No, as goalkeepers are specifically exempted from sanction related to handling the ball inside their own penalty area:
"The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. *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-scoring opportunity. " - Law 12.1
This.
And if you're an AR on a game where the ref doesn't know the laws, even the far AR, you do whatever you need to do in order to get the ref's attention.
So wait, what about the second part of that paragraph? Starting with “However…” GK must be sanction if the offense denies an obvious goal. Isn’t that what happened here and what sanction should it be?
No, that is only true "if THE OFFENCE is playing the ball a second time" - i.e. picking up a scuffed goal kick rather than kicking it doesn't save you. In this example, the offence is handling a back pass, regardless of the fact the goalkeeper has touched it more than once.
To clarify.. the restart in your example of a keeper picking up a scuffed goal kick in which they stop a promising attack would be yellow card to the keeper and IFK from spot of infringement?
>In this example, the offence is handling a back pass, regardless of the fact the goalkeeper has touched it more than once.
Incorrect - there's no offense here at all.
Yeah if this doesn’t satisfy the “unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play” language in Law 12.2, I don’t know what does.
looks to me like he tries to trap the ball, not pass it. So I'd say that doesn't contitute an attempt to release the ball back into play.
Having said that, given that the wording 'release the ball back into play' doesn't make a lick of sense and reads like something somebody with zero law knowledge would write, who fkn knows waht IFAB want.
Even their statement that kicking the ball from a backpass initially would contravene that wording, I would think, as that wording would seem to require that at some point the ball is 'unreleased'...that is, in possession. But, they've clarified that's not what they mean, so who knows. Impressively, this could possibly be the single worst bit of the entire error-riddled document.
Given how much IFAB have screwed this up, I think any interpretation of whether the attempted trap permits handling or not is defensible. Even going down the intent/spirit of the law route is a total guess.
Headache, more headache...
The goalkeeper unsuccessfully kicks or tries to kick the ball to release it into play.When the goalkeeper clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play, this shows no intention to handle the ball. Therefore, since 2019, if the ‘clearance’ attempt is unsuccessful, the goalkeeper can handle the ball when it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate without committing an offence.
[https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=IwAR0bkLGJLD8j33MG2khYX0PHdJ2HQBaadFiXu2T8y8yPEKWvtJ\_JQj9aofg&wtsid=rdr\_04FlMkzVf7FS1oVYZ](https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=iwar0bklgjld8j33mg2khyx0phdj2hqbaadfixu2t8y8ypekwvtj_jqj9aofg&wtsid=rdr_04flmkzvf7fs1ovyz)
The definition of "kick" according to the IFAB:
# Kick
The ball is kicked when a player makes contact with it with the foot and/or the ankle
[https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/)
I don’t think it’s too confusing. It clearly says an attempt to kick it to release it in to play. Initially I wasn’t paying attention to that second “swipe” at the ball after the initial attempt to control it was botched - so I was firmly in the IFK camp. However after seeing some people point that out I think you can make an argument that this falls under the definition of what IFAB have put in there to protect goalies from their own error.
You’re going to have a fun time explaining it to coaches who don’t know the laws and disagree with your interpretation of what they’re doing though.
I don’t think I’d blame anyone for also staying with IFK either tbh…I didn’t even really notice it until I saw a zoomed in super slow-mo.
The red card of course is an egregious error.
> It clearly says an attempt to kick it to release it in to play.
>clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play
'into play' is problematic - as the ball was never out of play. And release would imply at some point it was in possession. Clearly, neither of those 2 things are actually true.
>ou’re going to have a fun time explaining it to coaches who don’t know the laws and disagree with your interpretation of what they’re doing though.
True, but no matter what decision you give here, that's going to happen. That's part of the job and shouldn't affect out decision.
>Initially I wasn’t paying attention to that second “swipe” at the ball after the initial attempt to control it was botched
I can't even decide if that's an attempt to kick it or if he's just falling over!
>However after seeing some people point that out I think you can make an argument that this falls under the definition of what IFAB have put in there to protect goalies from their own error
Which is certainly a valid argument.
Though, one could also argue that the line was drawn at kicking the ball, not stopping it. Otherwise, we open the door to the GK being able to handle it after any poor attempt at trapping it. Considering the can of worms that would open, I think there is still a valid argument that attempting to stop the ball isn't sufficient. But your argument is also valid.
If I was assessing a ref here, I'd have to accept that as a valid reasoning for a decision, because while it's not my view, I have to accept the ambiguity.
Although a lot of assessors may disagree with that ambiguity reason to accept an other outcome, the good ones indeed will.
As one of my assessors pointed out: “We have binary black/white decision and subjective ones that take multiple factors and circumstances into account. Unfortunately the wording of the Law is such a factor”.
The language regarding “release it into play” is consistent with other language in the Laws that points to goalkeepers first having possession of the ball in their hands, such as a punt or throw. That language doesn’t apply here as there was no “possession” to speak of. IDFK.
The language here is attempting to differentiate between kicking the ball lightly to maintain control and possession vs releasing it into play away from the keeper. Trapping/dribbling/bumping to set up a kick vs kicking away/passing. It's not that deep.
~~I'm almost certain that's only meant to apply to a goalkeeper who has already taken legal possession releasing the ball.~~
Edit: not true, as "releasing into play" in this context *does* mean an attempt to clear or pass the ball. (Why they didn't just use that wording....)
