Question Number: 24224

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/23/2010

RE: Competitive Adult

Chris of Sydney, NSW Australia asks...

This question is a follow up to question 24196

Fellow Referees,

I can't understand your logic in not calling the 'second touch' infraction. The GK has saved the ball and was heading into the goal mouth. He has deliberately released the ball so as not to carry it over the line. Therefore if he picks it up again it should be an IDFK.

Perhaps if his 'second touch' is to prevent an opponent from scoring then a DOSGO situation has occurred and a RC would ensue.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Chris
Let me deal with the easy part first. It cannot be a dismissal in any circumstance as the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of misconduct by touching the ball with his hands inside the penalty area. It can't even be a caution.
Moving on to the IDFK part I believe that the questioner Referee Malacky got it spot on when he stated that since the official allowed play to continue he must have felt there was no possession on the first touch.
That is the key IMO why it is not an IDFK because the save has not been completed and the goalkeeper does not have full possession of the ball. Look at it another way. Let's say the goalkeeper dived to make a save or at a stretch reached up to catch a cross, caught the ball and then when he hit the ground he spilled the ball all in the act of a save. Can he touch it again with his hands. Should the referee award an IDFK if he does? Not in my opinion and it happens every game.
In the question the GK has touched the ball with his hands as part of a save, off balance, going backwards, he then spilled it/dropped it/ pushed it away deliberately as part of the save and then picked it up again. The questioner also mentioned that the GK fell into the goal as part of the save. That is all part of a save. The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from him, e.g. after he has made a save. The Law was written to prevent keepers from gaining full possession and then touching the ball with the hands after relinquishing possession.
If the GK caught the ball normally above his head and then under control threw the ball down to play the ball again then that indeed would be an IDFK if he touched the ball again with his hands.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

The offense is either doubtful or trifling. Doubtful, in that the goalkeeper may not have had full control of the ball but was making a save. Or, if he did momentarily have the ball fully in his grasp, trifling because the effect on play is minimal.

Here in the US, Advice to Referees still contains the wording of old Law V Decision 8, which was unfortunately condensed out of the Laws back in 1996-97. It is an important principle to referee by: 'The Laws of the Game are intended to provide that games should be played with as little interference as possible, and in this view it is the duty of referees to penalize only deliberate breaches of the Law. Constant whistling for trifling and doubtful breaches produces bad feeling and loss of temper on the part of the players and spoils the pleasure of spectators.'

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

Chris,

If the keeper is making a save, they rarely, if ever, actually have controlled possession of the ball. While possession is defined as as little as one finger pinning the ball to the ground, that is for the safety of the keeper - not to pin him to the wall with a similar interpretation during a save.

But, if the keeper had full control of the ball, and then decided to release it to keep it out of the goal (tremendous presence of mind for a 12 year old especially in such a short span of time), the referee could certainly consider giving the IDFK for the opponents in accordance with the restriction on keepers from touching the ball again with their hands after releasing it from their possession. It is our opinion that this would be an ill considered decision on the part of the referee for the reasons we have already articulated.

A reminder - the keeper's job is to keep the ball out of the goal. He did that. The Laws provide ways for the referee to prevent the keeper from wasting time or unfairly keeping the ball from opponents. If none of those issues are present, the referee can decide, correctly, to make no call at all - and totally within the spirit of the game.

As for the DOGSO question, that just can't happen to a keeper who uses his hands on a ball inside his own penalty area. It's right there in the Laws '(this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)'.

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

See Question: 24247