Question Number: 18012

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/27/2007

Nicholas Broderick of St. John's, Newfoundland Canada asks...

Situation: A goal kick has been awarded to the defending team (Team A) which is about to be taken by the goalkeeper. He has a exceptionally long kick so most of the players of the attacking team (Team B) and Team A are far upfield, except for one lagging attacker who is still well in his opponents' half. The goalkeeper fluffs the goal kick such that it leaves the penalty area, and now the goalkeeper and the lagging attacker are chasing it down. Just as the attacker is about to take a shot on goal, the goalkeeper makes a sliding tackle to put the ball out on its way to touch, a tackle which is legal except that he has touched the ball (which is in play) a second time before it has touched another player.

Question: Given that this would likely result in a dismissal for DOGSO by handling had the goalkeeper used his hands to stop the attack, should he be sent off for DOGSO by committing a PK/FK offense (the sanction for the "second touch" on the goal kick after it is in play is an IFK)? I ask this because I remember another situation where a goalscoring opportunity was created more or less by the defenders, where the goalkeeper had to touch the ball with his hands to prevent it entering his goal when it was deliberately kicked to him by a teammate; in that situation, no sanction was given to the goalkeeper, just the IFK for the opponents.

Also, since the goalkeeper is committing an infringement of Law 16, would the referee be obligated to stop the play for an IFK despite whatever opportunity arises for the attacking team?

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

This is a great question. It brings up a couple of points of interest.

The easy part is the restart. As you state it is an indirect free kick. That's because you note that there was no foul committed by the keeper against the opponent, and the keeper did not handle the ball outside the penalty area.

Regarding denying an obvious goal-scoring opporunity, the Additional Instructions section of the Laws of the Game (2007) has this to say:
"Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity:
* The distance between the offence and the goal
* The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
* The direction of the play
* The location and number of defenders
* The offence which denies an opponent an obvious goalscoring opportunity may be an offence that incurs a direct free kick or an indirect free kick."
In this situation the distance to the goal might be suspect; you don't say what level of play this is. More troublesome would be the direction of play. The ball was headed outbound; the attacker inbound. Was that toward the goal? We referees get paid the big bucks (ha) to make difficult decisions like this.

Playing the advantage. For many years USSF has stated that advantage may only be applied to Law 12 violations. They specifically note that advantage may not be applied to offside or to illegal throw-ins. FIFA/IFAB have not had a clearly stated policy, but in recent years advantage crept into the Q&A and the new Additional Instructions for some violations of Law 3. I don't know if Canada has a firm policy or not. It would seem a shame if the attacker could recover the ball despite the keeper's second touch, and then not be able to shoot on the undefended goal. Unfortunately that option doesn't seem to be supported in documentation that I've seen.

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

You would not be able to give advantage when you have a 2nd touching offense on a goal kick. Play would immediately be considered dead and you would give an IFK. The goalkeeper has made a tactical choice to give up an IFK in order to prevent the opponent from being able to openly play the ball.

Seeing as how the attacker never got possession of the ball you really can't send the keeper off for DOGSO-free kick as possession would be one of the required elements to establishing an opportunity to score. Clearly, one does not have a chance to score if they never even had the ball. It really doesn't matter if you think he would win the ball and immediately develop an OGSO, it never happened and as such you can't send the keeper off for it.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Those referees in the USA might wish to remember where this answer originates.

Touching the ball a second time before it has been played by another player is a tactic that has been used successfully for a long while. Defenders use nearly the same thing when they are going to have trouble on a quick counter attack. What they do is something to kill the play that is so obvious the referee won't miss it! But something that will only result in an indirect free kick against, no sense in giving up a another chance for a goal...

What we see here is no chance for a goal by the attack until the ball comes under their control or there is a shot on goals. That's a given, so we're not [should not be] thinking about sending off anyone. That includes the keeper using his hands UNLESS the four criteria Ref Voshol mentions are germane.

In the USA we are constrained by the policy that advantage applies only to Law 12. While I think this stems from calling an offence a foul by the writers of policy it is never-the-less policy in the USA. You are not constrained by that policy!

The astute referee will recognise in his readings that Law 5 bullet 11 says:

"allows play to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from such an advantage and penalises the original offence if the anticipated offence does not ensue at that time"

Again the advantage clause does not mention the word "foul". Law 12 is entitled Fouls and Misconduct but beyond that everything that can happen and is able to be punished is called an offence. In Law 10 a goal is not scored if the team scoring the goal has infringed the Law. Again, this does not say commits a "foul" or engages in "foul play"; it says infringes the Law. An offence is defined, among many things, as "a transgression of Law"

Infringements/Sanctions are listed in the following Laws: 4, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and specific things are listed as infringements. In all cases the restart of play for infringing these Laws is indirect free kick. When Law 12 is infringed the restart of play is defined as direct or indirect based on what section of the Law is infringed.

You'll note I use the words commits and infringed interchangeably where they might not grammatically the same, when used together they form a sentence if used with the indefinite article. Commit is a verb and means "to do". Infringement as a noun means "a violation, as of Law".

To the point, I believe you can play advantage off of an infringement of Law 16 unless your national organisation forbids it. In America we are obliged to stop play or "not see" the infringement.

If you as a referee, outside the USA, have the opinion a player has transgressed the Law and have the opinion it would be to his opponents advantage to allow their attacking play to continue you are within the Law to not intervene for a short period of time, usually 2-3 seconds, and see what happens.

In your case the goalkeeper has used a second touch on the ball to interrupt the tactical play of an opponent. Isn't that unsporting in the context of Law 12? Would not a caution for his action be appropriate? Would we want to allow a quick restart of play if the attackers can get the ball back to the point of the infraction before the keeper has recovered his line? Would that chance at a goal be better than a booking and thus denying or holding the restart of play?

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 18027