unfortunately, the ATR is in direct conflict with the FIFA Q&A. Even though it is not clear exactly why FIFA does not allow the player to be sent off in question 13 for playing the ball with his foot, the ATR seems to indicate that it does not matter if there is no “opponent moving towards the player’s goal” and it does not matter if the offense is not a foul but only unsporting behavior. This eliminates both possible reasons for FIFA’s answer to Question 13.
Both the USSF ATR and the English FA Advice on Applications provide some interesting discussions about goalkeeper handling of backpasses.
In the ATR:
12.20 BALL KICKED TO THE GOALKEEPER
A goalkeeper infringes Law 12 if he or she touches the ball with the hands directly after it has been deliberately kicked to him or her by a teammate. The requirement that the ball be kicked means only that it has been played with the foot. The requirement that the ball be "kicked to" the goalkeeper means only that the play is to or toward a place where the ‘keeper can legally handle the ball. The requirement that the ball be "deliberately kicked" means that the play on the ball is deliberate and does not include situations in which the ball has been, in the opinion of the referee, accidentally deflected or misdirected.
NOTE: (a) The goalkeeper is permitted to dribble into the penalty area and then pick up any ball played legally (not kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper or to a place where the goalkeeper can easily play it) by a teammate or played in any manner by an opponent. (b) This portion of the Law was written to help referees cope with timewasting tactics by teams, not to punish players who are playing within the Spirit of the Game.
[The entire note is new text for 2006, the italics are present in the original.]
Is this supposed to imply that backpasses that are not solely intended for timewasting may legally be handled by the goalkeeper? Just exactly how can a goalkeeper be playing within the Spirit of the Game by handling a backpass? The only acceptable reasons to me are if the goalkeeper is either not aware that the pass came from a teammate or assumed that the ball was not deliberately kicked to him, or the backpass arrived too quickly to prevent his natural reflexes from handling the ball. While these reasons for handling backpasses are quite common, another very common reason to handle a backpass is that it offers the goalkeeper the most sure, possibly only, way of stopping or preventing an opponent’s attack. Wouldn’t allowing a goalkeeper to handle a ball for this reason, without penalizing with an IFK, eliminate any potential benefit of the timewasting feature of the rule? The rule is obviously not enforced this way in practice, so what is the meaning behind the ATR’s 12.20 Note (b)?
According to the English FA’s Advice on the Application of the Laws of the Game[url]:
Law 12 (3): DENYING GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITIES
....
If the ball is deliberately kicked directly towards his own goalkeeper by a colleague and the goalkeeper prevents an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling the ball, the restart will be an indirect free kick from where the offence occurred notwithstanding the special circumstances covered in Law 8.
No one would disagree with this. The next paragraph is quite confusing:
Further action could be taken against the goalkeeper if it was felt that he knew that without his illegal intervention, the ball would enter the goal. His action in intervening could be construed as unsporting behaviour by arguing that he could have chosen not to handle the ball deliberately but rather use another part of his body to change the path of the ball.
These two sentences are in conflict with each other. If the goalkeeper felt an illegal intervention, i.e. handling the backpass, was required to prevent a goal, then he could not have chosen to use another part of his body. It is difficult to determine the intent of this paragraph because it makes no sense.
Generally, keeper handling of backpasses is not considered to be unsporting behavior. Since the keeper must give up an indirect free kick in his own penalty area, it is generally considered punishment enough. He no longer has the ability to “waste time”. Of course, illegally denying a goal scoring opportunity is more serious. But if the keeper could have chosen to play the ball by using another part of his body, it is unlikely that a goal is being denied because of the handling. If a goal is denied because of the handling, it might be considered unsporting behavior, but the Spirit of the Game (apparently) would prefer not to send off the goalkeeper, because normally whenever a goalkeeper is allowed to play the ball with his feet, he is also allowed to play the ball with his hands (within his own penalty area). While the backpass rule was designed to improve the game, it was (apparently) not intended to put goalkeepers at risk of being sent-off for handling the ball in their own penalty area.
