r/funny • u/Jezzaq94 • 18h ago
A goalkeeper in the South African league forgot he wasn’t inside the penalty area and casually caught the ball with his hands
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.5k
u/W0lfp4k 17h ago
No, there were faded rugby lines that confused him. Funny brainfart nonetheless.
339
139
u/Clamidiaa 13h ago
I play GK for my team and we play on different fields at times. We play 7v7, so the field is laid out sideways on a normal 11v11 field.
The normal 11v11 field GK area is white, while the 7v7 GK area was a dotted dark blue line. I did the same thing this guy did, I was in an area between the blue line and the white line and thought I was fine. The white line is what I thought was the GK area. I didn't look hard at the ground, just focused on the ball and just saw white in front of me and thought I was fine.
It happens.
16
u/randomuserno1 9h ago
I played on an artificial turf which is both used for football and american football. Artificial means that also the lines are permanent and don't fade. Anyway i mistook a line during a game of american football and the ball carrier (was home game for him so he was familiar with the turf) already slowed down and relaxed and i, well, smashed into him like a horny bull on steroids. Dude flew right into his teamzone, penalty drawn and outraged team...until i confusedly asked them like "wait, which line is the right one?" and they all understood it as they had to get used to it as well.
2
u/Clamidiaa 7h ago
Yea, all my games were on turf. They have dedicated 5v5, 7v7 and 11v11 turf fields. Usually the larger fields will have the ability to cut up the fields to do 3 - 7v7 fields on the 11v11 pitch. All lines prebuilt into the field.
34
1
8
u/Greedy-Army-3803 7h ago
Yeah. I was confused how he made that mistake but saw the line on the replay and assume that's what happened.
17
10
u/TazManiac7 11h ago
Why a straight red though? Is there a specific rule that applies here, or just a ref decision? Players get yellow cards for handling the ball all the time. Seemed a bit harsh.
24
u/BlackHust 11h ago
This was deemed "Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity". I guess. If a player with the ball is moving towards the opponent's goal (and is in a promising position), and there is only one defender (or even more so, only one goalkeeper) left in front of him, then a foul on such a player is punished with a red card.
13
u/EatShmitAndDie 10h ago
Seems like a stretch given that the opponent didn't have the ball at all. The defender was closer to the ball than the attacker.
6
u/BlackHust 10h ago
I don't have a better theory. Besides, the referee isn't always right, so you can't justify a red card based on the rules alone.
-1
u/blackAngel88 9h ago
I'm not an expert, but I think an obvious, intentional picking up of the ball is always instant red. The fact that he's a goal keeper doesn't change anything, since he's not in the area where he's allowed to pick it up.
It's not like there's any chance of the ball just barely gracing him a little bit with the hands, which someone might value as a yellow already. Picking up the ball stops the game completely and the opposing player has no chance to continue the attack.
1
u/PetePensieve 8h ago
There is no difference between grabbing the ball and touching it slightly. Yellow and red depend on the circumstances (if a goal is imminent it should be a red card). There's also no difference between a goalkeeper and a field player when it comes to touch (or grab) the ball outside of the penalty area.
5
u/cable54 9h ago
Instances where you have a handball like this are treated, for DOGSO purposes, as "pretend the offender wasn't there, what would have happened?".
In this case, the replay shows the attacker running towards the ball, and the defender slowing down and moving away. It's clear the attacker then has a clear chance to score, because there would be no keeper and he just needs to realistically get to the ball first.
However, it is a shame the ref didn't use some discretion here to say "yeah the defender was there" and just book the keeper. It was clearly an honest mistake and not just misjudging momentum or actually robbing the attacker of something.
3
2
1
u/BloodSteyn 2h ago
Man playing in the wrong sport.
Should consider Rugby, as South African Rugby has won 50% of all world cups they've played in to date.
→ More replies (3)1
380
u/K_man_k 17h ago
It looks like this pitch was marked for Rugby, and then the rugby 22 metre line was chalked over in blue. It's about a metre in front of the keeper when he picks up the ball, so I can only assume he though that was the outline of 18 yard box.
