Question Number: 19544

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/1/2008

Jon of Houston, TX USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 19029

I've been reading some answers and am a bit confused as to the application of SO 4 and 5. It seems to me that the requirements for SO 5 are met when the substitute kicks the ball away from the goal (assuming there is an attacker behind it).

:'denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the players goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick'

The way I see it there are three main criteria:
1. There has to be an obvious opportunity (check)

2. There has to be an opponent (check)

3. There has to be an offence punishable by a free kick.

IDFK is awarded if: 'commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or dismiss a player'. (i.e. entering the field of play without permission).

So, (check).

Why no red card for SO5?

Similarly, why is there SO 4 to begin with? Except for the 'opponent moving towards the player's goal' bit, the laws are essentially the same. Handled ball certainly falls under SO5 as an offence punishable by a free kick or PK doesn't it?

Finally, I know I've seen this question before but can't seem to find it again:
A defender plays a pass back to his keeper. An attacker runs onto it and the GK picks it up inside his area. Free kick to the attacking team, naturally.

Does the GK not get a red card for SO5 specifically because in SO4 it excludes a GK who handles the ball in his own area?


I thought that phrase in SO4 simply meant that the GK can handle the ball (like what it means when we see it in the list of offences punishable by direct free kick). Does this phrase indeed mean two different things at the two different times we see it?

It certainly seems to fall under SO5 if we interpret the final phrase in SO4 as acknowledging the GK's right to handle a ball in the normal course of play, and NOT as a license to circumvent the passback rule with serious consequence, punishable by a IDFK and possibly SO5.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

You'd think the substitute coming in to block a shot would be worth a DOGSO call. But IFAB have specifically said that's not so. It appeared in the Q&A that they produced through 2006 - the sub was sent off only if he denied a goal via handling.

In my opinion, DOGSO via handling is separated out primarily to exempt the keeper inside the penalty area. Even if the ball is kicked to the keeper by a teammate, and therefore there is an IFK restart, the Laws say, 'denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)'. It's been that way for over a decade, so that's the way FIFA/IFAB want it. A goalkeeper can never be sent off for using her hands inside the penalty area, not in any circumstances.

Read other questions answered by Referee Gary Voshol

View Referee Gary Voshol profile

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

It distinguishes a keeper from others as within HIS penalty area he can use his hands and even if those hands used are illegally used as in the 4 indfk handling restrictions stated, 6 seconds, second touch, direct throw in and or deliberate kick! Only an INDFK could occur for THAT specific violation, no DOGSO can apply no DFK possible inside the penalty area for a keeper handling of the ball violation!

While it is inferred we can send off for a technical violation such as impeding and PIADM I have NEVER, EVER seen it done EVER! But certainly it is a stretch to seen an indfk restart for entering without permission qualifies as an offence against an opponent

When substitutes were, correctly, in my opinion, no longer classified as outside agent and drop ball restarts were replaced with the INDFK restart it was far more palatable.
In essence the deal was any thing a player can be held accountable for so to a substitute. A player can not deliberately deny goals with his hands hence neither can a substitute. A player under law is permitted to kick a ball and kicking a ball during play if a player can do it then so can a substitute. If a substitute or a player entered the field without permission the technical breeches occurring the instant they did it, not when the ball is kicked.
The fact is, if advantage is applied and if the hands are deliberately used to stop a ball from entering the goal as a DFK offence the player is held accountable for THAT more serious violation then entering without permission. A substitute cannot be guilty of a foul ONLY misconduct and an INDFK is the accepted restart for ONLY misconduct on the field while the ball is in play be it a player or a substitute! For a player to legally enter the field the player must have been granted permission to leave the field at some point. A substitute was never granted permission to do anything as of yet so when he enters the field he CAN NOT be a player if he enters illegally where as a player off the field with permission who enters illegally REMAINS a player. If the player was off illegally (without referee permission) and reentered illegally (without referee permission) chances are USB is also involved


Read other questions answered by Referee Richard Dawson

View Referee Richard Dawson profile

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

One of the funny quirks (maybe not so funny?) in SO4 is the deliberately handling doesn't refer to the offense we are so familiar with under Law 12, the one that is a direct free kick or penalty kick. Bear with me - it took me forever to be convinced, and the language is what causes the problem - in SO4, it means someone deliberately took the opportunity to cheat the opponent out of a goal using their hands.

Thus you could send off a substitute for deliberately handling the ball to prevent a goal, even though a substitute cannot be guilty of a DFK/PK offense under Law 12. This is true of any defender - except the goalkeeper, who has every right to use his hands to prevent a goal inside his own penalty area - that's why his position exists. The exemption against awarding DFK/PK for goalkeepers using their hands inside the penalty area was written into the Laws to make sure (hopefully) referees don't make the mistake you outlined:

'A defender plays a pass back to his keeper. An attacker runs onto it and the GK picks it up inside his area. Free kick to the attacking team, naturally.

Does the GK not get a red card for SO5 specifically because in SO4 it excludes a GK who handles the ball in his own area.'

To give a send-off to a GK for this reason is wrong-headed, and is over analyzing and over-thinking the intent of the Laws. The GK is not cheating when he picks up a ball in the PA with his hands, he is doing what GKs are supposed to do, even if it is something for which he will be penalized with an IDFK, because we got tired of them wasting time. It's apples and oranges.


Read other questions answered by Referee Michelle Maloney

View Referee Michelle Maloney profile

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

There are two parts to Law 12: Fouls and Misconduct. The first section, fouls, tells us there are 7 things that may be careless, reckless or use excessive force to be foul play. 7 times 3 is 21. Then there are three things that, when they happen, are fouls. 3 + 21 = 24. The astute referee knows that reckless and excessive carry with them some sort of disciplinary sanction. Further when something happens accidentally it doesn't fall within the definition of foul play. So handles the ball deliberately [except the goalkeeper within his own penalty area] implies some sort of action By a player, When the ball is in play and On the field to qualify as foul play. A given, Yes?

There are indirect free kick offences also and one of those is: commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player.

In the second section of Law 12 we find Misconduct and therein we will find the cautionable offence of entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee’s permission and denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball [this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area]. Given the unwritten law of progression the first offence is what is punished and that happening subsequent is dealt with as to the nature of the offence.

Let's look at entering the field. When a substitute takes it upon himself to join the play on the field he commits an offence. Whether or not it is noticed THEN is irrelevant to the offence happening. Next let's look at the sending-off offence of denies a goal by deliberately handling the ball. Does it say here there has been foul play or does it just say if you handle the ball to stop a goal, off you go? Also, is not the goalkeeper exempted from being sent-off in parenthesis?

So BEFORE a substitute reaches out and stops a ball from entering his goal he has to have done something else that we just now discover. He entered the field without permission BEFORE stopping the goal bound ball with his hand. First things first, caution and remove the substitute THEN send off and show the red card to the substitute. What does the Interpretations and Guidance section of the 2008/2009 Laws say on page 68?

the referee must punish the most serious offence when players commit more than one offence at the same time

Has this happened OR has there been a sequential progression? Yup -- one thing then the other. Play is stopped to deal with SO4 and then the "player" is found to be a substitute. Restart is as the first in the sequence demands. However something else has happened that must be dealt with, the goal denied. Note the sending off offence does NOT state the handling MUST be foul play, it just says handles the ball deliberately to stop a goal... Again the goalkeeper being exempt based on parenthetical expression in the Law.

Regards,

Read other questions answered by Referee Chuck Fleischer

View Referee Chuck Fleischer profile

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

See Question: 19562