The FA acknowledges that a goal can be illegally prevented by a goalkeeper handling the ball and in some context can be unsporting, yet does not offer to send-off the player for denying the goal. This reinforces the concept that a shot on goal from an opponent is not “an obvious goalscoring opportunity”. It is either a goal or not a goal. The goalkeeper can not be sent off for denying a goal by handling., if it does not deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent....
Of course, if it is unsporting behavior, the USSF ATR seems to indicate that the goalkeeper can be sent off.
[url=”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-15.htm”]Ken Aston (”http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/corshamref/sub/fabooks.htm”) permits a goalkeeper to DOGSO-opponent on a throw-in, and does not even caution the keeper for unsporting behavior:
Question 21: When a goalkeeper receiving the ball direct from a throw-in taken by a teammate, has to dive and palm the ball away from entering the goal. - And thus prevents an oncoming nearby attacker from making contact with the ball and shooting towards goal. Should the Referee Send off the goalkeeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity and restart with an indirect free kick, or should the Referee just give the goalkeeper a caution and restart with an indirect free kick for touching the ball after it has been received directly from a throw-in taken by a team mate?
Answer 21: Indirect free kick, no caution, as the goalkeeper is permitted to handle the ball in his own area.
When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick (for example, when he handles the ball after receiving it directly from a colleague taking a throw-in).
Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he cannot therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).
However, this is another backpass situation in which the goalkeeper would legally be able to deny the goalscoring opportunity by playing the ball with his feet. I speculate that if Law 15 were changed so that goalkeepers were not permitted to touch a throw-in from a teammate in any way, he could indeed be sent-off for DOGSO-opponent by handling (or kicking) the ball. With the current law, the goalkeeper is technically guilty of DOGSO-opponent, but current advice is not to prosecute for this infraction. I would like to see a Decision to the Laws to make this more clear.
Here, Ken Aston discusses the consequences of a goalkeeper handling the ball after releasing it into play (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-IDFK.htm”):
Question 22: When a goalkeeper who has released the ball at his feet, purposefully picks it up again to prevent an oncoming nearby challenging attacker gaining possession and shooting towards goal. Should the Referee Send off the goalkeeper for denying a goal scoring opportunity and restart with an indirect free kick, or should the Referee just give the goalkeeper a caution and restart with an indirect free kick for touching the ball a second time after he has released it.
Answer 22: As the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player, it is not a clear goal scoring opportunity. An indirect free kick should be awarded. The additional punishment of a caution is not automatic. If the Referee considers that the goalkeeper has gained an unfair advantage over his opponent, he would judge this as unsporting behavior and caution him.
When a goalkeeper handles the ball whilst in his own penalty area, in violation of the laws as in this question, the punishment is an indirect free kick and not a penalty kick.
Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area, he can not therefore be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by illegal use of his hands in his own penalty area. (The goalkeeper can of course be sent off for stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity by other fouls, or if he stops an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball outside of his penalty area).
Again, another case where the goalkeeper would legally be able to deny the goalscoring opportunity by playing the ball with his feet. Unfortunately, Aston claims that “the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player”. Well, if the goalkeeper could only beat the player to the ball by illegally handling it, one would think that the ball was not clearly in his control. Aston reiterates that under NO circumstances may a keeper be sent-off for DOGSO-opponent by handling the ball..
Ken Aston neatly summarizes (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-IDFK.htm”) many of the issues I have discussed here in Question 5.
Question 5: If a goalkeeper picks the ball up from a deliberate 'back pass' by a team-mate, which may have led to a goal scoring opportunity - what would be the correct course of action from the Referee?.