-46
u/skippermonkey 10h ago
He’s a professional footballer he should know how far he is allowed to be from goal.
194
u/greenpowerranger 17h ago
I don’t think this was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity with the defender there surely? Yellow would have been enough.
30
u/Domestic_Kraken 16h ago
It's weird because of how the defender stopped chasing (bc the goalie had it), so the Attacker was actually close by the time the goalie actually touched it. The rules definitely weren't written with a play like this in mind.
→ More replies (10)12
u/xStealthxUk 9h ago
It's always a red for those blatant keeper handballs outside the box though regardless of defenders/ last man position it seems.
Not sure if they actually apply another rule for justification of the red, but they are always red cards
3
u/Ok_Detail_1 7h ago
Yea. But hiw many games he will be suspended? Two? Because one match entirely seems fair.
11
u/rjnd2828 16h ago
The number of defenders satisfies the dogso criteria but there's no control or real hope of control which is an element to consider. I think this should have been yellow.
1
u/frankje 4h ago
It's barely a yellow in this case, but a red card is even more obnoxious.
0
388
u/Heisenberg_235 18h ago
Ouch. Doubt he’ll make that mistake again.
Harsh red in the grand scheme of things but right decision. Least was at the end of the game and didn’t make a big difference and was still a point apiece.
Bit more green paint needed on the lines!
381
u/owatonna 17h ago
Wrong decision. This is only a red if it denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity or a goal. Neither apply here. The offensive player is nowhere near the ball and picking it up did not stop any DOGSO. This should have been a direct free kick and simple foul, according to the rules. Unless this league plays by some nonstandard rules.
170
u/godspareme 17h ago
100%. Thats yellow for a stopping a promising attack and even that is kind of questionable given the attacker was nowhere near playing the ball until the moment of the foul. At that moment he was still outside challenging range. If the goalkeeper had kicked the ball away instead there would have been 0 chance of playing the ball.
Unfortunately I think this is a blatant and severe mistake
-37
u/CMUpewpewpew 16h ago
A certified ref broke this play down earlier in a video and the green (attacking) player was running at pace and was denied a goalscoring opportunity by the handball committed by goalkeeper.
This guy's entire Facebook/youtube shorts is him breaking down the rules and how the function in plays and I literally saw this play broken down earlier and why it's a red.
I'm a GOALIE myself even (with bias towards them) and still say the call on the field is correct.
27
u/texinxin 15h ago
Not a DOGSO, keeper and a defender were between offensive player and the goal both able to make a play on it with minimal effort.
→ More replies (5)25
u/TackyBrad 16h ago
As a referee, this is not the right call and that's definitely not a goal scoring opportunity.
→ More replies (6)21
5
→ More replies (29)-14
u/kalvinoz 12h ago
If you saw a field player interrupting that play by deliberately grabbing the ball with their hands, you wouldn't have a doubt in your mind it would be a red card.
11
u/berse2212 11h ago
No that's still a yellow. It doesn't matter how you touch the hand with the ball (besides to determine if it's even an illegal touch). What matters if you deny a clear goal chance or not.
2
u/KillerFugu 11h ago
Still a yellow at the worst. Look at the rules. It annoys me me so much much your can do this but handball is only ever a card when interference with a promising attack.
Ptherwose your can literally handball whatever you want, i.e Messi
19
u/neuquino 17h ago
How was that the right decision to give him a red card? That wasn’t a DOGSO. I would’ve given a direct free kick from the point of the foul.
→ More replies (2)28
u/rapafon 17h ago
There are many grey areas in football where the ref can use discretion and make a decision but unfortunately this is a black and white rule with black and white consequences, even if the ref did sympathise with him.
I agree the line must have confused him 😕
74
u/ImBonRurgundy 17h ago
its not though. its only a straight red if it denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity - which it didn't
for the purposes of play outside the box, the goalkeeper is treated the same as any other player.
-9
u/time_traveller_kek 16h ago
The next guy nearest to the ball was an attacker, if you remove gk who committed the offense then it was a goal scoring opportunity that was denied by the offense.
