Question Number: 23657

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/12/2010

Brian Auer of Pittsburgh, PA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 23635

In the scenario provided, we have an IFK awarded where the GK handled a ball kicked to him by a teammate.

The IFK is taken, the ball on the way into the goal, when a defender is judged to have deliberately handled the ball, resulting in a converted PK and a sendoff for DOGSO.

Whatever you think about the referee's threshold for deliberate action (I think it's tight, for U12, but was not there that day), it's hard to dispute either of the free kicks in Law.

However, if the IFK had not been touched by another player (scenario does not indicate it had), then it seems to me RC/DOGSO is incorrect in Law since a goal could not have been scored at that moment in the match.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Ref Auer, you're not the only one to notice that we were napping when we answered this. Or perhaps we were distracted by the sound of the vuvuzelas.

You are correct, if a goal cannot legally be scored (because it's an indirect kick, or say directly from a throw-in) then the handling that prevents the ball from entering the goal did not deny a goal.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Auer
With the focus on the deliberate touch by the goalkeeper the IDFK resart element was lost on the panel. You are indeed correct and as a goal cannot be scored directly from an IDFK it cannot be a DOGSO H. I would point out that it can still be a DOGSO if say the deliberate handling prevented the ball going to an opponent where in the opinion of the referee a goal would have been scored. I suspect that there is more to this scenario than is written in the original question.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

As my colleagues note so eloquently, we occasionally are as confused by situations as anyone, and appreciate the help in setting the record straight!