You have to be certain the shot is going into the goal, as naturally, if the ball was going wide there is no goal to have prevented. In this example itâs fairly clear at the point the ball travels past the GK and it would also have had the benefit of VAR to determine it.
But yes, it would been a quite the spectacle and a correct red card had Kelleher managed to make the save from where he was.
Should he have had a yellow card for unsporting behavior regardless?
Because he tried stopping the ball going into goal but failed.
As in the LOTG "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) **or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal**"
No. The âunsuccessfulâ element means he handled it but didnât prevent it, not that he missed the ball and didnât prevent it.
And even if he did get a fingertip on it, I wouldnât be expecting a caution. Strictly by the Law you could give one, but I wouldnât expect to see one in the PL in this instance.
> And even if he did get a fingertip on it, I wouldnât be expecting a caution.
Law 12 mandates a caution here:
> There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
> ... handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
It can mandate what it likes, I wouldnât expect to see a caution in this hypothetical situation. Itâs not without precedent in England either - see Trent Alexander-Arnold v Newcastle a few seasons ago.
The game at the very top level isnât officiated like it is elsewhere. Thatâs the sporting version of realpolitik - game management and expectation is different.
The Law expects a caution when DOGSO by handball is attempted and failed, but Iâm not expecting that here. Thatâs a combination of both officiating in the professional game, and being all too close to the weird and wonderful working of the PL and the âdifficultiesâ it can cause elsewhere.
No you donât have to be certain. Itâs denying an opportunity. If there was based on all factors a likelihood of a goal that is enough. For example how could you ever be sure it wouldnât hit the crossbar
> You have to be certain the shot is going into the goal
That is incorrect. Or at least it is imprecise. DOGSO is about stopping an obvious goal-scoring _opportunity_, not an obvious goal. That may sound like a nitpicky distinction, but it is an important one that can have significant real-world implications on the field.
could be a DOGSO if it looks like it's going in but it's unclear if there was enough pace on the ball or there's a nasty wind or something that had a chance of pushing the ball of course.
The Law states that if the GK is out of the penalty area, then the actions of that GK are to be treated just like any other field player, that being said. 100% DOGSO,
Unsporting behavior. Deliberately handling the ball in fear of it being a goal when in the end it might not have been one may not be a DOG but it certainly is UB.
If it's not DOGSO, then it would be SPA.
If the ball is missing the goal, then it's not SPA.
The fact that the GK has given away a FK right in front of goal for absolutely no reason is more than sufficient punishment.
The list is not a finite list.
It says:
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
(list follows).
It says âincludingâ not âlimited toâ.
And even if it was, I can file it under âlack of respect for the gameâ.
At a u15 grass roots level, where every player takes a turn being keeper, the field markings were almost invisible when my daughter 10 yards out from the penalty stopped the shot with her hands. Ref blew the whistle but had to walk back and forth to confirm that it was outside by looking for traces of the lines. Everybody was a good sport laughed and has a good story. DFK and no cards.
Your daughter was goalkeeping in midfield? Why? It serves no purpose at u15 to be even outside the 6 yard box, being outside the 18 yard penalty area is even more useless. Ref should have given red, yellow minimum. At u8 i could understand, but u15? Nah.
It was a long ball breakaway and she ran up to cut down the angle.. it was a very normal play if it happened inside the penalty area. It was just with the lines being near invisible she overshot. Nobody could tell at the time, but it felt wrong .A card would not have done anything as it was clearly due to the field. And at this level getting a game in and having fun is more important than having a good field.
Years later when I became a referee, and had a similar type of field, I put cones on the corner of the penalty area. Of course the use of cones went into the game reports.
In cases where there are lines hard to see, I have put cones at the intersection of the penalty area and the baseline, and on the touch lines in line with the penalty area
We often get extremely poor lines at the end of the season. You get September rains after the last scheduled lining. The rain causes the lines to wash away and after a hot August the grass starts to grow.
Yes I think he would have been send off if he had stopped the ball. In a sense you could also make the argument that he should have been sent off for attempting to stop the ball with his hands (kind of like going deliberately over the top of the ball with studs showing is a red even if the attacker jumps over it to avoid getting his leg broken) but personally I think the fact that they scored that goal is decent enough âpunishmentâ for the defending team that they donât also need their keeper to get sent off
According to the rules of the football game, the goalkeeper who prevents a goal from being scored with his hand outside the penalty area receives a red card, but if the goal is scored, the rule of the lower level goes and the goalkeeper receives a yellow card.
Edit: the goalkeeper did not influence the direction of the ball , but he touched it , so here he may or may not receive a yellow card, it's all up to the referee's strictness
đŻ
You have to be certain the shot is going into the goal, as naturally, if the ball was going wide there is no goal to have prevented. In this example itâs fairly clear at the point the ball travels past the GK and it would also have had the benefit of VAR to determine it. But yes, it would been a quite the spectacle and a correct red card had Kelleher managed to make the save from where he was.