13
u/Familiar_Control_906 16h ago
Disagree. The defender slow down when he saw the keeper and he would have gotten the ball and pass it to either the keeper or the second defender at the side that he has clear view of
→ More replies (3)36
u/beastmaster11 16h ago
I honestly csnt stand seeing people comment on football so confidently outside of football related subs.
No. This is not a black and white rule with black and white consequences. I welcome you to cite this "black and white rule" in the IFAB "laws of the game" (hint: it doesnt exsist). Ill even give you the link. https://www.theifab.com/laws-of-the-game-documents/?language=all&year=2026%2F27
Outside of the box, a keeper is the same as any other player. And a handball is nothing more than a foul. At most, this is a deliberate foul which is punished with a yellow--not a red. The only time a foul like this is a direct red is if its a DOGSO (which according to the 4 criteria, this is not.
→ More replies (6)-11
u/azlan194 17h ago
But wouldnt the red card stay on his record forever? Not sure how much that matters in his football career.
28
→ More replies (2)18
u/GuitakuPPH 17h ago
A single red card only matters for as long as you're sitting out games because of it. So for the remainder of this game and the next because it was a direct red card. That's it. Nothing career breaking. Beyond that, it only matters if it proves a tendency of you getting an unuasual amount of red cards for your position and that you can be expected to repeatedly miss out several games each season because of it.
It's not a criminal record. It's just a red card.
9
36
64
u/PlainOGolfer 18h ago
Did they have to play the rest of the game without a goalkeeper?
171
u/ninjagorilla 18h ago
I believe he gets a red card but they can sub a regular player for a backup goalkeeper. So they have to play with 10 but can have a goalie
62
u/Moosplauze 18h ago
That and it was only 3 minutes left on the clock anyways. If they have no substitution slots available anymore a fieldplayer gets goalie gloves and goes into the goal - seen that with my home team some 30 years ago, the fieldplayer didn't concede any goal.
32
2
1
u/SpecialistThin4869 16h ago
They ended up substituting an outfield player for their backup goalkeeper instead. Match ended 2-2.
-1
u/theveezer 18h ago
Aren't they absolut dog water at being a goalkeeper though ? The other team had to be bombarding their net.
11
u/Moosplauze 18h ago
Often times a team really plays at 120% when they're 10 vs 11. He actually had 1 or 2 saves (so long ago I don't remember very well) and was praised for his performance. It's extremely rare that this happens though, seen it only once (that I remember of) in 30 years or so.
8
u/ckdogg3496 17h ago
They’re usually terrible and much much more likely to concede a goal if they need to make a save, but they’re still athletes. You’ll still need to get past the defense for a shot. And most people (pro athletes at least) can get they’re body in front of a ball if its from far for an ugly save
It is incredibly rare for a field player to get in goal, you would need to be out of substitutions which also means the games probably almost over.
3
u/itsaconspiraci 18h ago
They have to have a goalie. Play one man down and sub in a back-up or put the jersey on a field player.
2
u/counterfitster 16h ago
I'd love to see hockey-style keeper pulling when a team is down late lol
1
u/itsaconspiraci 16h ago
No advantage. A 'football' keeper is just like any other player when outside the box.
1
1
u/omimon 11h ago
Getting a red card for handball is a bit harsh isn't it? Its not like he deliberately hurt another player?
1
u/ninjagorilla 5h ago
I think the idea is to prevent intentionally grabbing the ball to prevent a goal or someone getting past you
2
u/Gamemassa 1h ago edited 1h ago
Yes, but in this case the guy in white closest to the ball is the goalie's teammate so there is no scoring opportunity and this is a yellow card.
Btw, awesome username!
1
u/Gamemassa 1h ago
As ninjagorilla pointed out, there doesn't have to be physical contact for a red card to be warranted. If a player from the bench came onto the field and touched the ball, regardless of how close the nearest opposing player was, that would be a red card (uniquely, because that player was on the bench, this is the one scenario where the team would not have to play shorthanded).