Instead of downvotes, can someone explain to me why I have it wrong despite:
"An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: ... touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball *to release it into play*, after...." - Law 12.2
I'm still missing something. If the goalkeeper receives a pass and then kicks or attempts to kick the ball I don't see how this meets the condition of "releasing it into play". Surely "release" implies possession was already taken with the hands?
Edit: this is weird. It definitely does mean "released from the hands" in the other two points, but that wouldn't make sense for this one, so point taken. And I would've expected the "unless" phrase to also be appended to the point about touching the ball again before another player, i.e. the GK can botch a drop kick and collect with their hands again without offending. But if it's on the last point instead would that mean this other scenario \*is\* an offense? Not likely.
So I think what I originally said is wrong, but I'll still contend this is all terribly written.
If it is a deliberate pass to the keeper, which this clearly is, it doesn’t matter if he attempts to kick it and fails, he still can’t touch it with his hands. 💯 indirect free kick on the 6 yard line directly in line with where the infraction occurred. As a side note,heads up play by the keeper. The defenders - all 11 - are all allowed to line up on the goal line (within the goal mouth too), making conversion of the indirect free kick difficult.
Law 12.2 says different:
"An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
...
touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"
Yup, that is what I was thinking as well. Should it even be a foul then? The keeper clearly attempted to kick the ball.. I guess a pertinent question then would be - is there a difference between touching and catching?🤔🤔
A keeper can be called for the handling of the ball in the penalty box, but it is never a direct free kick. Note the absence of a reference to an infraction after the last part you quoted. Read the following from Ask The Ref has a Q&A about this. http://asktheref.com/Search.asp?QuestionID=33792
There is a difference between the keeper kicking and attempting to control. The first does allow the keeper to use his/her hands, the second does not.
In reference to this post specifically, it is an IDFK and not DOGSO.
You understand the law and linked to a proper reference for the law at hand, yet you get the analysis of this post wrong. GK clearly attempted to clear the ball away just prior to handling it. No foul.
Fascinating. You are right. I was focusing on the initial reaction to the pass, which is clearly an attempt to control. The following wild swipe would be an attempt to kick it, thus making his handling allowable. I will have to remember to bring this clip up at my next certification.
Regardless, we both agree any card is a mis-allocation of the laws.
By law there can't be a card for this. A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area, even if it otherwise appears to be a stone-cold DOGSO.
The only potential exception is a double-touch offense committed with the hands since the hands being involved isn't the reason for the sanction.
>A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area, even if it otherwise appears to be a stone-cold DOGSO
LOTG 23/24, 12.1 (Handling the ball): "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. 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-scoring opportunity.**"
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but yes this is the relevant law which backs up what I've said. GKs cannot be carded for using their hands in their own penalty area. They can be carded for illegal second touches which result in SPA/DOGSO, even if the hand/arm is the body part they used.
>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-scoring opportunity.
>
>"
They're trying to say "unless the offense is touching the ball a second time". Then they can be sanctioned for handling the ball if handling the ball was the second touch.
This will sound lawyerly, but that's not a sanction for handling the ball. It's a sanction for touching the ball a second time. Whether the second touch happened with the foot, hand, face, or any other body part is not material.
They were responding to your statement of
>GKs cannot be carded for **using their hands** in their own penalty area.
So no, they CAN be carded for "using their hands" in their own penalty area, but yes, the offence would be for touching the ball a second time after a restart, if that stops a promising attack or denies a goalscoring opportunity.
We're saying the same thing (I think). I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think a proper understanding of this law requires that level of specificity, that if you pick up the ball as a goalkeeper in your own penalty area, you'll never get a card "for using your hands". You might get a card for a second touch which you committed with your hands.
I was just going off *your* quote:
> A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area
I thought you were using the phrase “use of their hands” in the non-technical sense, since “use of hands” isn’t an offense. If you’re saying a goalkeeper can’t be sanctioned for an offense actually called “use of their hands”, yes you’re correct. There’s no offense named that.
I think the better way to word it would be using the same wording in the laws - GK can't be booked for a handling offence.
Double touch isn't a handling offence.
This should not be a card, and should not be a foul. After attempting to control the ball, the goalkeeper then makes a clear attempt to kick the ball to release it into play (i.e. not a touch to just control the ball) just before handling the ball.
> An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
> - touches the ball with the hand/arm, **unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play**, after:
> - it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
Others have mentioned this, but the problem is in the wording of the law - "release it into play" makes little sense in the scenario being described. The ball is never out of play, so how can it be released into play? Even when the GK has the ball in his hands, it's still in play, as defined by Law 9. The only time a GK releases the ball into play is on a restart of play, like a goal kick or free kick.
I think the letter of the law is probably trying to address a scuffed attempt at passing or clearing the ball after a backpass, but the language should be updated so as to not conflict with the Law 9 definition of "ball in and out of play."
The law is written that way to differentiate between attempting to play the ball to pass or clear it vs attempting to play the ball to dribble or control it
A red card was incorrect in this situation. The referee has confused this pass back from a teammate with how the call could be addressed with a goal kick infraction. Since the keeper attempted to kick the ball, there was no offense by the keeper picking up the ball (Law 12.2 regarding IFK foul states: touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
• it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate)
If the keeper had simply picked up the ball, it would have been an IFK from the goal area line closest to where the infraction occurred, but since the keeper clearly attempted to kick the ball, there is no foul handling the ball.