Answer 5. Denying a goal by deliberate handling refers to situations where the ball would enter the goal but is stopped from doing so by a defender (other than the goalkeeper). There is nothing in the Laws to specifically state that the goalkeeper must be sent off for handling the ball from a 'back pass' (even if it prevented a goal scoring opportunity). As the ball was clearly in control of the goalkeeper and not the oncoming player, this is not an offence committed against that opponent which denies that opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity – the offence is committed by the goalkeeper on himself!. The restart is an indirect free kick to the attacking team at the place where the goalkeeper touched the ball with his hands. Goal scoring opportunities refer to fouls made on attacking players, and when a defending player (not the goalkeeper) handles a goal bound shot. It does not cover those instances when a player commits an infringement by himself, such as touching the ball a second time, or when the goalkeeper handles a ball received directly from a team-mate taking a throw-in (or from a deliberate 'back-pass'). An indirect free kick is awarded in all instances. These incidents are not deemed by Law to be preventing an opponent from scoring an obvious goal. (Even though they might be!)
“There is nothing in the Laws to specifically state that the goalkeeper must be sent off for handling the ball from a 'back pass' (even if it prevented a goal scoring opportunity).” That is true if you believe that no one can deny an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent by handling the ball.
“Goal scoring opportunities refer to fouls made on attacking players, and when a defending player (not the goalkeeper) handles a goal bound shot.” So if a defending player handles a goal bound shot, is he denying a “goal scoring opportunity”? Or is this just poor grammar?
“It does not cover those instances when a player commits an infringement by himself, such as touching the ball a second time, or when the goalkeeper handles a ball received directly from a team-mate taking a throw-in (or from a deliberate 'back-pass').... These incidents are not deemed by Law to be preventing an opponent from scoring an obvious goal. (Even though they might be!)” Translation: even though we might consider these infringements to deny an opponent an obvious goal scoring opportunity, somehow the Law does not.
And finally we discover an important distinction. Denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity (the “It” in the above paragraph) does not include illegal second touches by ANY player, according to Aston. This is not indicated anywhere in the Laws and rarely found in advice. It can hardly be seen as playing within the Spirit of the Game. In fact, Aston acknowledges that a keeper can be cautioned for picking up a ball he released into play if he “gained an unfair advantage”. However, it does mean that goalkeepers do not have any special status compared to field players. Apparently, neither goalkeepers or field players can be called for DOGSO-opponent if their indirect free kick offense is of a technical nature.
Aston gives another view on goal-scoring opportunities (”http://www.kenaston.org/LAWS/LAW-12-CAUTIONS.htm”).
Question 6: The Law says it's a red card to "deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity" through a deliberate foul. It is also a sending of offence to "deny a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball." What is the difference between the two offences?
Answer 6: Denying a goal by deliberate handling refers to situations where the ball would enter the goal for a score but is stopped by a defender (other than the goalkeeper) using his hands. It also covers situations where the goalkeeper (or any other defending player) handles the ball outside of their penalty area, thus denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The farther away from the penalty area and goal, the more difficult it becomes for the Referee to be sure that the ball would have gone 'in' for a goal, or whether there was a an obvious goal-scoring opportunity or not . Denying an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity" through a deliberate foul is when a defending player, and the foul fouls an attacking player moving TOWARDS goal prevents the attacking player from a goal scoring opportunity
This states clearly that DOGSO-opponent must in fact be a foul on an opponent. This would exclude touching the ball a second time just before an opponent was to smash it into the goal, and hanging from the crossbar to block a goal-bound ball with one’s chest.. This is excellent evidence, but it is tainted by the fact that Aston declares that a “deliberate foul” is required by the Law, and not simply an “offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick”. Delete the word “deliberate”, and the paragraph may be accurate.
The original IFAB Decision in 1990 said this:
If, in the opinion of the referee, a player who is moving towards his opponents' goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal is intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means, i.e. an offence punishable by a free-kick (or a penalty-kick), thus denying the attacking player's team the aforesaid goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).