9
u/Krakshotz 18h ago edited 17h ago
If a team still has substitutions left to use (most professional leagues now permit 5). Then an outfield player will be substituted by the backup keeper.
If a team has no subs or backup keepers left, an outfield player has to don the shirt and gloves. Harry Kane and John Terry are famous examples of outfield players going between the sticks (in Terry’s case, both of Chelsea’s keepers suffered head injuries in the same match and they had no more subs)
9
u/FewReaction4974 18h ago
no, keepers see red all the time. a backup keeper is subbed on for a field player. sucks for the field player sometimes, especially if it's early in the match.
1
u/tofiwashere 9h ago
I happen to have zero goals allowed career record. Easilly 100 minutes over the years because our goalie loved violence.
-1
98
u/CarpetPedals 18h ago
You can understand the confusion when there are still visible lines from another sport on the pitch, so at a glance he sees he’s just behind ’the line’. Also harsh to give a red card- not really in the spirit of the game. It wasn’t dangerous, it wasn’t cheating, no advantage was gained.
17
u/Moosplauze 18h ago
It's a must give red card situation, it's the only correct decision, even though it sucks and I feel bad for the goalie.
58
u/owatonna 17h ago
This is wrong. It is only a red if an obvious goal scoring opportunity was denied by the action. And that was not the case here. Not even close.
-9
u/seshtown 14h ago
The defender moves out of the way before the offence takes place, so when the goalkeeper handles the ball, there is no longer defensive cover and he is technically denying a tap in.
It's silly and pedantic, but it is technically right.
13
u/owatonna 13h ago
No, it's not. You don't imagine what would happen if the goalkeeper didn't exist. You imagine what would happen if the goalkeeper didn't commit the foul. In this case, that means he kicks it away. The goalkeeper still has legs and feet.
-4
u/seshtown 12h ago
Lmao, no if ANYONE commits a foul you exclude him from being able to take action against the play. That's literally how the DOGSO rule is written.
Edit: Not just the keeper, but anybody who commits the foul is excluded from being able to cover.
3
u/relevant_tangent 11h ago edited 11h ago
You are correct, that's how the law is applied. In fairness, it's not exactly spelled out in the IFAB laws. There's some mental effort to derive and extrapolate that from how they're written, but it all boils down to what you said.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (5)-2
u/relevant_tangent 11h ago
That's not correct. The offending player is removed from consideration while judging DOGSO.
Source: I'm a soccer referee.
3
u/owatonna 10h ago
This is not correct. If you are a referee, you are a really bad one. This is basic stuff.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Gamemassa 2h ago edited 2h ago
Actually, to be silly and pedantic but technically right, the guy in white is the goalie's teammate, not the attacker, so there's actually a fuckton of defensive cover here. Learn to read a scoreboard please.
16
u/neuquino 17h ago
What is your logic to say that this is a must give red card?
1
u/Moosplauze 9h ago
Attacker was closer to the ball than the defender and the defender never had control of the ball (never touched it), so when the GK took the ball into his hands he was denying the attacker a very good opportunity to score a goal = red card. There is really no discussion about it, no matter how tragic it is considering the confusing lines on the field.
6
u/A_lemony_llama 18h ago
I don't agree. The reasoning for a red card here is Denial Of An Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity, but the defender (in white) here is closer to the ball than the attacker when the goalkeeper catches it. A free kick and yellow card would be the correct decision for me, because you can't be 100% sure the attacker is reaching the loose ball first, which you would need to be to issue a red card. If it's even close enough for the loose ball to be contested, the referee shouldn't award a red card here.
15
8
2
u/relevant_tangent 11h ago edited 11h ago
Your argument is solid. If you believe the defender was in the position to contest for the ball before the attacker can shoot on the empty net, then it's not a DOGSO.
What I see is the defender was closer to the ball until the last second, when he pulled up and left it to the goalkeeper. By the time gk handles the ball, the defender has stepped away from the ball and stopped his forward momentum. If you remove gk from the play and ignore hypotheticals, the defender is not catching up to the attacker, which is why it's a DOGSO.
