GK slips taking free kick...

Discussion in 'Referee' started by MassachusettsRef, Nov 24, 2019.

  1. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A rather interesting “what do you do and why?” scenario from Germany:

    https://streamable.com/f3dxr

    What is the proper restart and is there any misconduct that can (and/or needs) to be punished?
     
  2. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Retake. Ball was not kicked and moved, therefore not in play. (Well in my games at least ...)
     
    jarbitro and Thezzaruz repped this.
  3. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I agree. The GK did not slip as he kicked the ball; he slipped before he kicked and then fell into the ball. The retake meets both LOTG and sotg.

    But if you do call it, hard to exp,Ian why it isn’t DOGSO.
     
    Thezzaruz, voiceoflg and fairplayforlife repped this.
  4. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This^ in every detail.
     
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So I agree the retake is the more correct outcome—professional level or not. Retake is simply the right answer.

    But, if you DO call it, I struggle with the DOGSO argument, which I expected. If the goalkeeper had committed a perceived worse infringement—namely, just handling the ball—he’d be immune from the DOGSO red. But he’s susceptible to it by just kicking the ball away? Did the attacker truly ever have an obvious chance to gain possession? The goalkeeper is never going to just leave that ball alone. It’s not something football expects. It’s a slippery slope when we make kicking the ball during dynamic play—in a non-violent way—misconduct.

    I guess I’d look at it in a literal sense. Did his infringement actually deny an obvious goal accepting opportunity that existed? I’d say he committed an infringement that prevented an obvious goal scoring opportunity from ever materializing.

    I’d have no misconduct if I had to call this. But I agree retake is the preferred and correct outcome.
     
  6. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I guess there’s another layer. If it’s DOGSO, which color is it?

    I suppose it would have to be yellow because it’s not handling and pretty clearly an attempt to play the ball. But that feels really weird. Because the whole point of punishing this would be it’s (eventually) a certain goal if the GK doesn’t take the second touch.
     
  7. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Has there ever been an instance in a pro match of DOGSO being applied to a double touch infraction?
     
  8. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I’m pretty confident in saying “no.” The idea of applying DOGSO to non-fouls was dubious for a long long time. And until this year double touch in your own penalty area was irrelevant.
     
  9. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Until this year, it wouldn’t happen as the ball would not be in play till it left the PA.

    As for DOGSO, it’s red or nothing. Can’t be yellow as a PK is not awarded.

    I agree a sendoff is a bit nuts, but a literal application of Law 12 seems to require it as it doesn’t look like anyone besides the GK and attacker with a chance at the ball.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  10. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I knew I forgot something. It’s the restart, not the location, that is determinative. Important clarification.

    I think it’s so nuts and there’s just enough wiggle room to make no card the proper result and definitely what competition authorities would want. I don’t think Ayetkin is hearing it from his bosses tonight.

    But it is a very interesting test case. For all the law legislating, it’s one of those blurry situations where different referees would take different approaches on a major decision (red card or not) with the exact same set of objective facts.

    Again, retake was right and better.
     
  11. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    It would be interesting to know what went through his mind. Did he think “oh crap, is that DOGSO?” Did he not think of it at all? Did he think “oh crap, I should have done a retake, no way am I giving a card?”
     
  12. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I honestly think it never went through his head. But that’s just a guess, obviously.

    When I first saw it, I though the GK made the second touch and THEN blasted it away. So I was thinking DR yellow. Blasting it away with the second touch was actually (inadvertently?) brilliant by the goalkeeper because he prevented that type of misconduct from applying.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also remember VAR was in play. And VARs in Germany are centrally located. If anyone even thought this had a chance at a red card, there would have been a review. And if Germans aren’t that technical...
     
  14. jayhonk

    jayhonk Member+

    Oct 9, 2007
    Since FIFA added the exemption to the' pass-back' and 'throw-to' infraction in some cases, it is hard to see why SOTG wouldn't extend that exemption to analagous situations--such as this. Hence SOTG => corner kick.

    2019 LOTG Law 12 p.105:
    An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area,
    commits any of the following offences:
    • touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked
    or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play,
    after:
    ••it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
    ••receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

    I realize that I am getting in front of history here, but, anyway I am throwing this out there.
    Also, I thought they put a similar exemption in for the high wind scenario*, but I couldn't find it.
    * Goal kick taken, then high wind blows ball back, so keeper has to grab it to keep it out of the net
     
  15. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    With the benefit of slow motion replay, the correct outcome would be a retake since he didn't actually kick the ball.

