A&H

goalkeeper sent off for handball - dogso?

K

Kent Ref

RefChat Addict
There seems to be this myth that EVERY ime a goalkeeper handles the ball outside the area a red card is expected.

In the following clip i cannot see a denial of a CLEAR goal or a DOGSO.

Am i missing something? 0.55 in:

www.skysports.com

Gillingham 2-2 Doncaster | League Two Highlights

Highlights of the Sky Bet League Two match between Gillingham and Doncaster.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
 
The Referee Store
Right, I can see that the keeper handballed it, but why a red card and not just a yellow? Is it because it looked like that header would have gone in, maybe?
 
The ball had only just started its trajectory when the keeper blocked it, plus the angle viewed at, so it doesn't look certain to me. Remember, the ref saw it from a very different angle than the camera and that can make a real difference to perception. There's no VAR in this game either, I believe.
 
I think anytime the goalkeeper is outside their box, all attempts on goal become an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
 
My assumption is that from the angle they the ref is at (close to behind the player) he could see that, if it hadn't been handled by the keeper, it was going into the goal. In which case a goal was denied.
 
Viridis1886 said:
My assumption is that from the angle they the ref is at (close to behind the player) he could see that, if it hadn't been handled by the keeper, it was going into the goal. In which case a goal was denied.
Click to expand...
I doubt the referee even needs to put too much thought on the trajectory, it just needs to be heading in that general direction. No need to overthink it.

The keeper thought it was clear enough to put hands on it.
 
Kent Ref said:
There seems to be this myth that EVERY ime a goalkeeper handles the ball outside the area a red card is expected.

In the following clip i cannot see a denial of a CLEAR goal or a DOGSO.

Am i missing something? 0.55 in:

www.skysports.com

Gillingham 2-2 Doncaster | League Two Highlights

Highlights of the Sky Bet League Two match between Gillingham and Doncaster.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
You’re correct in the first part of what you say, but this is a poor example, it’s a clear red card. Very strong possibility that the defenders header is going in if the keeper doesn’t handball it.
Kent ref, Gillingham game 🤔
 
I'm okay with the red card, but I'm not convinced it's as stonewall as people are saying. It certainly looks like ball heading towards the goal in below video (1:40) but it's hard to determine how much pace is on the ball and whether defender gets back. Mainly because the keeper handles it so soon after the defenders touch

 
Last edited:
Is the OP feeling okay?

Not sure how this isn't DOGSO, applying the laws of the game:

"Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)."
  • distance between the offence and the goal = 20 yards
  • general direction of the play = going towards goal
  • likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball = the ball is potentially going straight in the goal so not required
  • location and number of defenders = whilst 3 defenders, they are unlikely to get the ball if it is going in
The referee is having to make these considerations from the halfway line.

Most of all, in my opinion, the game expects a red card in this situation. As a referee, you shouldn't have to mitigate for the goalkeeper's stupidity.
 
I think the most important thing here is football expects a red card here.

I don’t think it’s DOG. It’s on target but defenders will reach it in reality.

I think the DOGSO considerations for location and number of defenders and likelihood of control are not 100% met.

But they are only considerations. Perhaps the laws cannot cover every scenario.

I think it comes down to what red card code to use. I think DOG is best here. GK stopped a shot on target at an empty goal with a handball outside the box 19yards from goal.
 
santa sangria said:
I think the most important thing here is football expects a red card here.

I don’t think it’s DOG. It’s on target but defenders will reach it in reality.

I think the DOGSO considerations for location and number of defenders and likelihood of control are not 100% met.

But they are only considerations. Perhaps the laws cannot cover every scenario.

I think it comes down to what red card code to use. I think DOG is best here. GK stopped a shot on target at an empty goal with a handball outside the box 19yards from goal.
Click to expand...
As I said in my above post, I'm comfortable with a penalty, but don't think it's as stonewall as some believe.

The bit I hate is the bit I've put in bold. I used to hear this at training events as well, and have always hated it.

Football expected NFFC to have had at least 1 penalty last week

Football expected Luis Diaz' goal to have been awarded vs Spurs

Football expected Wolves to have had a penalty against Utd

Football expected the opposite outcome to what was reached in the above examples. But the officials clearly didn't want to do what football expects. So that to me suggests it's just a useless phrase that in thrown out when we're looking for an answer.
 
santa sangria said:
I think the most important thing here is football expects a red card here.

I don’t think it’s DOG. It’s on target but defenders will reach it in reality.

I think the DOGSO considerations for location and number of defenders and likelihood of control are not 100% met.

But they are only considerations. Perhaps the laws cannot cover every scenario.

I think it comes down to what red card code to use. I think DOG is best here. GK stopped a shot on target at an empty goal with a handball outside the box 19yards from goal.
Click to expand...
I get confused in the dfference between applying the LOTG and "what the game expects".

I though the game expects a referee to apply the LOTG.

When did we go down this second option of "what the game expects"?
 
Runner Ref said:
As I said in my above post, I'm comfortable with a penalty, but don't think it's as stonewall as some believe.

The bit I hate is the bit I've put in bold. I used to hear this at training events as well, and have always hated it.

Football expected NFFC to have had at least 1 penalty last week

Football expected Luis Diaz' goal to have been awarded vs Spurs

Football expected Wolves to have had a penalty against Utd

Football expected the opposite outcome to what was reached in the above examples. But the officials clearly didn't want to do what football expects. So that to me suggests it's just a useless phrase that in thrown out when we're looking for an answer.
Click to expand...

Or maybe “what football expects” is a key concept in the LotG specifically for us to help cope with the laws not bring able to cover every situation.

At least I am comfortable with this idea when it comes to specific fouls/sanctions - classic example is sliding fullback tackle that takes ball and then a lot of player. Or here we don’t have DOG or DOGSO neatly framed for us in the book.

(I don’t like trying to apply this concept to massive howlers like the Diaz offside. I don’t think the concept is there to undo/reverse the laws as written)

3345DE4B-1750-4CF4-BBEC-35C61471C494.png
 
santa sangria said:
Or maybe “what football expects” is a key concept in the LotG specifically for us to help cope with the laws not bring able to cover every situation.

At least I am comfortable with this idea when it comes to specific fouls/sanctions - classic example is sliding fullback tackle that takes ball and then a lot of player. Or here we don’t have DOG or DOGSO neatly framed for us in the book.

(I don’t like trying to apply this concept to massive howlers like the Diaz offside. I don’t think the concept is there to undo/reverse the laws as written)

View attachment 7284
Click to expand...
That is all well and good, but if they aren't going to be consistent with it, then it doesn't really work.

The Onana one being an absolute prime example of this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top