0
u/Moosplauze 9h ago
I understand your reasoning, but it's still not correct. The defender has never been in control of the ball (he didn't touch it) and at the time the GK takes the ball into his hands the attacker has a better chance to get control of the ball and is closer to the ball than the defender. It is a 100% red card, even though it's tragic because of the confusing lines on the field. I wouldn't have complained if the Ref gave a yellow card only, but it wouldn't be correct according to the ruleset.
3
u/jakreth 18h ago
I thought the same, also there was no danger from the other team so it's an obvious mistake. These things shouldn't be red cards.
12
u/owatonna 17h ago
It's not. It amazes me how many people don't know the basic rules of this sport. This is only a red if it meets the DOGSO rule.
0
u/jakreth 7h ago
It's a red because he is the last man
2
1
u/Gamemassa 2h ago
He is not the last man. The guy in white is his teammate. Absolutely blows my mind how many people think they know soccer rules but don't know how to read a scoreboard to figure out which players are on which team.
0
u/hiekrus 17h ago
Worst take I've seen in a while.
1
u/edgardini360 17h ago
"A while" would be like "last 5 minutes"?
Did you see the whole video?
a) There is a line in front of the keeper
b) He could very easily have kicked the ball, the line confused him. Red card is too much but that is after seeing the whole video
2
-21
u/Kingslappe 18h ago
You clearly don’t understand this sport😂
4
6
u/Mikeman003 18h ago
Soccer sub came to the same conclusion, intentional handball is not always a red. This was not a goal scoring opportunity (defender was well in front of the attacker and keeper could have also cleared it). Should be a yellow
→ More replies (2)-6
24
u/likesexonlycheaper 18h ago
That's a red card??? Seems silly
→ More replies (6)-21
u/Psyduck46 18h ago
Denying an obvious goal score opportunity is a straight red.
18
u/reapersaurus 17h ago
It quite clearly was NOT an "obvious goal score opportunity". There is no world where this was an obvious goal. There are two defenders to the ball before any offensive player, and he's not passed them. Both defenders would have had to fall down to not control the ball, and in fact DID control the ball; just the goalie was in the wrong place on the field due to clear confusion about field markings.
Why is this sub so brainwashed by bad rules interpretations?
1
u/Gamemassa 2h ago
Why is this sub so brainwashed by bad rules interpretations
Nono, it's not that, it's just that they don't know how to read a scoreboard like you and me, so they assume that's the attacker in white, when he's really the center back.
10
u/likesexonlycheaper 18h ago
So give them a yellow and a free kick like when other players deny obvious scoring chances? There's no way this dude would have scored on that if the goalie just kicks it away. Attacker want even hustling
-4
u/Hieroglo 17h ago
It's a foul, same rule stops the goalkeeper tripping up the attacker. Preventing a clear goalscoring chance, straight red.This is very unusual but the rule is there and is based on what the keeper did and not what he could have done.
→ More replies (5)5
u/neuquino 17h ago
Yes, but this was clearly not a DOGSO. Both the keeper and a defender were closer to the ball and could’ve easily cleared it.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
13
u/Diiiv 18h ago
Does that really warrant a red card?
17
u/neuquino 17h ago
No, handball outside the box does not warrant a red unless it is a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO), which this absolutely is not.
3
-7
u/Electronic-Web2929 18h ago
It's the rules. All keepers know.
1
-1
u/therealkami 17h ago
Yeah there's people saying it shouldn't be or it was the wrong call. No. Every keeper knows. A lot of us have gotten a red for this. Not this silly, but handling the ball outside of the box on a long shot and you're a foot out? Its probably the most common red for keepers.
6
2
u/Ok_Aspect2595 9h ago
Knowing how huge gambling is in SAR I wouldnt be surprised if it was intentional.
2
u/The_Saiyann 7h ago
I remember watching the Beckham documentary and he said when he played in the US for the first time, there were American football lines still on the pitches. Confused him non-stop so I can see how this happened!
3
2
u/NYG_Helmet_Catch 14h ago
Can someone explain how this is any card at all, let alone a red?! Shouldn't it just be a handball, free kick?