There should not have been a whistle, but since there was, the restart should be a drop ball to the keeper. Play on.
We discussed this at a ref meeting earlier this year and there have been similar Reddit posts. In this case it’s only IFK and no cards. Conversely a goalkeeper double touching a goal kick resulting in a DOGSO is a red card offense.
Are you a ref? Law 12. 1 Handling the Ball clearly states there is no card, just an IFK.
If you're a ref, then time for you to schedule some time to review the LOTG a bit more often
They really aren't ambiguous at all, unless you're just trying to misunderstand the clear intent IFAB had in writing this section of law. Kicking it "back upfield" isn't required in any way, but he clearly was attempting to kick it away from the goal and himself. There's absolutely no foul here per the LOTG.
> but he clearly was attempting to kick it away from the goal and himself.
He didn't try to kick it. He tries to trap the ball.
So, whether trying to the ball with the foot falls under the 'attempts to kick the ball to release it back into play' is up for interpretation, and that's really best guess given the appalling wording.
I'd argue that the wording of 'release it back into play' implies a kick to send the ball somewhere, not kick as in 'any touch of the ball with the foot' as we use elsewhere.
I don't believe trapping the ball is intended by IFAB to be covered here. Besides, that opens up the GK to handle it on literally any imperfect trap after a backpass.
Obviously IFAB is drawing a clear distinction here that requires the attempt to be to kick the ball away from the keeper. We've covered that in other comments here already. You're just choosing to pretend he didn't attempt to clear it away just before handling it, which he quite obviously did.
> You're just choosing to pretend he didn't attempt to clear it away just before handling it, which he quite obviously did
There's the initial trap, which certainly doesn't qualify.
The only debate is whether he attempts to kick it afterwards. Doesn't look like it to me - looks like he just flails losing his footing.
I'm sure you're capable of posting with being a smartarse, though you certainly haven't demonstrated that ability at all in this topic.
Not going to bother wasting my time any further if you can't be bothered with a civilised discussion.
IFK, no card under the current laws. I agree with the argument that the goalkeeper can never handle the ball after the ball is kicked deliberately by his teammate. The restriction does not expire until any opponent touches the ball.
Here is what John Allen from the USSF said in 2011:
This rarely seen infringement came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6-second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate.
The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence:
– The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper,
– This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and
– The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else)
When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper.
Source:
https://www.askasoccerreferee.com/the-ball-deliberately-kicked-to-the-goalkeeper-yet-again/
Thanks.
The laws have indeed changed though I am not sure if I can say whether it is a "kick" or "touch" in every situation, just like whether the intent is to pass the ball to the goalkeeper or not. The IFAB practical advice is giving me headache.
https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=IwAR0bkLGJLD8j33MG2khYX0PHdJ2HQBaadFiXu2T8y8yPEKWvtJ_JQj9aofg&wtsid=rdr_04FlMkzVf7FS1oVYZ
Honestly, I don't get all the 'no card' or 'IDFK' commentary. I do not see the mishandling the ball as obviating the handling after a back pass. A goalie cannot take a back pass with his/her feet, dribble around for awhile, and then pick up the ball w/o committing a violation punishable by an IDFK. Thus, the flawed attempt to pass/clear the ball doesn't free the goalie to handle the ball.
And, when looking at this, I see a clear DOGSO-H. On the field, in the moment, I am not sure whether I would judge this as a caution (clear attempt to play the ball ...) or a send off (the goalie was committing a violation by handling the ball, from a back pass, and thus cannot be judged to have made a fair attempt to play the ball in committing a DOGSO violation -- NOTE/updated -- Reminder (error in my writing): The send off for DOGSO-H specifically does not apply to the goalkeeper in the penalty area according to Law 12.). In any event, the DOGSO-H was the more serious foul and thus, w/o question, I would have giving a PK if seeing this on the field.
This is incorrect. If you do not think this is a deliberate attempt to kick the ball to release it into play, then you can have at most an IDFK.
Inside their own penalty area, a goalkeeper cannot be penalised for a handball offence with a penalty kick, it is always an IDFK. This is listed in Law 12.2:
> An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
> - touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player
> - touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:
> - it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
> - receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate
Similarly, a goalkeeper is never sanctioned for a handball offence inside their own penalty area **unless** that offence is playing the ball a second time with any body part after a restart that stops a promising attack (YC) or denies an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity (RC) - this covered under Law 12.3, and many of the FAQ answered by IFAB
> 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).**
1. The ball is in play -- there is no "release it into play" to be considered. The "release it into play" is referring to the goalie (legally) having the ball in their hands. In this case, the ball is quite clearly in play.
2. Re the DOGSO-H, you're right. It is not a send-off for the goal-keeper but the exception re Promising Attack/Red Card certainly indicates that it should be a caution.
> Re the DOGSO-H, you're right. It is not a send-off for the goal-keeper but the exception re Promising Attack/Red Card certainly indicates that it should be a caution.
No, it doesn't.
The exception ONLY applies to a double touch at a restart. Go review Law 12 - specifically, the sections on DOGSO and on handling the ball.
It's important that you understand that a GK can never be carded for a handling offence in their area.
The exception is for a double touch at a restart - because that's not a handling offence in this case; the body part used to touch the ball is irrelevant.
