Question Number: 24459

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/5/2011

RE: Competative Adult

John Schneider of Garden Grove, CA USA asks...

My question regards the keeper handling the ball outside his penalty area.

Allow me to setup a counter-attack scenario: An attacker has passed the 2nd-to-last defender and is at full sprint towards the goal. The ball was chipped over the defense and directly in front of the attacker. The keeper is out, and near the top of the penalty area. The keeper comes forward and handles the ball outside of his penalty area, possessing it an instant before the attacker can posses the ball. He appears to have done this accidentally as the field markings have been obscured by rain and are a bit difficult to distinguish.

Is this Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity by Handling the Ball and the Keeper must be sent off?

If not, is this a strategic foul warranting a caution?

Would you handle this same scenario any differently in a CIF High School match?

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Let's look at your scenario. The goalkeeper exits the penalty area, and handles the ball - that's a foul. It is punishable by a free kick - direct in this case - so denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) could apply. The primary consideration when handling is involved is, 'But for the handling, would the ball have entered the goal?' As referee Contarino notes, this condition was not met in your scenario. However, it is clear that what the goalkeeper did prevented a possible followup by the attacker. In the interests of keeping the game under control, I believe we can look at what are called the 4 D's, even though these conditions really apply to other fouls:
* Distance to ball: You said it's right in front of the attacker - check
* Direction of play: You said he was sprinting toward the goal - check
* number of Defenders: You said the keeper was the last defender - check
* Distance to goal: Just outside the 18; in an adult game this is plenty close - check
So the keeper should be sent off for DOGSO.

But then you complicated the issue by stating that the lines were obscured. This happens often in games played in local parks, where teams are at the mercy of grounds crews. With cutbacks in city services, we have been extremely lucky in our area that fields are maintained at least every 2 weeks. But if there's rain, it's likely that the lines are faint.

When the lines are almost impossible to see, I tell my AR's that we're not calling any handling on the goalkeeper unless he's clearly several yards outside the penalty area. But that mainly applies to the keeper distributing the ball after a save - we don't call that on properly marked fields unless the ball is clearly a ways outside the penalty area. We are much tighter about calling it when the goalkeeper goes outside the area to stop an incoming ball.

So despite the faded lines, I think we have no choice but to send off the goalkeeper. Everyone is playing under the same poor field conditions. The goalkeeper needed to be more careful about knowing where his penalty area ended.

And if the lines are so faint as to virtually not be there, perhaps the game shouldn't have been played.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
First off it is deliberate handling by the goalkeeper which is punishable by a direct free kick. The referee then has to decide if the offence warrants further action such as a caution for unsporting behaviour or a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
In the case of a DOGSO the referee has to determine if the conditions are present to merit the sending off. In these type of situations the DOGSO criteria may fail on the distance to ball criterion as it is simply a deliberate handling with perhaps the ball some distance away from the attacker. As the attacker does not have possession of the ball it is not a goal scoring opportunity.
It probably is a caution as the goalkeeper has deliberately and blatantly handled the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession.
Had the forward gained possession of the ball and then passed the ball past the GK to run onto then that indeed would be a DOGSO and a dismissal. As regards the level of the game I believe that should make little difference in this scenario.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

The faint lines do not excuse the keeper's action. If the 4 D's all apply (see Ref Voshol's answer) then the referee has little choice - the keeper must be sent off for DOGSO.

Now, the only wiggle room here is what was meant by directly in front of the attacker. If this means the attacker could easily have reached and kicked it within a stride or two at speed, then we're left with DOGSO. However, if directly in front means it is in front of the attacker but several yards away, the referee can decide it distance to the ball as a requirement for DOGSO has been met. In that case, this would be a caution and a DFK restart.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Hmmmm. Advice to referees has this to say:

2.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY (a) Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball The send-off offense for deliberate handling, number 4 under the seven send-off offenses, "denies 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)," does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

In other words, the 4 Ds do not apply and the ball must, in the opinion of the referee, be heading toward the goal and would be in the goal but for the handling. Since there was no shot on goal, I don't see how anyone could assume the ball would have scored but for the handling

I should, in fairness, add that USSF may possibly allow a send off for DOGSO-H even though Advice To Referees is clear an obvious goal must be in the making when they say "but for the handling the ball would have gone directly into the goal". I suspect (dangerously for sure) Advice really meant to say "but for the handling there was an excellent chance a goal would have been scored". But every time I second guess USSF, I'm wrong

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

See Question: 24497

See Question: 24500