Keeper backpass and DOGSO

[uniteo]

just wanted to get your opinion on the following situation (this is a hypothectical situation, so any further details will be likewise made up)

Defender passes back to keeper, with foot, intentionally. Offensive player pressures. Keeper, in the box, fears giving the ball away and picks it up.

Obviously, IFK from spot of foul at a minimum. I assume the ref has to consider reaching for pocket due to DOGSO. If player is shown a card there would be no reason for IFK to be changed to penalty, would there?

And in your opinion, would red be warranted?

Thanks

[nsa]

The coach needs to work on the keeper's foot skills. :)
If player is shown a card there would be no reason for IFK to be changed to penalty, would there?No. An IFK is an IFK.

would red be warranted?No.

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by uniteo
...Obviously, IFK from spot of foul at a minimum. I assume the ref has to consider reaching for pocket due to DOGSO. ...

DOGSO requires the opponent has possession or is highly likely to obtain possession. NOT APPLICABLE in this case.

[Gary V]

The keeper within the PA is specifically exempt from DOGSO via handling. It's written that way in the Laws.

[uniteo]

That's what I thought. Thanks

[rcleopard]

Also, a very general statement that holds true for most every occasion was taught to us when we got our badges.

A keeper CAN NOT EVER be penalized with a PK for simply handling the ball in his area.

Ever.

A sendoff for a DOGSO is only warranted IF a foul is a penal foul. This one is not.

It's not a DOGSO, it's not a red, it's an IFK from the point where the foul occurred.

[MassachusettsRef]

Originally posted by rcleopard
A sendoff for a DOGSO is only warranted IF a foul is a penal foul. This one is not.
Although it doesn't change the answer to this case, the above statement is not completely true. At least not yet.

It's current USSF interpretation that an offence must be punishable by a DFK in order to meet the requirements for DOGSO. However, even USSF isn't so sure about that interpretation, and has asked for clarification from FIFA (if I remember correctly, there's either some confusion amongst the various texts of the Laws, or there's a contradiction between the Laws and FIFA's Q&A).

As of yet, FIFA has not issued a clarification or responded directly to USSF's inquiry. So, in the US, it takes a DFK foul for an offense to rise to the level of DOGSO, but, some countries have a different interpretation. Eventually, FIFA will issue it's clarification.

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by MassachusettsRef
Although it doesn't change the answer to this case, the above statement is not completely true. At least not yet.

It's current USSF interpretation that an offence must be punishable by a DFK in order to meet the requirements for DOGSO. However, even USSF isn't so sure about that interpretation, and has asked for clarification from FIFA (if I remember correctly, there's either some confusion amongst the various texts of the Laws, or there's a contradiction between the Laws and FIFA's Q&A).

As of yet, FIFA has not issued a clarification or responded directly to USSF's inquiry. So, in the US, it takes a DFK foul for an offense to rise to the level of DOGSO, but, some countries have a different interpretation. Eventually, FIFA will issue it's clarification.
I am highlighting the bolded part of the statement and pointing out the latest position paper on this: DOGSO - The 4 Ds (http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/OGSO_Denied.pdf).

The last paragraph states:Referees are reminded that offenses which deny a goal-scoring opportunity are not limited to those punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick but may include technical fouls for which the restart is an indirect free kick.

[MassachusettsRef]

Good catch, kev. I got it backwards.