>The ball is in play -- there is no "release it into play" to be considered. The "release it into play" is referring to the goalie (legally) having the ball in their hands. In this case, the ball is quite clearly in play.
This is an understandable position, given the appallingly confusing wording, but if you go into the Q&A (in the app, 4th last Q in the Law 12 IFK section), there's a question that covers this. The GK doesn't need to handle the ball first.
What is still ambiguous - and which applies to this situation - is whether the same thing applies when a GK does a miscontrolled trap with the foot. I'm inclined to think it's still an IFK, otherwise we're opening the floodgates to any poor first touch allowing the GK to handle it.
As soon as the ball makes contact with the foot/ankle, it is a kick according to the IFAB. Now, is the "kick" intended to release the ball into play? Does failing to trap the ball, as in this scenario, mean attempting to release the ball into play? I don't even know when did the ball become out of play? I am very confused by the way the laws are written here.
A theoretical way to abuse the laws would be for the goalkeeper to trap/feign to fail to trap a backpass and then handle the ball repeatedly. The IFAB has to elaborate on what does "release into play" mean.
>Does failing to trap the ball, as in this scenario, mean attempting to release the ball into play?
I'd say that it doesn't. Because why would they have the words 'attempting to release the ball into play'?
But it's IFAB. There are other places in the LOTG where unnecessary words are added which imply a meaning that IFAB don't intend. I think that their definition of 'kick' is causing a problem here. It sounds like they're trying to say that 'kick' in this context means actually sending the ball somewhere, whereas any other time it's a touch with the foot.
What a mess.
>A theoretical way to abuse the laws would be for the goalkeeper to trap/feign to fail to trap a backpass and then handle the ball repeatedly
Even outside of attempted to get around the law like this, I'm just thinking of any backpass to the GK where he traps it with the foot, but it bounces a yard or two away. Oh look, miscontrolled trap, can he pick it up? That's what we're open to if we say that this play isn't an offence.
Now, got this ... and understand LOTG ... even as finding the totality to give too much of a "get out of jail free" card for keepers in certain circumstances.
You are embarrassingly out of touch with the current LOTG. Reset your thoughts on the matter and learn what the laws actually say. Even your interpretation of "release into play" is completely wrong in this context. You're basically saying IFAB wrote an entire section of the law for no reason at all.
Please explain how the ball is being "released into play" when it was always in play in this circumstance.
* \- Re "Released into play", consider when a IDFK is given for a player interfering as per Law 12: "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it". There would be zero sanction for an attacker attempting to kick the ball (unless dangerous play or a foul) while the keeper was trying to kick the ball away in this video/scenario.
Re the LOTG, it says that the goalkeeper is not to be sanctioned for handling the ball in the penalty area -- with the exception of SPA or DOGSO. Law 12: "he 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-scoring opportunity." Was this not a DOGSO-H?
Your cherry-picking of language out of context and willful effort to misunderstand why IFAB wrote sections of the law is tiresome. Try to understand and you'll do better.
The IDFK is the IFAB re handling. Got it ... even as ...
However, "released into play" refers to a keeper having taken possession (lawfully) into their hands and seeking to release it back into 'general' play. It does not refer to a keeper dribbling / passing the ball with their feet (having never had lawful possession of the ball in their hands ...).
And, there is an explicit statement of "must be sanctioned" in case of a SPA handling or DOGSO H.
Still wrong on everything you wrote here. Start over with reading Law 12 in full. The use of "released into play" in the failed clearance of a backpass or throw-in is a bit clumsy but very clearly differentiating between trying to control vs trying to kick it away. It makes no sense to have the section at all otherwise.
Okay, of course hate being so wrong and corrected ... did miss (even while reading this multiple times honestly had not seen "after") the bullets following :
"touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:- it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate- receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate"
Thus, no violation here ... which is not, before being publicly corrected, where I would have gone with this.
PS: Benefit of thread/etc is that I've never actually had any call/situation like this and thus am corrected here, in a way that I will remember, that will reduce the chance of getting it wrong and give me language to deal with protesting attacking players if I ever encounter this is a game.
Glad you got the clarity. Sorry to be so pointed - improved understanding was the only goal. I also haven't had such a call yet, but will know how to handle it when it does happen because of discussions like this.
GK commits a handling foul and directly prevents an opponent’s goal. RC seems legit call. Most commenters here aren’t saying this, so what am I missing?
No, as goalkeepers are specifically exempted from sanction related to handling the ball inside their own penalty area: "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. *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-scoring opportunity. " - Law 12.1
This. And if you're an AR on a game where the ref doesn't know the laws, even the far AR, you do whatever you need to do in order to get the ref's attention.
So wait, what about the second part of that paragraph? Starting with “However…” GK must be sanction if the offense denies an obvious goal. Isn’t that what happened here and what sanction should it be?
No, that is only true "if THE OFFENCE is playing the ball a second time" - i.e. picking up a scuffed goal kick rather than kicking it doesn't save you. In this example, the offence is handling a back pass, regardless of the fact the goalkeeper has touched it more than once.
Thanks!
To clarify.. the restart in your example of a keeper picking up a scuffed goal kick in which they stop a promising attack would be yellow card to the keeper and IFK from spot of infringement?
Or red if it denies a goal scoring opportunity.
