A&H

Sweeper Keeper

G

gvu_ref

Member
yesterday in my open league game a situation arose and my decision was questioned by a couple players.

firstly i will say, i never really like it when a player asks for another player to be carded. and it makes me even less likely to actually get a card out if im on the fence.

situation; long ball over the top, striker is kind of in. keeper is approaching him outside the box. striker holds it up for a few seconds, and the chance is disappearing quickly. whilst this is happening a CB and the LB are now closer to their goal line than the keeper (in good defensive positions). keeper goes to genuinely challenge the striker for the ball, of course gets none of it and fouls the striker. a genuine challenge to play the ball, just careless timing and clumsy.

my decision is free kick, and NO yellow card for the keeper.

on reflection, i agree and disagree with myself.
if it had of been a CB making the challenge i wouldn't of given a yellow, but then the goalie would of been in goal making the chance even harder.
but because its the keeper making the challenge (and he was out of position, giving the chance slightly more potential) there was an expectation from a few players i think that it should have been a caution to the goalie.
there was no obvious goal scoring opportunity, it was never a round the keeper and tap-in situation.

in hindsight, i think it should have been a yellow? but maybe not?

the other caveat (that i think shouldn't matter, but maybe does play a part - spirit of the game?); they were a nice bunch of lads, it was quite a calm game, no handbags or aggro.

so i guess my question is, if the keeper commits a foul, is it automatically a caution/sending off?
and any feedback on my decision welcome.
 
The Referee Store
It isn't an automatic caution or send off, but what you need to consider is that the defenders that have got back can't use their hands. You therefore need to ask yourself given this whether the foul by the keeper stopped a promising attack, or denied an OGSO. I'd probably struggle to not caution here as that is what the game expects as the foul has prevented an attempt on goal with no one able to defend it with their hands.
 
Keeper is just another player who can use hands inside PA.

I think you answered your own question re sanction. At least a SPA caution for me from your description.

'spirit of the game'? I wouldn't put it that way. The phrase used is, did the game need a caution? Only you can answer that question. But it sounds like it did from player reactions.
 
Feels like a 'promising attack' so could easily sell a caution. But it's a strange scenario and one of those where you take it as a learning point and move on!
 
I'm struggling to see how what is described isn't at least a promising attack. And given that the defenders can't use their hands, potentially a OGSO.
 
How can it be a DOGSO when we witnessed a EPL striker miss from 7yrds with just a defender to beat? YC for me
 
  • Haha
Reactions: es1
gman1978 said:
How can it be a DOGSO when we witnessed a EPL striker miss from 7yrds with just a defender to beat? YC for me
Click to expand...

You’re slightly misreading the situation. In this scenario he squandered the opportunity . The failure to score doesn’t negate the fact that it was an obvious chance.

We only talk about an obvious goal being denied when a defender deliberately handles on the line to prevent the goal being scored.
 
Since the foul was 'careless', no card.

If two defenders are closer to the goalline, the keeper is basically a field player playing defense.

The 4 P's aren't met. Direction to goal, distance to goal, distance to ball, number of defenders. Number of defenders are 3.

That leaves tactical. Was it? Switch the keeper with a field player and same foul. Tactical? Maybe or maybe not.
 
Tim - 2013 said:
Since the foul was 'careless', no card.
If two defenders are closer to the goalline, the keeper is basically a field player playing defense.
Click to expand...
Except there is no GK able to use hands, which is a huge difference.
The 4 P's aren't met. Direction to goal, distance to goal, distance to ball, number of defenders. Number of defenders are 3.
Click to expand...
Well, no. That's not proper analysis. The LOTG say nothing about 3 defenders mean it can't be DOGSO--it says the considerations include the position and number of defenders. We look a the defenders other than the one committing the foul. So we have 2 defenders, neither of whom is the GK. Two non-GKs is not necessarily a bar to DOGSO and is not the same as a defender and a GK. (Indeed, one other defender and the GK is not necessarily a bar, but generally would defeat the obviousness of a GSO, depending on location.)

I'm not saying the described scenario was definitely DOGSO, but it might have been depending on the details we don't have.
That leaves tactical. Was it? Switch the keeper with a field player and same foul. Tactical? Maybe or maybe not.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I think we should avoid the word tactical, as it implies a "tactic" or intent by the defender, which was taken out of Law 12. The caution is simply for a foul that has the effect of interfering with or stopping a promising attack. As described in the OP, it might have been an OGSO, but if not it is really hard to see how that is not at least a promising attack.
 