This was converted to its present form and made part of Law 12 in 1997:
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he... denies 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.
Clearly, it is present form, an attacker need not be intentionally impeded. How does “physically impeded” differ from “impeded”? I am not sure. It would be reasonable to assume that there was no intention to drastically change the meaning of the rule during its simplification in 1997. Quite possibly, DOGSO-opponent probably does require that a foul must be committed directly against an opponent. This would eliminate all second touch offenses and all acts of unsporting behavior as potential DOGSO-opponent offenses. Unfortunately, it is not clear from reading the new version of the law that this is its intent, and certainly there is some debate about how second touch and UB DOGSOs should be treated. Something needs to be done.
When the LOTG were changed in 1997, Sepp Blatter claimed (”http://www.fifa.com/fifa/pub/newsletter/fifanews.5-97.html”) that the new text contained “nothing new as such,..., you may say it is the old song sung to a simpler melody.” But clearly, a number of minor but clearly visible changes to the Laws were made. The IFAB has reworded a number of laws since 1997. In my opinion, either the enforcement, or the wording, of the DOGSO-opponent law needs to be changed.
Some of the issues I have discussed here are raised in The Referee Forum (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000371”) sponsored by Official Sports. MattE discusses a Question he gave to Julian Carosi, (” http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000224”) about whether or not goalkeeper handling in a backpass situation that can be considered a send-off offense. Julian Carosi quotes (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000224”) the English FA’s Law 12 (3), as given above. He then emphasizes the first part of the controversial paragraph, concluding “In short, an indirect free kick and a definite caution is the correct action to take if the goalkeeper knew that without his illegal intervention, the ball would enter the goal.” Carosi considers the action unsporting, but cannot send off the goalkeeper . But he is not cautioning the player for time wasting. When MattE specifically asks (”http://www.officialsports.co.uk/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000225”) why DOGSO-opponent does not apply, Carosi declares “Its just one on those idiosyncrasies of the Laws, where the words should not be taken literally.... Because a goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball inside his own penalty area, the offence is not as serious as when a player does it.” Of course, one might normally think that a goalkeeper is only allowed to handle the ball in his own penalty area when he can not be punished for handling it!
If the English FA/Carosi can caution this goalkeeper for unsporting behavior, what about the case of goal or free kicks within one’s own penalty area? If a player intentionally touches a ball before it leaves the penalty area, in order to prevent an impending obvious goal scoring opportunity by an opponent that could not have been prevented without the illegal touch, can the player be cautioned for unsporting behavior? (He can’t be sent off, because the ball is not in play and the restart is not a free kick for the opponent.) Presumably a player could be cautioned, in the same way a player should be cautioned for time wasting for persistent infringement should a team repeatedly fail to kick the ball hard enough to have it leave the penalty area or repeatedly touch the ball before it leaves the goal area.
To summarize, the questions that need to be answered are:
Why can’t a player be sent-off for denying a goal by any illegal means?
Why can (or can’t) a substitute player be sent-off for denying a goal by any illegal means?
Does “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal“ require that an individual opponent be fouled in some way?
If not, can denying a shot on goal from an opponent be construed as “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal”?
If so, can preventing a ball headed toward one’s own goal not coming from an opponent be construed as “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal”?
Are there any situations where second touches can be considered “denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal“?
If so, does the goalkeeper’s allowance to handle a ball in his own penalty in DOGSO-handling override any possible culpability for DOGSO-opponent via handling?
If not, when may a goalkeeper be sent-off for handling the ball in his own penalty area?
Why must an opponent be “moving towards the player's goal” in order for a player to be penalized for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity?
Can an act of unsporting behavior be considered “an offence punishable by a free kick”?
Does a goalkeeper commit an IFK offense for handling a backpass if he does it to stop or prevent an opponent’s attack, not simply to waste time?
In what way was the goalkeeper’s actions in the English FA’s AA Law 12 (3) to be considered unsporting?