Soccer 13/14 Law 12 - Goalkeepers and DOGSO-H

Recently the Ontario Soccer Association held its first RUG and PUG (Regional and Provincial upgrade groups) weekend at various locations around the province. At one of the sessions, an interesting question was posed to the group about what might happen when a goalkeeper handles the ball illegally to deny a goal.

Like many of the other decisions under the Laws of the Game, it is both complicated and incredibly simple, and to understand the reasoning behind the answer to the question, a brief history of the misconduct of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity must be looked at.

History

Before 1980, there was no real consideration of what became known as the "professional foul", but an incident in the that year's English FA Cup final began to drive the IFAB board toward the Laws that exist today. In 1990 as the World Cup approached, IFAB submitted a Mandatory Instruction about the "professional foul" to Law XII - Fouls and Misconduct that read as follows:

If, in the opinion of the referee, a player who is moving towards his opponents' goal with an obvious opportunity to score a goal is intentionally and physically impeded by unlawful means, i.e. an offence punishable by a free-kick (or a penalty-kick), thus denying the attacking player's team the aforesaid goal-scoring opportunity, the offending player shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).

The following year, the IFAB board further expanded on this, changing that Mandatory Instruction to Decision 15 in Law XII and then introduced Decision 16, which brought in the concept of handling, something that wasn't covered in the decision from the prior year:

If, in the opinion of the referee, a player, other than the goalkeeper within his own penalty-area, denies his opponents a goal, or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, by intentionally handling the ball, he shall be sent off the field of play for serious foul play in accordance with Law XII (n).

These two items eventually became, in 2006, two of the seven sending off offences in Law as what is commonly known (especially in the United States) as "DOGSO-F" and "DOGSO-H" (Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity by means of offence punishable by Free kick or Handling respectively).

The Scenario

With the history out of the way, we can look at the scenario, which was presented as follows:

A player deliberately kicks the ball back to his goalkeeper, who is inside his own penalty area. An opponent is there and about to kick the ball into the goal when the goalkeeper dives on the ball, collecting it with his hands, before the opponent is able to touch the ball.

AC Milan's Christian Abiatti diving to save a ball against Lecce (Mar 11/2012)

IFAB Laws

The new wording of in terms of DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H read as follows in Law 12 (p. 39) in the 2013/14 LotG:

We know that the goalkeeper cannot legally play the ball with his hands (until it is out of play or touched by an opponent) as it was deliberately kicked to him by a teammate (pg. 37), so there is an argument that can be made that, as the goalkeeper cannot be sanctioned for DOGSO-H as per the LofG, as this is an action that results in a free kick (an indirect free kick to be precise), it would fall under DOGSO-F.

Having said that, there is the suggestion that, by including the portion in the DOGSO-H within parentheses about goalkeepers, IFAB wishes to indicate that this overrules all other DOGSO considerations when goalkeepers are involved in such a situation. But, is the offense here actually handling, or is it simply one of what are sometimes termed as "technical offences"? If it isn't actually handling, then does DOGSO-F come back into play?

To clarify this, IFAB included a portion in the Interpretations of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees (pg. 119):

This indicates that the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence nor any misconduct related to handling the ball within his own penalty area.

This is in line with the FIFA clarification provided by Héctor Vergara, "the GK is allowed to use his hands in his penalty area, so he can’t be sanctioned for DOGSO, he should be penalized with [an indirect free kick] for touching the ball with his hands after being played to him by a teammate."

The Final Decision

The answer is that, in this scenario, the resulting restart would be an indirect free kick with no associated misconduct (caution or sending off) for the goalkeeper.

Somewhat unrelated to this but still interesting, the 2006 Questions and Answers on the Laws of the Game (the precursor material to the "Additional Instructions and Guidelines" introduced in 2007-08) has a pair of interesting questions under the Law 12 (pg. 26) material that present a reason for cautioning a goalkeeper for "handling the ball" within his own penalty area:

6. A player, other than the goalkeeper, standing in his own penalty area holding a shinguard, hits the ball with his shinguard to prevent it entering the goal. What action does the referee take?
   The referee awards a penalty kick and the player is sent off for preventing a goal. The shinguard is regarded as an extension of the player’s hand.
7. What happens if, in a similar situation, the player in question is the goalkeeper?
   The referee stops play, cautions the goalkeeper for unsporting behaviour and play is restarted with an indirect free kick to the opposing team unless covered by the Special Circumstances listed in Law 8 – The Start and Restart of Play.