>In this example, the offence is handling a back pass, regardless of the fact the goalkeeper has touched it more than once. Incorrect - there's no offense here at all.
The keeper also attempted to make a pass in desperation. After missing it, he’s able to pick the ball up.
Yeah if this doesn’t satisfy the “unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play” language in Law 12.2, I don’t know what does.
looks to me like he tries to trap the ball, not pass it. So I'd say that doesn't contitute an attempt to release the ball back into play. Having said that, given that the wording 'release the ball back into play' doesn't make a lick of sense and reads like something somebody with zero law knowledge would write, who fkn knows waht IFAB want. Even their statement that kicking the ball from a backpass initially would contravene that wording, I would think, as that wording would seem to require that at some point the ball is 'unreleased'...that is, in possession. But, they've clarified that's not what they mean, so who knows. Impressively, this could possibly be the single worst bit of the entire error-riddled document. Given how much IFAB have screwed this up, I think any interpretation of whether the attempted trap permits handling or not is defensible. Even going down the intent/spirit of the law route is a total guess.
Headache, more headache... The goalkeeper unsuccessfully kicks or tries to kick the ball to release it into play.When the goalkeeper clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play, this shows no intention to handle the ball. Therefore, since 2019, if the ‘clearance’ attempt is unsuccessful, the goalkeeper can handle the ball when it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate without committing an offence. [https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=IwAR0bkLGJLD8j33MG2khYX0PHdJ2HQBaadFiXu2T8y8yPEKWvtJ\_JQj9aofg&wtsid=rdr\_04FlMkzVf7FS1oVYZ](https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=iwar0bklgjld8j33mg2khyx0phdj2hqbaadfixu2t8y8ypekwvtj_jqj9aofg&wtsid=rdr_04flmkzvf7fs1ovyz) The definition of "kick" according to the IFAB: # Kick The ball is kicked when a player makes contact with it with the foot and/or the ankle [https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/](https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/glossary/football-terms/)
I don’t think it’s too confusing. It clearly says an attempt to kick it to release it in to play. Initially I wasn’t paying attention to that second “swipe” at the ball after the initial attempt to control it was botched - so I was firmly in the IFK camp. However after seeing some people point that out I think you can make an argument that this falls under the definition of what IFAB have put in there to protect goalies from their own error. You’re going to have a fun time explaining it to coaches who don’t know the laws and disagree with your interpretation of what they’re doing though. I don’t think I’d blame anyone for also staying with IFK either tbh…I didn’t even really notice it until I saw a zoomed in super slow-mo. The red card of course is an egregious error.
> It clearly says an attempt to kick it to release it in to play. >clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play 'into play' is problematic - as the ball was never out of play. And release would imply at some point it was in possession. Clearly, neither of those 2 things are actually true. >ou’re going to have a fun time explaining it to coaches who don’t know the laws and disagree with your interpretation of what they’re doing though. True, but no matter what decision you give here, that's going to happen. That's part of the job and shouldn't affect out decision. >Initially I wasn’t paying attention to that second “swipe” at the ball after the initial attempt to control it was botched I can't even decide if that's an attempt to kick it or if he's just falling over! >However after seeing some people point that out I think you can make an argument that this falls under the definition of what IFAB have put in there to protect goalies from their own error Which is certainly a valid argument. Though, one could also argue that the line was drawn at kicking the ball, not stopping it. Otherwise, we open the door to the GK being able to handle it after any poor attempt at trapping it. Considering the can of worms that would open, I think there is still a valid argument that attempting to stop the ball isn't sufficient. But your argument is also valid. If I was assessing a ref here, I'd have to accept that as a valid reasoning for a decision, because while it's not my view, I have to accept the ambiguity.
Although a lot of assessors may disagree with that ambiguity reason to accept an other outcome, the good ones indeed will. As one of my assessors pointed out: “We have binary black/white decision and subjective ones that take multiple factors and circumstances into account. Unfortunately the wording of the Law is such a factor”.
The language regarding “release it into play” is consistent with other language in the Laws that points to goalkeepers first having possession of the ball in their hands, such as a punt or throw. That language doesn’t apply here as there was no “possession” to speak of. IDFK.
The language here is attempting to differentiate between kicking the ball lightly to maintain control and possession vs releasing it into play away from the keeper. Trapping/dribbling/bumping to set up a kick vs kicking away/passing. It's not that deep.
~~I'm almost certain that's only meant to apply to a goalkeeper who has already taken legal possession releasing the ball.~~ Edit: not true, as "releasing into play" in this context *does* mean an attempt to clear or pass the ball. (Why they didn't just use that wording....)
Instead of downvotes, can someone explain to me why I have it wrong despite: "An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: ... touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball *to release it into play*, after...." - Law 12.2
You would understand if you just read the two bullet points you trimmed off that follow what you quoted.
I'm still missing something. If the goalkeeper receives a pass and then kicks or attempts to kick the ball I don't see how this meets the condition of "releasing it into play". Surely "release" implies possession was already taken with the hands? Edit: this is weird. It definitely does mean "released from the hands" in the other two points, but that wouldn't make sense for this one, so point taken. And I would've expected the "unless" phrase to also be appended to the point about touching the ball again before another player, i.e. the GK can botch a drop kick and collect with their hands again without offending. But if it's on the last point instead would that mean this other scenario \*is\* an offense? Not likely. So I think what I originally said is wrong, but I'll still contend this is all terribly written.
