Keepers, Backpasses and DOGSO

A goal keeper cannot be sent of for DOGSO-H. Its in the Atr 12.36

 

• denying 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)

• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving
towards the player’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a
penalty kick

 

I argued the same several years ago to a group of USSF Instructors. They chose the other side. I see no difference in a field player scrambling back an slapping a ball away from the goal line or the GK doing it in a situation in which he is not permitted BY THE RULES to use his hands/arms. If neither player is permitted to use his hands/arms at that particular time, then both should be subject to the same sanction at that moment.

 

A parrot can be taught to recite the Laws/ATR. Can you EXPLAIN why that is the position of the USSF?

 

Perhaps because it is also the policy of IFAB.

DOGSO has been in its present form since the Great Condensation of 1997. It has been addressed in the Q&A. If IFAB had wanted the goalkeeper sent off when he handled the so-called "backpass" and prevented a goal, they would have changed the exemption by now. But they have not done so. IFAB wrote that exemption - call it a loophole if you want - and they are keeping it.

 

What is it that initiated this discussion?

If a goal is denied by a defender handling the ball, it is not a DOGSO-F, since it was not committed against an opponent moving toward his goal, etc.

It can only be a DOGSO-H, which can be committed against the opposing team. DOGSO-H of course includes denials of goals or GSOs, so if there was an onrushing opponent, handling the ball to deny his opportunity Iwithout the ball going on goal at the time) is also an offense.

A player who handles the ball to prevent an opponent who is moving toward his goal, etc. from scoring an obvious goal, etc, cannot be punished under the DOGSO-F clause because a foul against an opponent is required, and handling is not a foul against an opponent. It is a foul against the opposing team.

I am unclear how USSF can conclude that other foul against an opposing team, but not an individual opponent, such as. hanging from the crossbar to deny a goal, can be a DOGSO-F offense. I'm all ears if USSF can show me how, without seemingly opening up DOGSO-F to include other fouls not committed against an opponent moving toward goal, etc, such as handling.

The workaround would have to be that since handling has its own clause, it is excluded from DOGSO-F.

I would prefer to specifically exclude handling from the DOGSO-F clause, if indeed DOGSO-F is to include fouls against opposing teams as well as individual opponents, so we don't get these circular arguments. But I don't think DOGSO-F includes fouls against the opposing team.

 

It's an inherently ambiguous question. A keeper snatching a backpass in front of an attacker could fullfill either DGF or DGH. The keeper is excused from DGH offenses. IFAB and/or the USSF has clarified that DGF does not apply. (IIRC)

 

WHY OH WHY?! are we debating this issue yet again...

It has been made clear to use by the USSF and FIFA that the GK should not be sent off for defending their own goal within the penalty area.

We can argue semantics, words, language, laws, or the like until the cows come home. But if the IFAB wanted goalkeepers sent off for IFK infringements related to using their hands, this would have been dealt with by now. However, since 1997... have any of us EVER seen this happen once?

I haven't. I think that's because the framer's never meant to take that away from the keeper in any circumstance. And that has been supported through their decisions since then.

The DOGSO laws are made into two types. The handling offense, and the free kick offense types. You could have made the law just one type as handling the ball by an outfield player results in a direct or penalty. But they chose not to do that. They made a specific law about this and then exempted the keeper from it. I don't think they wanted us to over think it and start sending keeper's off for IFK offenses like this.

 

Don't recall if I posted this here or another forum. Asked Jim Allen this question last year. Got an answer that leaves some wiggle room...
"The goalkeeper cannot be punished for deliberately handling the ball in his own area -- it's right there in the Law. He is punished instead for touching the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate (or touching the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate). That's an IFK offense and could work to have the goalkeeper sent off for DGF, but not for DGH. So, yes, you could do that."

 

Is that answer posted? USSF endorsed? It is a change from what I remember...

 

Nope. I just get to say, "Well Jim told me..."

AFAIK there has been no crystal clear statement on this offense from our federation. Seems most "answers" have been inferred or interpreted based on what I think is muddled writing in the laws, interpretations and advice.

 

Wrong on many counts. I am ignoring your "interpreted simply" qualifier, because I don't know how to interpret it. DOGSO-F does not refer to denying a goal, only a GSO. While it is not the direct free kick offense of handling, it is a form of handling. Any form of handling which denies a a G or OGSO and would result in an IFK, DFK, or PK falls under DOGSO-H (DOGSO-H does not refer solely to the DFK offense of handling). This isn't made clear by the LOTG themselves, but is made clear by FIFA.

This is not the reason. The opposing team is being denied a goal. The goal does have to be scored by the opposing team in order to benefit from it. What can't happen is a DOGSO offense for handling a ball which prevents your own team from being awarded a goal.

 

Because a "simple reading" of the Law, to paraphrase vetshak, seems to make it clear (if you ignore the opponent to goal part), that DOGSO-H is also covered under DOGSO-F. It doesn't make any sense that it is, but it is there in black and white. It is difficult to rule out the black and white text of the LOTG, despite the fact that we don't see the game actually being called with keepers being sent of for DOGSO-H under the DOGSO-F clause.

USSF muddies the picture by declaring that certain things that could be ruled out as DOGSO-F with a strict reading of the law are clearly (or in some cases, possibly/ITOOTR) considered DOGSO-F by USSF.

 

Because a "simple reading" of the Law, to paraphrase vetshak, seems to make it clear (if you ignore the opponent to goal part), that DOGSO-H is also covered under DOGSO-F. It doesn't make any sense that it is, but it is there in black and white. It is difficult to rule out the black and white text of the LOTG, despite the fact that we don't see the game actually being called with keepers being sent of for DOGSO-H under the DOGSO-F clause.

USSF muddies the picture by declaring that certain things that could be ruled out as DOGSO-F with a strict reading of the law are clearly (or in some cases, possibly/ITOOTR) considered DOGSO-F by USSF.

Either the LOTG needs to be changed or official USSF interpretations of it need to be improved, so that there can be no possible confusion.

 

Here is a related what-if for you....

Suppose White wins a throw-in deep in their own end. Everyone but one speedy winger for Green understood that the long cross was going go out for a White throw and had already begun moving upfield. The Green winger he believed or simply wanted to argue that there was a deflection and that the throw-in belonged to Green, but he lost his argument. By the time White is ready to take the throw-in, he, the Green winger, and the White goalkeeper are the only players in the White half of the field. White throws the ball to his keeper. It is a legal throw, but the ball slips out of his hand and only goes 1/4 the distance intended. The speedy Green winger, not too far away, races to the ball. The White defender races to the ball. To beat the Green winger to the ball, the White defender makes a daring slide tackle to clear the ball, and toe poking the ball for a corner kick just a moment before the White attacker would otherwise have won the ball with an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The White defender would clearly be out of the play and Green would have only the goalkeeper to beat.

Is this a DOGSO-F?

 

To help you answer the above question, here is what the late Ken Aston (inventor of yellow and red cards for soccer) wrote on the subject of DOGSO and goalkeeper handling (website is no long up AFAIK):

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. [result]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!)[/result]