    Had it kicked it, I'd just give the IDFK. Is there any situation where you'd give misconduct for a double touch? I'd lean towards no. And I'm talking any player on any part of the field.
     
    MJ91 and MassachusettsRef repped this.
  16. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I’m not sure I would ever compare any law to the “backpass” to try and draw comparison.
    IFAB has done damn near everything to remove this from ever having to be called without removing it entirely.
    It feels more like a case of them wanting to just say this is illegal but don’t call it.
    See the circular regarding the goal kick and flipping the ball up and heading it back to the keeper for proof.
     
  17. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    We can probably draft scenarios where we would. But the scenarios where the LOTG support a sendoff are far greater than where the sotg would support.

    I don’t think you can remotely take the sotg from the clearance example to not sanction the double touch (if that had been what actually happened). But the GK grabbing is different because there is the exemption from misconduct for GK handling—which is the irony that MR mentioned above that if he had handled the ball instead of kicking it, the no-misconduct d vision would have been easily defensible. (I believe we’ve discussed that anomaly on here before, but this is the first real-world example, I’ve seen.)
     
  18. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    Yea, this is what should have happened.



    Huh, what's slippery??? The double-touch is an offence that incurs an FK, the misconduct is automatic if we deem it a DOGSO situation.



    IMO this is a really poor argument as it could be made just as well (if not better) for a lot of DOGSO situations where the attacker haven't yet gained possession of the ball.
    Only reason what this is even discussed is because it seems unfair that the keeper should get sent off for something that should have been a re-take (and something that used to only have re-take as a possibility).
     
  19. RefIADad

    RefIADad Member+

    United States
    Aug 18, 2017
    Des Moines, IA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    He didn’t kick the ball. He clearly slipped and just happened to have his foot contact the ball because he slipped. Regardless of the level of game, a kick in this case is going to be something the entire crowd can clearly define as a kick.

    Retake the goal kick.
     
  20. Gary V

    Gary V Member+

    Feb 4, 2003
    SE Mich.
    I thought the ball was struck with his knee. Kicks are still made with the foot, right?
     
    fairplayforlife repped this.
  21. Geko

    Geko Member

    Sacremento Geckos
    United States
    May 25, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can't feel super confident about any misconduct here, really. It does feel wrong, but the attacker doesn't have possession of the ball nor anywhere close to it, so it shuts the down distance to ball / likelihood to maintain possession pretty resoundingly in my head.

    I guess the same logic would hold up for promising attack. You can't have much of a promising attack if you don't even have the ball.
     
  22. BrianD

    BrianD Member

    Manchester United
    United States
    Jun 29, 2018
    Interesting that the laws call for DOGSO for a free kick offense and don't differentiate between DFK and IFK. Philosophically, should there be a difference?
     
  23. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    That bullet-point though reads "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball".
     
  24. Pelican86

    Pelican86 Member

    United States
    Jun 13, 2019
    A few thoughts:

    First of all, in this situation, he hit the ball with his knee. He didn't kick it. Retake.

    But let's say this had happened with an actual kick. By the letter of the law it's DOGSO. (I don't care that the other team doesn't have the ball yet. Imagine a defender kicking the ball back towards his own keeper. He underhits it, attacker is about to run onto the ball with a 1v1 just outside the 18, but another defender fouls him from behind just before he can get to the ball. Is that DOGSO? Of course it is.)

    So let's say you have a slip and miskick and the GK picks up the ball with his hands. That's explicitly not misconduct. So why should kicking the ball away be misconduct? In the spirit of the game, I don't think it is. Then let's take that a step further. If a field player takes the goal kick (or a free kick from inside the penalty area), slips, and then kicks it away a second time, is that misconduct? I don't think so either.

    This all goes back to IFAB being so upset at the fact that every now and then you used to get a ball touched just before it got out the penalty area, the ref would order a retake, and this was apparently so great a disruption to the flow of the game that the law needed to be changed. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences (this situation, the flick and header back to the keeper, etc.) are a pain.
     
    RedStar91 and Thezzaruz repped this.
  25. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Retake - ball moving when keeper kicked it.

    As to DOGSO - hard to have an OGSO when you don't possess the ball.
     

Share This Page