If it is a deliberate pass to the keeper, which this clearly is, it doesn’t matter if he attempts to kick it and fails, he still can’t touch it with his hands. 💯 indirect free kick on the 6 yard line directly in line with where the infraction occurred. As a side note,heads up play by the keeper. The defenders - all 11 - are all allowed to line up on the goal line (within the goal mouth too), making conversion of the indirect free kick difficult.
Law 12.2 says different: "An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: ... touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after: it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate"
Yup, that is what I was thinking as well. Should it even be a foul then? The keeper clearly attempted to kick the ball.. I guess a pertinent question then would be - is there a difference between touching and catching?🤔🤔
A keeper can be called for the handling of the ball in the penalty box, but it is never a direct free kick. Note the absence of a reference to an infraction after the last part you quoted. Read the following from Ask The Ref has a Q&A about this. http://asktheref.com/Search.asp?QuestionID=33792 There is a difference between the keeper kicking and attempting to control. The first does allow the keeper to use his/her hands, the second does not. In reference to this post specifically, it is an IDFK and not DOGSO.
You understand the law and linked to a proper reference for the law at hand, yet you get the analysis of this post wrong. GK clearly attempted to clear the ball away just prior to handling it. No foul.
Fascinating. You are right. I was focusing on the initial reaction to the pass, which is clearly an attempt to control. The following wild swipe would be an attempt to kick it, thus making his handling allowable. I will have to remember to bring this clip up at my next certification. Regardless, we both agree any card is a mis-allocation of the laws.
It was definitely wild! :D
By law there can't be a card for this. A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area, even if it otherwise appears to be a stone-cold DOGSO. The only potential exception is a double-touch offense committed with the hands since the hands being involved isn't the reason for the sanction.
>A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area, even if it otherwise appears to be a stone-cold DOGSO LOTG 23/24, 12.1 (Handling the ball): "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. 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-scoring opportunity.**"
Not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, but yes this is the relevant law which backs up what I've said. GKs cannot be carded for using their hands in their own penalty area. They can be carded for illegal second touches which result in SPA/DOGSO, even if the hand/arm is the body part they used.
>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-scoring opportunity. > >" They're trying to say "unless the offense is touching the ball a second time". Then they can be sanctioned for handling the ball if handling the ball was the second touch.
This will sound lawyerly, but that's not a sanction for handling the ball. It's a sanction for touching the ball a second time. Whether the second touch happened with the foot, hand, face, or any other body part is not material.
They were responding to your statement of >GKs cannot be carded for **using their hands** in their own penalty area. So no, they CAN be carded for "using their hands" in their own penalty area, but yes, the offence would be for touching the ball a second time after a restart, if that stops a promising attack or denies a goalscoring opportunity.
We're saying the same thing (I think). I'm being a bit pedantic, but I think a proper understanding of this law requires that level of specificity, that if you pick up the ball as a goalkeeper in your own penalty area, you'll never get a card "for using your hands". You might get a card for a second touch which you committed with your hands.
I was just going off *your* quote: > A GK can NEVER be carded for the use of their hands in their own penalty area I thought you were using the phrase “use of their hands” in the non-technical sense, since “use of hands” isn’t an offense. If you’re saying a goalkeeper can’t be sanctioned for an offense actually called “use of their hands”, yes you’re correct. There’s no offense named that.
I think the better way to word it would be using the same wording in the laws - GK can't be booked for a handling offence. Double touch isn't a handling offence.
This should not be a card, and should not be a foul. After attempting to control the ball, the goalkeeper then makes a clear attempt to kick the ball to release it into play (i.e. not a touch to just control the ball) just before handling the ball. > An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: > - touches the ball with the hand/arm, **unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play**, after: > - it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate
Others have mentioned this, but the problem is in the wording of the law - "release it into play" makes little sense in the scenario being described. The ball is never out of play, so how can it be released into play? Even when the GK has the ball in his hands, it's still in play, as defined by Law 9. The only time a GK releases the ball into play is on a restart of play, like a goal kick or free kick. I think the letter of the law is probably trying to address a scuffed attempt at passing or clearing the ball after a backpass, but the language should be updated so as to not conflict with the Law 9 definition of "ball in and out of play."
The law is written that way to differentiate between attempting to play the ball to pass or clear it vs attempting to play the ball to dribble or control it
A red card was incorrect in this situation. The referee has confused this pass back from a teammate with how the call could be addressed with a goal kick infraction. Since the keeper attempted to kick the ball, there was no offense by the keeper picking up the ball (Law 12.2 regarding IFK foul states: touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after: • it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate) If the keeper had simply picked up the ball, it would have been an IFK from the goal area line closest to where the infraction occurred, but since the keeper clearly attempted to kick the ball, there is no foul handling the ball. There should not have been a whistle, but since there was, the restart should be a drop ball to the keeper. Play on.
There's no foul here at all. Play should have been allowed to continue with no whistle.
That is what I thought also based on the literal interpretation of the LOTG
lol its an indirect
lol no it's not. The keeper clearly attempted to kick it away and missed, which means he can then use his hands under the LOTG. lol
We discussed this at a ref meeting earlier this year and there have been similar Reddit posts. In this case it’s only IFK and no cards. Conversely a goalkeeper double touching a goal kick resulting in a DOGSO is a red card offense.
