DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 17, 2024, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's messy, but I can't see any justification for a red card.
1. Releasing the ball and catching it again. IFK. It's a
handling offence, and not a double touch offence and so
therefore cannot be sanctioned.
2. If the offence was given for handling outside the area, the
ball was caught in the area and travelled outside - DOGSO is
nullified at the moment the ball is caught as that is 'legal' at
that point in time. The moment it is caught, any GSO is gone.
For the purposes of sanctions and decision making, it's a
'second phase' (for want of a better term).
#Post#: 82877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Ref25
Date: September 17, 2024, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IFAB have posted the following on twitter / facebook. This
might not quite cover the incident in the clip, because it could
be argued the goalkeeper did not take “legitimate possession” of
the ball inside the penalty area. Given the law says no card for
the illegitimate handling inside the penalty area, I can’t see a
card being warranted for the momentum taking the goalkeeper
outside the penalty area and continuing to handle. Agree with
Affy_Moose’s point 2 above.
Useful in any event for incidents where a goalkeeper’s momentum
might lead to them handling outside the penalty area.
During the game, it may happen that the goalkeeper leaves their
penalty area with the ball in their hand(s), for example before
releasing the ball or while collecting the ball and their
momentum causes them to leave the penalty area (especially in
wet/slippery conditions).
RESTART
Outside their penalty area, the goalkeeper has the same
restrictions on handling the ball as any other player. If the
goalkeeper touches the ball with their hand(s)/arm(s) outside
their penalty area, it is a handball offence which is penalised
by a direct free kick.
OFFENCE/NO OFFENCE
The relevant point is where exactly the goalkeeper’s hand is in
contact with the ball. If that contact is outside the penalty
area, it is a direct free kick offence (even if the ball is not
entirely outside the penalty area). The position of the
goalkeeper’s feet is irrelevant.
SANCTION
If the goalkeeper holds the ball inside their penalty area and
continues to handle it outside the penalty area, it practically
means that the goalkeeper initially had legitimate possession of
the ball, so their handball offence did NOT stop a promising
attack (SPA) or deny the opposing team an obvious goal-scoring
opportunity (DOGSO).
In this case, the referee awards a direct free kick but does not
take any disciplinary action against the goalkeeper (no card),
regardless of the position and number of other players, their
distance to the ball/goalkeeper etc.
The situation would be different if the goalkeeper left their
penalty area and then handled the ball (without prior
possession) which in some circumstances could be considered a
SPA or DOGSO offence.
#Post#: 82879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: ARF
Date: September 17, 2024, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The goalkeeper did not have legitimate possession of the ball
prior to the handling offence outside the area, so this cannot
apply to the scenario.
Had the goalkeeper dropped the ball prior to leaving the penalty
area, the attacker would have had an OGSO. Therefore the
goalkeeper illegally handling the ball outside the area
prevented the attacker having that OGSO.
#Post#: 82917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 19, 2024, 4:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> The goalkeeper did not have legitimate possession of the ball
prior to the handling offence outside the area, so this cannot
apply to the scenario.
>
> Had the goalkeeper dropped the ball prior to leaving the
penalty area, the attacker would have had an OGSO. Therefore the
goalkeeper illegally handling the ball outside the area
prevented the attacker having that OGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't agree with this. The goalkeeper has possession of the
ball - the first infraction is a handling offence inside the
area. By committing a first offence does not suddenly mean that
the OGSO exists.
To try and find DOGSO by carrying the ball outwith the area
because of a second handling of the ball would be completely
counter to the intended Law, and the detail shown above. I'd
say the wrong interpretation is being made to 'legitimately'.
I suspect the inclusion of legitimate is only there to except a
scenario such as a double touch from a goal kick from not being
potential DOGSO.
Put another way, if it was a pass back and the goalkeeper caught
the ball and then travelled outwith the area, it would not be
DOGSO. DOGSO cannot be awarded in the penalty area for a
goalkeeping handling offence - the opportunity is gone the
moment the goalkeeper handles it. There is no difference
between the two scenarios.
#Post#: 82918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: ARF
Date: September 19, 2024, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=6255.msg82879#msg82879
date=1726580238]
> The goalkeeper did not have legitimate possession of the ball
prior to the handling offence outside the area, so this cannot
apply to the scenario.
>
> Had the goalkeeper dropped the ball prior to leaving the
penalty area, the attacker would have had an OGSO. Therefore the
goalkeeper illegally handling the ball outside the area
prevented the attacker having that OGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't agree with this. The goalkeeper has possession of the
ball - the first infraction is a handling offence inside the
area. By committing a first offence does not suddenly mean that
the OGSO exists.
To try and find DOGSO by carrying the ball outwith the area
because of a second handling of the ball would be completely
counter to the intended Law, and the detail shown above. I'd
say the wrong interpretation is being made to 'legitimately'.
I suspect the inclusion of legitimate is only there to except a
scenario such as a double touch from a goal kick from not being
potential DOGSO.