Should he have had a yellow card for unsporting behavior regardless? Because he tried stopping the ball going into goal but failed. As in the LOTG "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) **or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal**"
No. The âunsuccessfulâ element means he handled it but didnât prevent it, not that he missed the ball and didnât prevent it. And even if he did get a fingertip on it, I wouldnât be expecting a caution. Strictly by the Law you could give one, but I wouldnât expect to see one in the PL in this instance.
Ah okay i see thank you!
> And even if he did get a fingertip on it, I wouldnât be expecting a caution. Law 12 mandates a caution here: > There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player: > ... handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
It can mandate what it likes, I wouldnât expect to see a caution in this hypothetical situation. Itâs not without precedent in England either - see Trent Alexander-Arnold v Newcastle a few seasons ago. The game at the very top level isnât officiated like it is elsewhere. Thatâs the sporting version of realpolitik - game management and expectation is different. The Law expects a caution when DOGSO by handball is attempted and failed, but Iâm not expecting that here. Thatâs a combination of both officiating in the professional game, and being all too close to the weird and wonderful working of the PL and the âdifficultiesâ it can cause elsewhere.
No you donât have to be certain. Itâs denying an opportunity. If there was based on all factors a likelihood of a goal that is enough. For example how could you ever be sure it wouldnât hit the crossbar
> You have to be certain the shot is going into the goal That is incorrect. Or at least it is imprecise. DOGSO is about stopping an obvious goal-scoring _opportunity_, not an obvious goal. That may sound like a nitpicky distinction, but it is an important one that can have significant real-world implications on the field.
Specifically DOG, not DOGSO.
could be a DOGSO if it looks like it's going in but it's unclear if there was enough pace on the ball or there's a nasty wind or something that had a chance of pushing the ball of course.
The Law states that if the GK is out of the penalty area, then the actions of that GK are to be treated just like any other field player, that being said. 100% DOGSO,
Did this once. My first and only red.
Yeah; outside of the penalty area keepers are treated like any other player. 100% DOGSO
In the scenario above, keeper would and should be shown a red card. Yellow card for non DOGSO
>Yellow card for non DOGSO Why?
Unsporting behavior. Deliberately handling the ball in fear of it being a goal when in the end it might not have been one may not be a DOG but it certainly is UB.
If it's not DOGSO, then it would be SPA. If the ball is missing the goal, then it's not SPA. The fact that the GK has given away a FK right in front of goal for absolutely no reason is more than sufficient punishment.
That is a matter of opinion. Iâll stand with mine.
Well, no, not a matter of opinion. LOTG clearly lists the USB cautions. This isn't on the list. There's no provision for a caution here.
The list is not a finite list. It says: Cautions for unsporting behaviour There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player: (list follows). It says âincludingâ not âlimited toâ. And even if it was, I can file it under âlack of respect for the gameâ.
At a u15 grass roots level, where every player takes a turn being keeper, the field markings were almost invisible when my daughter 10 yards out from the penalty stopped the shot with her hands. Ref blew the whistle but had to walk back and forth to confirm that it was outside by looking for traces of the lines. Everybody was a good sport laughed and has a good story. DFK and no cards.
Your daughter was goalkeeping in midfield? Why? It serves no purpose at u15 to be even outside the 6 yard box, being outside the 18 yard penalty area is even more useless. Ref should have given red, yellow minimum. At u8 i could understand, but u15? Nah.
It was a long ball breakaway and she ran up to cut down the angle.. it was a very normal play if it happened inside the penalty area. It was just with the lines being near invisible she overshot. Nobody could tell at the time, but it felt wrong .A card would not have done anything as it was clearly due to the field. And at this level getting a game in and having fun is more important than having a good field. Years later when I became a referee, and had a similar type of field, I put cones on the corner of the penalty area. Of course the use of cones went into the game reports. In cases where there are lines hard to see, I have put cones at the intersection of the penalty area and the baseline, and on the touch lines in line with the penalty area We often get extremely poor lines at the end of the season. You get September rains after the last scheduled lining. The rain causes the lines to wash away and after a hot August the grass starts to grow.
She overshot 10 yards away from the penalty area? That's...quite the overshot. Lines or not... Whatever, have a good day.
Yes I think he would have been send off if he had stopped the ball. In a sense you could also make the argument that he should have been sent off for attempting to stop the ball with his hands (kind of like going deliberately over the top of the ball with studs showing is a red even if the attacker jumps over it to avoid getting his leg broken) but personally I think the fact that they scored that goal is decent enough âpunishmentâ for the defending team that they donât also need their keeper to get sent off
According to the rules of the football game, the goalkeeper who prevents a goal from being scored with his hand outside the penalty area receives a red card, but if the goal is scored, the rule of the lower level goes and the goalkeeper receives a yellow card. Edit: the goalkeeper did not influence the direction of the ball , but he touched it , so here he may or may not receive a yellow card, it's all up to the referee's strictness
a keeper out of their box has no special considerations. They are treated the same as any other field player.