Question Number: 33402

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/29/2019

RE: Competitive Under 15

Eugene of San Jose, CA US asks...

In the video linked by Referee McHugh, a couple of the situations look to me like the goalkeeper could have easily contested for the ball legally had he not misjudged his location outside of the penalty area or acted instinctively. E.g. in #9 and #6, the goalkeeper was in a position to chest the ball and chose to use his hands.

Why do these qualify as DOGSO red cards?

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Eugene,
Whether the keeper could have played the ball legally is not a consideration in terms of determining a DOGSO offence. The only issues are whether there is an offence and if there is, whether it has denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent. Now, when it comes to denying a goal (by deliberate handling) as distinct from a goal scoring opportunity, the equation is a little different. The question then becomes, absent the handling offence, would the ball have entered the net or not? For instance, if a ball is clearly heading wide of the goal and is deliberately handled, a goal has not been denied.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

H Eugene,
there are several things to consider?
WAS there a foul of handling the ball deliberately? The fact the keeper COULD use other body parts has zero bearing. He can not use the hands on a ball that is outside his PA!

Now we look to see if the act was a careless foul NO card just a free kick
Do we upgrade from just a free kick to cardable misconduct that either is USB designed to thwart an attack caution show a yellow card or a send off action show a red card where either the handling denied a goal ( as in the ball WOULD have entered into the goal or did it stop the opponent from the opportunity of scoring a goal?
I have seen red cards issued to keepers for handling outside the area that I thought were harsh in they did not (a) deny a goal ( the ball would miss the goal ) & or (b) no opponent was ever going to get to the ball & challenge effectively to get a opportunity to score. I l seen yellow cards shown as well that I thought were unnecessary, especially for keepers that have the ball legally but their momentum or some faded lines sometimes takes then out too far. That is essence is actually a gift to the opponent, not sure why a card is always thought necessary .
Cheers
His match His decision his reputation

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
When I looked at the videos there was a doubt for me also on 6 and 9. I wondered if 6 was for violent conduct rather than a DOGSO?
In the past I have given goalkeepers the benefit of doubt for misjudgment of the penalty area line and where the opponent was not denied an obvious opportunity to gain possession of the ball through an obvious unsporting act of playing the ball using the hand/s. I believe in 9 the GK could have played the ball legally to not prevent immediate possession so then one of the 4 Ds is missing which is distance to the ball
The 4Ds are
# Distance between the offence and the goal
# general Direction of the play
# likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball that is Distance to the ball.
# location and number of Defenders
In the case where it is certain the ball is going definitely wide then no possible goal has been denied so it is not a red card offence