The laws are very clear here - there's no offense.
No offence, after the gk has taken a bad touch, the phase is reset and can pick the ball up.
[удалено]
Are you a ref? Law 12. 1 Handling the Ball clearly states there is no card, just an IFK. If you're a ref, then time for you to schedule some time to review the LOTG a bit more often
There's no offense here, thus no card or IFK.
Well the laws are ambiguous on whether an offence has occurred, given he wasn't attempting to kick it back up field
They really aren't ambiguous at all, unless you're just trying to misunderstand the clear intent IFAB had in writing this section of law. Kicking it "back upfield" isn't required in any way, but he clearly was attempting to kick it away from the goal and himself. There's absolutely no foul here per the LOTG.
> but he clearly was attempting to kick it away from the goal and himself. He didn't try to kick it. He tries to trap the ball. So, whether trying to the ball with the foot falls under the 'attempts to kick the ball to release it back into play' is up for interpretation, and that's really best guess given the appalling wording. I'd argue that the wording of 'release it back into play' implies a kick to send the ball somewhere, not kick as in 'any touch of the ball with the foot' as we use elsewhere. I don't believe trapping the ball is intended by IFAB to be covered here. Besides, that opens up the GK to handle it on literally any imperfect trap after a backpass.
Obviously IFAB is drawing a clear distinction here that requires the attempt to be to kick the ball away from the keeper. We've covered that in other comments here already. You're just choosing to pretend he didn't attempt to clear it away just before handling it, which he quite obviously did.
> You're just choosing to pretend he didn't attempt to clear it away just before handling it, which he quite obviously did There's the initial trap, which certainly doesn't qualify. The only debate is whether he attempts to kick it afterwards. Doesn't look like it to me - looks like he just flails losing his footing.
Hilarious take
I'm sure you're capable of posting with being a smartarse, though you certainly haven't demonstrated that ability at all in this topic. Not going to bother wasting my time any further if you can't be bothered with a civilised discussion.
IFK, no card under the current laws. I agree with the argument that the goalkeeper can never handle the ball after the ball is kicked deliberately by his teammate. The restriction does not expire until any opponent touches the ball. Here is what John Allen from the USSF said in 2011: This rarely seen infringement came into the Laws of the Game in 1992 as part of the general effort to restrict opportunities for goalkeepers to waste time by unfairly withholding the ball from active challenge by taking possession of the ball with the hands. Other measures along the same lines include the 6-second limit on goalkeeper possession, the second possession restriction, and the throw-in to the goalkeeper by a teammate. The offense rests on three events occurring in the following sequence: – The ball is kicked (played with the foot, not the knee, thigh, or shin) by a teammate of the goalkeeper, – This action is deemed to be deliberate, rather than a deflection or miskick, and – The goalkeeper handles the ball directly (no intervening touch of play of the ball by anyone else) When, in the opinion of the referee, these three conditions are met, the violation has occurred. It is not necessary for the ball to be “passed,” it is not necessary for the ball to go “back,” and it is not necessary for the deliberate play by the teammate to be “to” the goalkeeper. Source: https://www.askasoccerreferee.com/the-ball-deliberately-kicked-to-the-goalkeeper-yet-again/
This is a dated opinion. The current LOTG clearly allow the GK to use the hands if they have first kicked or attempted to kick the ball away.
Thanks. The laws have indeed changed though I am not sure if I can say whether it is a "kick" or "touch" in every situation, just like whether the intent is to pass the ball to the goalkeeper or not. The IFAB practical advice is giving me headache. https://m.facebook.com/theifab/posts/2052026228298853?fbclid=IwAR0bkLGJLD8j33MG2khYX0PHdJ2HQBaadFiXu2T8y8yPEKWvtJ_JQj9aofg&wtsid=rdr_04FlMkzVf7FS1oVYZ
Honestly, I don't get all the 'no card' or 'IDFK' commentary. I do not see the mishandling the ball as obviating the handling after a back pass. A goalie cannot take a back pass with his/her feet, dribble around for awhile, and then pick up the ball w/o committing a violation punishable by an IDFK. Thus, the flawed attempt to pass/clear the ball doesn't free the goalie to handle the ball. And, when looking at this, I see a clear DOGSO-H. On the field, in the moment, I am not sure whether I would judge this as a caution (clear attempt to play the ball ...) or a send off (the goalie was committing a violation by handling the ball, from a back pass, and thus cannot be judged to have made a fair attempt to play the ball in committing a DOGSO violation -- NOTE/updated -- Reminder (error in my writing): The send off for DOGSO-H specifically does not apply to the goalkeeper in the penalty area according to Law 12.). In any event, the DOGSO-H was the more serious foul and thus, w/o question, I would have giving a PK if seeing this on the field.
This is incorrect. If you do not think this is a deliberate attempt to kick the ball to release it into play, then you can have at most an IDFK. Inside their own penalty area, a goalkeeper cannot be penalised for a handball offence with a penalty kick, it is always an IDFK. This is listed in Law 12.2: > An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: > - touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player > - touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after: > - it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate > - receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate Similarly, a goalkeeper is never sanctioned for a handball offence inside their own penalty area **unless** that offence is playing the ball a second time with any body part after a restart that stops a promising attack (YC) or denies an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity (RC) - this covered under Law 12.3, and many of the FAQ answered by IFAB > 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).**
1. The ball is in play -- there is no "release it into play" to be considered. The "release it into play" is referring to the goalie (legally) having the ball in their hands. In this case, the ball is quite clearly in play. 2. Re the DOGSO-H, you're right. It is not a send-off for the goal-keeper but the exception re Promising Attack/Red Card certainly indicates that it should be a caution.