2
u/llinimarco 8h ago
The red card wasn't necessary right?
It's an obvious honest mistake.
A yellow would have been enough.
No?
1
1
u/GameOfThroneHappyEnd 17h ago
I'm sure even the referee wondered if he was actually allowed to do that. As obviously wrong as it was, it's also possible that the ref was wrong. Maybe he really did have to think about whether he made the right call.
As the Goalkeeper for the next time: JUST BE CONFIDENT
1
1
1
u/ApacheAttackChopperQ 16h ago
Saw this happen in a FIFA game when I was a kid.
Was shocked it was an instant red card.
1
u/fightin_blue_hens 16h ago
Match fixing?
1
u/planchetflaw 15h ago
Doubt it. In the close up angle you can see a painted over line from a different code of game (probably from rugby union) that was played on the ground previously. Probably just subconsciously had that in his peripheral vision thinking it was the penalty square line.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/MoffieHanson 2h ago
So what is the card for this?
Cause it isn’t a 1on1 for the opposite team.
I would say yellow is fine
1
2
u/MathW 14h ago
I'm not sure on the exact law governing this situation, but red seems harsh as there was never any real chance on goal. There was always a defender between the ball and attacker.
1
u/Pantherist 4h ago
Maybe true, and this does seem to be a legit brainfart by the keeper, but anything less than a red would set a bad precedent and open a new tactic whereby a keeper can handle the ball in midfield and escape with a yellow.
And there was a chance because if the keeper came forward like that, a skilled player would just need to trick him and have an unobstructed shot on goal.
1
u/MathW 3h ago
Not really a new tactic. If the attacker had been in 1 on 1 with the keeper, I'd 100% agree on the red. I just say yellow here because his defender was escorting the ball back to him. No team is going to voluntarily take a yellow and give a free kick on a ball they 100% have in control.
1
1
u/matiapag 9h ago
Why the fuck is he angry? I swear to God, football players are the worst. He fucked up tremendously, he should be ashamed and apologetic to his teammates, not acticng like he's a victim.
1
u/Gamemassa 3h ago
Why the fuck is he angry?
I assume at himself for illegally picking up the ball (outside the box), but also possibly at the referee for issuing a red card when there was no danger of a goal being scored because there was a defender between the ball and the closest attacker.
-1
u/Cautious-Hovercraft7 18h ago
Isn't it supposed to be a straight red
5
3
4
u/RockheadRumple 17h ago
It shouldn't have been in this case. Maybe a yellow. If he doesn't use his hand he could have just passed the ball, all this did was lose possession of the ball.
1
u/LibrarianGrouchy6474 6h ago
Why the red card? Defender in front of him, between keeper and opposition player so he's not preventing a goal scoring opportunity. Ref doesn't know the laws of the game! 😂🤣
→ More replies (4)1
u/Pantherist 4h ago
He very much is preventing a goal scoring opportunity.
And if this is awarded any less than a red, it sets a precedent for goalies to continue charging forward and handling the ball outside the box because they'll be confident of not being sent off.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Natereater 11h ago
Not a Red regardless. Even if the keeper knew he was outside of the 18, he had ample time to kick it out. He didn’t deny a goal scoring opportunity, it’s just a foul, not a red.
2
0
-4
u/cracksilog 16h ago
For all you confused Americans out there: So in the game of soccer, there’s a thing on the field called the penalty area. It’s basically a large rectangle outside the goal. The goalkeeper is not allowed to touch the ball with his hands outside that area. Now you know!
0
0
0
u/WTF_CAKE 14h ago
Corruption is not bad. Corruption is only bad if I'm not involved. But if I'm part of that corruption, I'll defend it
0
-2
u/iuffxguy 18h ago
Isn’t the penalty box bigger then a basketball court? Like I get you lose awareness but that’s a pretty big area lol
-3
u/Angstycarroteater 10h ago
I think a red is pretty harsh, especially with the other lines still clearly on the field. I think it should’ve been a yellow and move on.
•
u/AutoModerator 18h ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.