Tim - 2013 said:
Since the foul was 'careless', no card.

If two defenders are closer to the goalline, the keeper is basically a field player playing defense.

The 4 P's aren't met. Direction to goal, distance to goal, distance to ball, number of defenders. Number of defenders are 3.

That leaves tactical. Was it? Switch the keeper with a field player and same foul. Tactical? Maybe or maybe not.
Click to expand...
As it stopped a promising attack, a caution is the correct outcome, as per Law 12
 
socal lurker said:
I'm struggling to see how what is described isn't at least a promising attack. And given that the defenders can't use their hands, potentially a OGSO.
Click to expand...
We would need to know if striker was actually moving towards goal when fouled for the DOGSO criteria to be judged, op says striker 'held it up', that COULD mean he has his back to goal, if that's case then it can't be DOGSO, obviously.
 
Thankyou all for the healthy debate on this. I think it was maybe my mistake. I should have given yellow card with reason being “foul for careless tackle that has stopped a promising attack.”
But in my view it was just an “attack” there wasn’t much “promising” about it.

Only concern I have with this decision, is if the exact same thing happened again I would feel extremely harsh sending the keeper off for it.

In general I don’t like to yellow card keepers because it puts you in a position where if the first yellow is kind of soft, (which I believe this one would of been, if I had given the card) you set yourself up for having to be consistent and possibly dishing out another soft one and giving them their marching orders. And potentially spoiling the game.

One of those grey areas I guess. the “player” in me wants to keep 22 players on the pitch instead of robotically applying laws when it can maybe be argued either way.
 
socal lurker said:
I think that is a dangerous perspective to take into games at the grass roots level. (Professional "events" are just a different animal.) Sanction what deserves to be sanctioned--it's on the players to not do the things that deserve to be sanctioned.
Click to expand...
I feel like you aren’t appreciating the whole scenario. “Sanction what deserves to be sanctioned” yes completely agree, if the goalie had flew in recklessly yes yellow card, but what happens when you can argue either way for worthy of a caution or not quite. for overall match control an “unjust” sending off riles up the team who feel have been treated unfairly. More so at grass roots open league because if you lose control they just do not care for discipline. Yes it’s on the players, but sometimes things happen that aren’t clear cut.
 
gvu_ref said:
I feel like you aren’t appreciating the whole scenario. “Sanction what deserves to be sanctioned” yes completely agree, if the goalie had flew in recklessly yes yellow card, but what happens when you can argue either way for worthy of a caution or not quite. for overall match control an “unjust” sending off riles up the team who feel have been treated unfairly. More so at grass roots open league because if you lose control they just do not care for discipline. Yes it’s on the players, but sometimes things happen that aren’t clear cut.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand my post. I didn't say anything remotely close to giving unjust send offs or never managing on the could be/might not be cautions. I said that "the 'player' in me wants to keep 22 players on the pitch" is a dangerous perspective to take because it can lead to not cautioning things that need to be cautioned as it leads to looking excuses to not give cautions or send offs.
 
I think this is one where player reactions will help you. If I was playing (and the clock had been rolled back 20 years😄) I would be telling the referee it has to be a red card, using the argument the defenders can't use their hands. But if none of the attacking players are complaining a yellow card might be the easiest way out.
 
The transition of mindset from "what would I want as a player?" to "As a referee, what do I need to do?" is one of the biggest steps that a former player going into refereeing needs to make.

It's fine using your experience to have understanding and empathy, however it's an easy trap to fall into, when you start saying "if I was a player, I'd want <x> to happen here."

99% of players react as they do because they don't know the laws, as a referee, the laws are your bread and butter and you have to apply them, even if it's unpopular. Example are numerous including not sending players off because "it wasn't that type of game" or "the team was losing 8-0 already"
 
Justylove said:
The transition of mindset from "what would I want as a player?" to "As a referee, what do I need to do?" is one of the biggest steps that a former player going into refereeing needs to make.

It's fine using your experience to have understanding and empathy, however it's an easy trap to fall into, when you start saying "if I was a player, I'd want <x> to happen here."

99% of players react as they do because they don't know the laws, as a referee, the laws are your bread and butter and you have to apply them, even if it's unpopular. Example are numerous including not sending players off because "it wasn't that type of game" or "the team was losing 8-0 already"
Click to expand...

Agree, my point was more around if you are torn between yellow and red. If it is obvious then you make the decision based on your initial view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top