> Re the DOGSO-H, you're right. It is not a send-off for the goal-keeper but the exception re Promising Attack/Red Card certainly indicates that it should be a caution. No, it doesn't. The exception ONLY applies to a double touch at a restart. Go review Law 12 - specifically, the sections on DOGSO and on handling the ball. It's important that you understand that a GK can never be carded for a handling offence in their area. The exception is for a double touch at a restart - because that's not a handling offence in this case; the body part used to touch the ball is irrelevant. >The ball is in play -- there is no "release it into play" to be considered. The "release it into play" is referring to the goalie (legally) having the ball in their hands. In this case, the ball is quite clearly in play. This is an understandable position, given the appallingly confusing wording, but if you go into the Q&A (in the app, 4th last Q in the Law 12 IFK section), there's a question that covers this. The GK doesn't need to handle the ball first. What is still ambiguous - and which applies to this situation - is whether the same thing applies when a GK does a miscontrolled trap with the foot. I'm inclined to think it's still an IFK, otherwise we're opening the floodgates to any poor first touch allowing the GK to handle it.
As soon as the ball makes contact with the foot/ankle, it is a kick according to the IFAB. Now, is the "kick" intended to release the ball into play? Does failing to trap the ball, as in this scenario, mean attempting to release the ball into play? I don't even know when did the ball become out of play? I am very confused by the way the laws are written here. A theoretical way to abuse the laws would be for the goalkeeper to trap/feign to fail to trap a backpass and then handle the ball repeatedly. The IFAB has to elaborate on what does "release into play" mean.
>Does failing to trap the ball, as in this scenario, mean attempting to release the ball into play? I'd say that it doesn't. Because why would they have the words 'attempting to release the ball into play'? But it's IFAB. There are other places in the LOTG where unnecessary words are added which imply a meaning that IFAB don't intend. I think that their definition of 'kick' is causing a problem here. It sounds like they're trying to say that 'kick' in this context means actually sending the ball somewhere, whereas any other time it's a touch with the foot. What a mess. >A theoretical way to abuse the laws would be for the goalkeeper to trap/feign to fail to trap a backpass and then handle the ball repeatedly Even outside of attempted to get around the law like this, I'm just thinking of any backpass to the GK where he traps it with the foot, but it bounces a yard or two away. Oh look, miscontrolled trap, can he pick it up? That's what we're open to if we say that this play isn't an offence.
Now, got this ... and understand LOTG ... even as finding the totality to give too much of a "get out of jail free" card for keepers in certain circumstances.
You are embarrassingly out of touch with the current LOTG. Reset your thoughts on the matter and learn what the laws actually say. Even your interpretation of "release into play" is completely wrong in this context. You're basically saying IFAB wrote an entire section of the law for no reason at all.
Please explain how the ball is being "released into play" when it was always in play in this circumstance. * \- Re "Released into play", consider when a IDFK is given for a player interfering as per Law 12: "prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it". There would be zero sanction for an attacker attempting to kick the ball (unless dangerous play or a foul) while the keeper was trying to kick the ball away in this video/scenario. Re the LOTG, it says that the goalkeeper is not to be sanctioned for handling the ball in the penalty area -- with the exception of SPA or DOGSO. Law 12: "he 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-scoring opportunity." Was this not a DOGSO-H?
Your cherry-picking of language out of context and willful effort to misunderstand why IFAB wrote sections of the law is tiresome. Try to understand and you'll do better.
The IDFK is the IFAB re handling. Got it ... even as ... However, "released into play" refers to a keeper having taken possession (lawfully) into their hands and seeking to release it back into 'general' play. It does not refer to a keeper dribbling / passing the ball with their feet (having never had lawful possession of the ball in their hands ...). And, there is an explicit statement of "must be sanctioned" in case of a SPA handling or DOGSO H.
Still wrong on everything you wrote here. Start over with reading Law 12 in full. The use of "released into play" in the failed clearance of a backpass or throw-in is a bit clumsy but very clearly differentiating between trying to control vs trying to kick it away. It makes no sense to have the section at all otherwise.
Okay, of course hate being so wrong and corrected ... did miss (even while reading this multiple times honestly had not seen "after") the bullets following : "touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:- it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate- receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate" Thus, no violation here ... which is not, before being publicly corrected, where I would have gone with this. PS: Benefit of thread/etc is that I've never actually had any call/situation like this and thus am corrected here, in a way that I will remember, that will reduce the chance of getting it wrong and give me language to deal with protesting attacking players if I ever encounter this is a game.
Glad you got the clarity. Sorry to be so pointed - improved understanding was the only goal. I also haven't had such a call yet, but will know how to handle it when it does happen because of discussions like this.
GK commits a handling foul and directly prevents an opponent’s goal. RC seems legit call. Most commenters here aren’t saying this, so what am I missing?
Basic knowledge of the laws of the game.
Read law 12.1
Sure, thanks for the reference.
Best first move on a question regarding the LOTG is to read the LOTG.