The Ref Stop

GK throwing ball into his own net.

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

one said:
It's in law 12, the handball section. Any handling in his own PA that is illigal for a goal keeper is IFK.
Click to expand...

OK, I get that now. I think the issue I have is seeing it as a handling offence. It only becomes an offence as a result of it going into the goal.

At least I know what to do if it happens tomorrow afternoon. 👍🏻
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
And the idea is maintained even if a goal is allowed when thrown into own goal, as it is not scoring but it it is conceding.

So I don't really see any inconsistency here. Its not about a throw, its about the "touch by an opponent's hand" before a goal. And it is regardless of opponent being a goalkeeper or not.

That bit in law 10 had to be added to avoid an unwanted outcome. Otherwise a direct throw into opponent's goal by a goalkeeper would have resulted in a penalty according to law 12 (needs a bit of thinking this one).

Interesting secnario: A defender kicks the ball long from own PA. The ball brushes own goalkeeper's hand in own PA before ending up in opponets goal. What's your decision?

The secnario is just as far-fetched as keeper throwing the ball into opponent's goal.
Click to expand...
Even more interesting scenario: Keeper A throws the ball out, but it misses all outfield players and rolls into the opposition PA. Keeper B picks the ball up, goes to throw it out, but ends up throwing it into his own net as per the video in post #7. Both team's last touch was a GK's hand. What are we giving?
 
GraemeS said:
Even more interesting scenario: Keeper A throws the ball out, but it misses all outfield players and rolls into the opposition PA. Keeper B picks the ball up, goes to throw it out, but ends up throwing it into his own net as per the video in post #7. Both team's last touch was a GK's hand. What are we giving?
Click to expand...
(Own) Goal, as the ball was in play when keeper B gained possession.
 
GraemeS said:
Even more interesting scenario: Keeper A throws the ball out, but it misses all outfield players and rolls into the opposition PA. Keeper B picks the ball up, goes to throw it out, but ends up throwing it into his own net as per the video in post #7. Both team's last touch was a GK's hand. What are we giving?
Click to expand...
Yeah. It is interesting one but pretty straight forward. Own goal. Even if keeper B doesn't 'pick it up' and just touches his hand before entering goal (another 'more interesting' scenario) it's an own goal.
 
Goalkeeper mishits a goal kick towards his own goal, he's try
Ies to stop it and pushes it over the line with his hand.

Goal, or IDFK?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
bester said:
Goalkeeper mishits a goal kick towards his own goal, he's try
Ies to stop it and pushes it over the line with his hand.

Goal, or IDFK?
Click to expand...
Goal, no?
You'd play advantage effectively on the offence to benefit the non offending team.
Edit: Doubting myself on this now... as @one 's post above implies the opposite 🤣
 
RefereeX said:
Goal, no?
You'd play advantage effectively on the offence to benefit the non offending team.
Edit: Doubting myself on this now... as @one 's post above implies the opposite 🤣
Click to expand...
The issue is if you define that to be directly from a goal kick.
In the context of restarts in LOTG, direct means without touching another player.
A similar non-clarity applied to dropped ball where a goal could not be scored from it directly. They fixed that by making it touch at least two players. They never clarified it for other restarts (despite knowing the ambiguouity).
 
Last edited:
one said:
The issue is if you define that to be directly from a goal kick.
In the context of restarts in LOTG, direct means without touching another player.
A similar non-clarity applied to dropped ball where a goal could not be scored from it directly. They fixed that by making it touch at least two players. They never clarified it for other restarts (despite knowing the ambiguouity).
Click to expand...
To me directly means without any other touch from anyone, as a common sense point of view, but understand the ambiguity pointed out.
 
IFAB want it to be an IDFK. After being constantly told the law is clear and me arguing it wasn't, they tried to gaslight me with point 2 and I gave up.

"1. Laws 13, 15, 16 and 17 are clear that a goal cannot be scored by the ball going directly into the kicker’s goal.

2. Directly = must be touched by another player so the 'double touch' offence cannot be subject to advantage and a goal to be awarded"
 
bester said:
IFAB want it to be an IDFK. After being constantly told the law is clear and me arguing it wasn't, they tried to gaslight me with point 2 and I gave up.

"1. Laws 13, 15, 16 and 17 are clear that a goal cannot be scored by the ball going directly into the kicker’s goal.

2. Directly = must be touched by another player so the 'double touch' offence cannot be subject to advantage and a goal to be awarded"
Click to expand...
Haha. Point 2 is what's disputed though. It's nowhere in law and not clear. If it was clear then there would have been no need for the dropped ball law to change from "directly" to "touching at least two players". By changing that they kind of admit that "direcly" was ambiguous.

At lease they didn't 'direct' you (pun intended 😄) to "spirit of law" which is their go to when they can't explain something or admit there is a lack of clarity.


1753439195977.png
 
Last edited:
bester said:
IFAB want it to be an IDFK. After being constantly told the law is clear and me arguing it wasn't, they tried to gaslight me with point 2 and I gave up.

"1. Laws 13, 15, 16 and 17 are clear that a goal cannot be scored by the ball going directly into the kicker’s goal.

2. Directly = must be touched by another player so the 'double touch' offence cannot be subject to advantage and a goal to be awarded"
Click to expand...
Would that not cause it to theoretically be a DOGSO RC too?

GK has handled the ball to deny a goal, from a 'double touch' offence.
 
If you add that an opponent was about to tap it in just before the goalkeeper pushes it over the line then you would have a IDFK and DOGSO.
Fast way to upset both sides! Think I'd just give the goal!
 
one said:
Here is a little help😄

View attachment 8251
Click to expand...

JamesL said:
Think really long and hard about why this would not be the case. 😊
Click to expand...
I thought it would be DOGSO...

If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, 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-
 
NOVARef said:
I thought it would be DOGSO...

If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, 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-
Click to expand...
And had the GK not stopped the ball entering the goal via 2nd touch what would the restart have been?
 
JamesL said:
And had the GK not stopped the ball entering the goal via 2nd touch what would the restart have been?
Click to expand...
In this situation described above, the opponent would have tapped the ball into the goal. If the opponent was not threatening to score and the ball just trickled in, the restart would be a corner kick. But in this case, the GK handled the ball after a restart before it touched another player to deny an opponent an obvious goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top