Question Number: 35678

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/30/2024

RE: SELECT Adult

Steve Johnson of Prescott Valley, AZ US asks...

I've been refereeing for many years and learned that when a GK handles the ball outside the Penalty Area, this is a handling offense ... the result is a Direct Free Kick.
Recently, an assignor told me that when a goalkeeper was sliding and grabs the ball and momentum carries him/her out of the Penalty Area ('accidentally'), that in this case the handling offense should only result in an Indirect Free Kick.
I have never read about the 'exception'. I still believe the she be a Direct Free Kick! Can you clarify this ???

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi steve
Thanks for the uestion.

It amazes me that an assignor would believe that deliberate handling by a goalkeeper could have an indirect free kick restart in any circumstances. It is a direct free kick in EVERY instance and there are no exceptions.

Its a simple Law 12 decision
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: # a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area).

Law 12 also lists the indirect free kick restart offences and deliberate handling is not one of them.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Steve,

Since the Arizona boys' soccer season started last week, and the girls season started yesterday, you may encounter this in a high school game.

NFHS Rule 12-2-2 indicates a direct kick is awarded when a player deliberately handles, carries or propels the ball with a hand or arm. The exception is a goalkeeper when the ball is within the goalkeeper's team's own penalty area.

There is nothing in the rule about an indirect kick if the goalkeeper's momentum carries him/her outside the penalty area.

Please note the rule states the ball must be completely out of the penalty area in order to be a violation. The rule does not refer to the position of the goalkeeper.

I hope you have a very successful fall high school season.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Steve,
myth busters was a pretty decent TV show, looks like we could use a few episodes in the soccer world.

The referee assignor is quite simply incorrect!
A handling offence outside the PA is 100% ALWAYS a DFK no matter which of the 22 players is guilty of the offence.

The INDFK restarts for illegal handing INSIDE the PA by a keeper for a 2nd touch or directly receiving throw in or deliberately kicked balls by a team mate is NOT a DFK

The DB used to be the choice now the INDFK is often misused as a great ESCAPE for referees who think it seems a shame to enforce a particular law in a particular way .

Yet you do not know what you do not know!

As you are aware they made a non deliberate handing by an attacker into a DFK due to the possibility of a goal occurring unfairly! Never mind if there was zero intent to commit the crime. So we petitioned that instead of a DFK, an INDFK or DB to the keeper if inside the PA might be better solution. Sigh No avail.

It is a huge difference if a keeper reaches outside the PA to grab a ball and bring it back into the PA preventing an opponent from fairly challenging.

Such are the red cards for DOGSO as well as the DFK .

WHAT is NOT available is a keeper doing just as I described by the referee confidently marches the ball and awarding a PK for the opposition (my team) while showing a yellow card caution for USB rather than a red card send off for the opposition keeper with a DFK. The fact it occurred during a REPLAY of a match ineptly created by a referee error at the taking of KFTPM (my team won) on a team of youths I coached back in 98. So that for the 2nd match in a row, a referee was creating another protestable situation by mis applying the LOTG was a difficult pill to not get tossed as I was threatened to be sent to the parking lot because I was requesting the AR to intervene as the CR was off his rocker! We chose to deliberately miss the PK. Fortunately we won that match 2 to 1 and the opposition chose not to protest a 2nd time.

The Fact is, if a referee did as your assignor suggested there is grounds for a protest for misapplying the LOTG with an incorrect restart.

So as to a keeper accidently exiting upon releasing the ball apparently in hand contact with a ball that is 100% completely outside the PA. As my colleagues have stated the position of the goalkeeper is NOT a factor! BALL location WHEN hand is in contact!

While it is a DFK offence, we CAN cut some slack and lean away on the doubtful! As to how "trifling" is this foul in essence a weak giveaway and scoring opportunity that the opposing team truly did not deserve for a few millimeters inches of a slide or carry out punt with faded lines or multiple lines and bright sunlight as mitigating conditions? If the keeper released contact immediately and no one is affected and plays the ball away? I would say play could be allowed to continue, but if he tries to regrab it and bring it back inside the PA or choses to not release and hold on to it perhaps affecting the oppositions opportunity to challenge THEN the DFK restart is what it is, because that is what the LOTG dictate!

So while you can ignore it and say it was doubtful/trifling! Play continues!
If you decide it is a handling foul, not doubtful at all and a bit more than trifling you CAN NOT CHANGE or adjust the restart!

A DFK must be the restart!
No need to caution for not intentionally sliding out across a line. As long as that ball was secured PRIOR to crossing the PA as a possession/save

Whether a caution is required or even a red card for DOGSO would likely depend on the subsequent actions once the ball was indeed carried/touched outside as the referee could apply "advantage" if the ball was immediately released. Changing a doubtful situation from a save possession into an, Oops I just did that, to stop a goal!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Steve
Just to echo what my colleagues have all said, if a goalkeeper handles the ball outside their penalty area in a way that contravenes the law on handball offences, then the result has to be a direct free kick. It cannot be an indirect free kick.

I can't understand what would possess an assignor to tell you that you could award an indirect free kick for a handling offence by a goalkeeper outside the penalty area.