Question Number: 34516

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/26/2022

RE: Competetive Adult

MARV of Bowmanville, Ontario Canada asks...

I recently saw a clip of the Roma women's keeper who kicked a goal kick a second time within her own penalty area and a result was dismissed for DOGSO. My questions...Does any non-penal offence that results in DOGSO now result in a dismissal? And also if the non-penal foul and DOGSO misconduct occurs in the defender's own penalty area is the restart always a penalty kick? What about a ball kicked to the keeper by a defender and then deliberately handled ("passback")? And finally...depending on the age and competition level can I arbitrate these situations differently??

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Marv
Thanks for the question.
First point to note is that the technical offence of a goalkeeper handling a backpass inside the penalty area cannot be sanctioned with any card so no DOGSO is possible in that scenario. However other non penal offence punished by an indirect free kick can result in a DOGSO red card. Those are pretty rare and I have not witnessed that in a game until now,

Law 12 was updated recently so that the offence described could be punished with a card. The law now states that if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

In the Roma example. it looked like the goalkeeper had kicked the ball to a team mate who decided she did not want it. The goalkeeper then advanced to kick the ball a second time to deny a goal scoring opportunity. Personally I thought it was harsh but that is what the Law clearly states
IFAB felt it was unfair that a goalkeeper should escape punishment in the unfair situation of a deliberate double touch when the ball is put into play at a goal kick or a free kick. I personally think it is harsh as no player is going to not kick the ball a second time on a mistake such as in the Roma example. But ours is not to question that just to enforce the law.

The goalkeeper was arguing that she kicked the ball forward to take the goal kick and the opponent decided that the kick put the ball in play hence her move towards the ball from outside the penalty area. I wonder if the goalkeeper had decided not to kick the ball for a 2nd time if the referee would have decided the ball was not in play? In days gone by this could only be a retake and maybe not a caution other than for delaying the restart of play. Not so anymore as shown by this example.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Marv,

DOGSO can apply to an offence that results in a free kick, so to start with, this qualifies.
From there, we make the normal DOGSO considerations. We know from the LOTG (Q&A in Law 5) that control is a consideration - but that doesn't mean they have to have control rather we consider the likelihood of control. That is to say, an offence can be considered DOGSO if it denies the opponent control. In those cases, we need to consider the likelihood of control.

For instance, if a defender handles a cross coming into an attacker, for the control element it would be different if it's a cross that's on target, versus one that's misplaced and the attacker will have to stretch behind them against their run.

If, removing the offending player, control is likely, then we consider all the other aspects of control. So without the keeper, they would have gained control, and there would be an OGSO.

If the referee believed the keeper took a second touch, RC is correct.

Ref McHugh stated the keeper was arguing that they had simply positioned the ball for their kick - I'm inclined to believe that, in all honesty. So my view is that the RC is actually incorrect.

For something like this, you'd want to be certain beyond any doubt that the first touch had put it into play. I think it's too debateable. This is a problem that does occur - it can be difficult to tell the difference between a small touch to put it into play, and a small repositioning tap.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Marv,
If the actions of the keeper here are judged by the referee to be an offence, then it is the case that a DOGSO red card can be issued.

The relevant part of Law 12 states:

"if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."

When that change was introduced in 2020 the IFAB app showed the following explanation of the change:

"A goalkeeper can receive a YC or be sent off (RC) for 'illegally' touching the ball a second time after a restart (e.g. goal kick, free kick etc.) even if the touch is with the hand/arm."

So the issue really comes down to whether this really was a second touch offence or whether, as the goalie was apparently arguing, she was just repositioning the ball. Seeing the way she looks towards the defender before playing the ball, I tend to agree with ref McHugh that it was probably intended as a pass but on the other hand, as ref Wright points out, there's also an element of doubt about it so it could be seen as slightly harsh to give a red card here. However if the referee is sure this was a second touch offence then the dismissal is correct.

When it comes to your other questions - no, it is not always a penalty kick for a non-penal offence in the offender's own penalty area. In this case for example, the restart would be an indirect free kick. The restart for a goalkeeper handling a ball deliberately kicked to them by a team mate is also an indirect free kick.

As to arbitrating offences differently according to age and competition level, that is a much-debated topic but all I would say is that depending on those factors, quite a lot of referees do tend to adjust their tolerance for what they consider to be dubious or trifling offences - especially with younger players. What you do is up to you.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Marv,
It was a sloppy restart give the NEW LOTG stating the ball NO Longer has to leave the PA . It had the appearance of a dismal pass . Whether e keeper was reportioning it using her feet the referee was likely on the side of the attacker who quickly jumped on the errant ahem pass. Given the referee has chosen to see this as a 2nd touch it is now an INDFK from just along the goal area and a red card for DOGSO. I think the call is a gift to the attacking team but we do not reward mistakes either. If I was certain this was a deliberate misfire versus a miscommunication my decision might have been different especially at the youth or grassroots level. At the pro level they are paid to play and as such should be more aware of consequences!
Cheers