Question Number: 29753

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/30/2015

RE: Varsity High School

Jon of Spring City, PA United States asks...

I'd like your opinion on the following situation. Video of the play in question can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrIBkVsZw6w

In a high school varsity girls match, an attacker runs onto a long lofted ball headed toward the goal. The goalkeeper is well off her line and at the top of the penalty area. As the attacker runs onto the ball to play it she makes a touch, pushing the ball to her left, the goalkeeper's right. The keeper has anticipated and attempted to play the ball, clearly moving with her hands to deflect the ball. The attacker's momentum carries her into the goalkeeper's body and legs, causing her to fall over the keeper. The ball goes behind the goalkeeper, heading for the goal when it is cleared by a defender who came in to clear it out. A penalty kick is awarded and the goalkeeper is sent off for DOGSO.

So the question, is this really DOGSO? The goalkeeper is clearly making a play for the ball and properly anticipates where it is going to go. Does it matter whether she actually touched the ball (it is unclear in the video)? The attacker takes a touch at the last moment, pushing the ball to her left, thus possibly making the ball now unplayable to her, which takes away DOGSO, does it not? Also, it is my understanding that the goalkeeper does not need to keep her feet or legs out of the way of an oncoming player.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jon
From the video this is a foul and a penalty kick. Had the foul not happened there is the possibility that the player would have had a goal scoring opportunity. As it was denied then it was a dismissal.
Now the possible out clause on the DOGSO is perhaps if the ball is played so far away by the attacker that she had little chance of regaining control of the ball before the foul. That is a *without the foul what happens next* question. In the circumstances I think the referee had little choice here and a dismissal was expected.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Jon,
The foul is not really debateable. I can see it as a holding/tripping foul on the keeper. The keeper did place herself into the path of the attacker. Still the referee is FAR too FAR away to sell this well in my opinion. The single video angle require us to make some assumptions rather than know for sure! It could be a DH (deliberate handling)outside the area although I THINK she touched the ball inside the PA . It does look like the keeper got a touch to deflect the ball slightly but the returning defender was never likely to get to that ball if the attacker had not been dumped. I can not fault the referee applying DOGSO if he was calling the collision a foul.

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the video, and thanks again for slowing it down for us - really helps!

There are 2 elements here: Was there a foul, and was it DOGSO?
As for the foul, the keeper has dived too early for this one. She dived for the ball in a scenario where the attacker was still going to get it first. The only possible outcome from this was cleaning up the attacker, as the attacker has every right to try and run for the goal, and despite trying to get past the keeper, the keeper's early dive has thrown her body in front of the oncoming attacker, and the timing was such that the attacker was always going to get the ball first. We often call this a 'late tackle', but I tend to think of it more as an 'early tackle' - the keeper committed before she should have, leaving herself in a position where the dive would throw herself in front of the opponent, and once she dove it was unavoidable. So there's a definite foul.

As for DOGSO, it doesn't matter how bad or innocent the foul was. If the attacker had an OGSO and was fouled, it's a mandatory red card. So here, there are no other defenders who can intervene, and the attacker's touch was light enough that she would be able to retrieve it (as the keeper is the one who fouled, we take her out of the equation. ie we can't argue that 'if the keeper didn't commit the foul the keeper could've chased it down). So the ball was easily retrievable. Even if it was out of immediate playing distance, that doesn't matter as long as she'd easily be able to retrieve it. Had it been a heavy touch where it was questionable if she could retrieve it, then that's a different matter.

You mentioned that direction is a concern. Yes, there's a requirement for the player to be heading towards goal, but don't take that as a literal, 'running in a line directly towards the actual net'. The general direction of the goal is sufficient. A touch to the side of the keeper will usually keep the player heading roughly towards goals, even if a little off to the side - but it wouldn't make sense to argue that somebody who has beaten the keeper and would have had an open goal at a good angle doesn't have an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity. Had she stayed on her feet and retrieved the ball, I'm sure you can imagine she would have had a very clear Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity.

If the keeper had touched the ball first, it may be different. I don't think she did but it's difficult to tell, so different people may view this video differently. If, say, she had caught the ball inside the PA, then this wouldn't be a foul against her - it would be against the attacker as the shoe would be on the other foot; the keeper would be getting the ball first so the attacker needs to be careful. If it's a partial touch (eg a palm on the ball), then whether it's still a foul depends on how much of a touch it was and how much she's thrown herself in the direction of the player. It becomes a subjective decision.

It's a little difficult to tell for certain if a foul occurred, but I hope what we've offered in consideration helps. I have no doubt that, assuming a foul occurred, that DOGSO was the correct decision.

Given the referee's signal, I don't think there was any case of deliberately handling the ball outside the PA.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Jon,

From what I see on the video, I believe that the correct call was made. It appears that the goalkeeper deliberately went into her opponent to stop her from going after the ball.