Put another way, if it was a pass back and the goalkeeper caught
the ball and then travelled outwith the area, it would not be
DOGSO. DOGSO cannot be awarded in the penalty area for a
goalkeeping handling offence - the opportunity is gone the
moment the goalkeeper handles it. There is no difference
between the two scenarios.
[/quote]
The goalkeeper handling the ball when not permitted to do so is
a funny definition of the word legitimate!
#Post#: 82920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 19, 2024, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> [quote author=Affy_Moose link=topic=6255.msg82917#msg82917
date=1726737357]
> [quote author=ARF link=topic=6255.msg82879#msg82879
date=1726580238]
> The goalkeeper did not have legitimate possession of the ball
prior to the handling offence outside the area, so this cannot
apply to the scenario.
>
> Had the goalkeeper dropped the ball prior to leaving the
penalty area, the attacker would have had an OGSO. Therefore the
goalkeeper illegally handling the ball outside the area
prevented the attacker having that OGSO.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't agree with this. The goalkeeper has possession of the
ball - the first infraction is a handling offence inside the
area. By committing a first offence does not suddenly mean that
the OGSO exists.
To try and find DOGSO by carrying the ball outwith the area
because of a second handling of the ball would be completely
counter to the intended Law, and the detail shown above. I'd
say the wrong interpretation is being made to 'legitimately'.
I suspect the inclusion of legitimate is only there to except a
scenario such as a double touch from a goal kick from not being
potential DOGSO.
Put another way, if it was a pass back and the goalkeeper caught
the ball and then travelled outwith the area, it would not be
DOGSO. DOGSO cannot be awarded in the penalty area for a
goalkeeping handling offence - the opportunity is gone the
moment the goalkeeper handles it. There is no difference
between the two scenarios.
[/quote]
The goalkeeper handling the ball when not permitted to do so is
a funny definition of the word legitimate!
[/quote]
Out of interest I went to the Twitter post, and can better
understand the context. I'll step back my above point slightly
- it's not about 'legitimate' possession re double touch/pass
back.
The specific wording in IFAB's statement is:
"If the goalkeeper holds the ball inside their penalty area and
continues to handle it outside this area, it means that they
initially had legitimate possession" - it doesn't make it an IF
statement, it's one of fact. The use of legitimate is clearly
to differentiate from the 'illegitimate' possession which occurs
at the point they cross the penalty area line.
We may get some further clarification up here in the next week.
#Post#: 82921--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: ARF
Date: September 19, 2024, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The IFAB advice is very clearly written to be regarding when the
goalkeeper is legally in possession of the ball within their own
area and carries it outside. The goalkeeper did not have
legitimate possession, because handling it a second time is an
offence, just like handling outside the area is an offence. The
fact that he has illegally handled the ball in the first place
should not give him a get out of jail free card for the second
offence.
#Post#: 82924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: September 19, 2024, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ARF link ---
>
> The IFAB advice is very clearly written to be regarding when
the goalkeeper is legally in possession of the ball within their
own area and carries it outside. The goalkeeper did not have
legitimate possession, because handling it a second time is an
offence, just like handling outside the area is an offence. The
fact that he has illegally handled the ball in the first place
should not give him a get out of jail free card for the second
offence.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's not a get-out-of-jail allowance.
You're right that it's clearly written - and it doesn't support
the point you're making.
DOGSO is gone the moment the goalkeeper catches it in his area -
whether it's catching it legally, whether it's a pass back, or
whether it's catching it after releasing it. DOGSO is gone in
every example here, and walking out the penalty area while still
holding the ball doesn't suddenly reverse that reality.
You're relying on a wrongful understanding of 'legitimate'. The
context very clearly means 'as opposed to collecting the ball
AFTER leaving the area without it'.
#Post#: 82933--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: ARF
Date: September 19, 2024, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> You're relying on a wrongful understanding of 'legitimate'.
The context very clearly means 'as opposed to collecting the
ball AFTER leaving the area without it'.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, it really doesn't. 99.9% of the time when this situation
arises it will be when the goalkeeper does has legitimate
possession of the ball in the first place, i.e. not having just
released it and then caught it again. And the IFAB advice is
very clearly written with that in mind, and not the 0.1% chance
that the goalkeeper may have already been illegally handling the
ball prior to handling it outside the area. The idea of the
goalkeeper illegally catching the ball in his own area being
regarded as "legitimate possession" is utterly absurd.
#Post#: 82954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stranraer v East Fife
DIR By: Arbitre anglais
Date: September 20, 2024, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s highlighted an aspect of the LOAF I’ve never understood,
and asked senior people about before, which is very inconsistent
in my opinion - why does the GK get a free pass to potentially
stop a definite goal? For example, if there is a deliberate
backpass to the GK which he misjudges and which is then rolling
towards goal, why does he get to deliberately (knowing it’s not
allowed) dive on the pass to stop a goal but only give away an
IDF? Could happen much easier these days due to the way goal
kicks are now taken (not needing to leave the area). Why not
just make the law simpler - any offence which DOGSO??
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page