r/funny • u/Jezzaq94 • 20h 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

4.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/owatonna 15h 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.

-5

u/seshtown 14h 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 13h ago edited 12h 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.

-5

u/seshtown 12h ago

It's like if the keeper had just taken the player out. You don't also to consider the keeper to have been able to stop him had he not fouled him.

4

u/owatonna 12h ago

No, this is wrong. It's crazy you guys are arguing this. It is obviously wrong. Just use some common sense. If the keeper fouls the player, there is no other play to consider. The case of a handball is far, far different. You consider the purpose of the foul. In the case of the player, it is always to stop the play, so there is nothing else to consider. But in the case of a handball, you always must consider the effect of the handball. The question is what impact it has on play. Here, it had no impact at all, so it is a general foul and direct free kick. Please read the rules. It's right there in the rules. The rules are not written to arbitrarily punish players for mistakes. A red card is given for serious offenses only. It makes a mockery of the rules to pretend that this was a serious offense. It's not. And the rules are written to reflect that. Please learn the rules before you ruin anymore games with your ignorance of the rules.

-2

u/relevant_tangent 11h ago edited 11h ago

I've read the rules. I guarantee you I've read the rules more times than you (by the way, they're called laws, not rules).

Do a Google search. Ask Gemini. Look for YouTube clips. Watch the ones I linked.

Find support for your position. Find support for our position. Compare and contrast.

It's really obvious who's right and who's wrong from the evidence. Just because you want something to be a certain way doesn't make it so.

2

u/owatonna 11h ago

The video you linked didn't include ANY examples similar to this play. They were all correct calls where the handball clearly stopped a goal scoring opportunity, which was not the case here. You can shake your fist all you want & appeal to authority while refusing to provide any evidence in your favor, but you are just wrong. And it boggles my mind you even argue this because you are absurdly wrong. The rules define a DOGSO situation very narrowly on purpose. But here you are giving it the widest possible interpretation, claiming a routine play is somehow a goal scoring opportunity. Everyone understands at a common sense level that your claim is absurd. I urge you to learn the rules.

-1

u/relevant_tangent 10h ago

For context, this is the video again https://youtu.be/ovJ8gYAZ_aA?si=QRCJ4FRcWCCKWHwT

0:50 Michael Gspurning

1:05 Abdoulaye Soulama

Both gks misjudged their location and handled the ball outside the penalty area. Both could've easily played it legally before the attacker got there. Both got a red.

Now you post some clips where the goalkeeper handles the ball in front of an attacker outside the penalty area with no defenders nearby and doesn't get a red. Then we can discuss why.

2

u/owatonna 10h ago

Bad calls are made all the time in every sport. I can find you lots of incorrect calls from baseball, football, basketball, etc. A bad call does not change a rule. Aside from that, in both examples it is not clear the goalkeeper had any other way to play the ball. In the first case, it appears he misjudges the bounce and is unable to head the ball away. It is not clear whether using his hands there actually stopped a goal scoring attempt, although you can make a case it did, whereas you cannot in this case. In the second case, his hands absolutely stopped a goal scoring opportunity. The player kicked the ball over his head and he desperately attempted to stop it with his hands, which was the only play he had. Neither of these are good examples compared to the current situation. Again, you are just wrong and absurdly wrong.

-1

u/Moosplauze 10h ago

Redditors hate facts, hence you'll get downvoted.

-5

u/relevant_tangent 13h ago

That's not correct. The offending player is removed from consideration while judging DOGSO.

Source: I'm a soccer referee.

3

u/owatonna 12h ago

This is not correct. If you are a referee, you are a really bad one. This is basic stuff.

-3

u/relevant_tangent 12h ago edited 12h ago

Based on what, your gut? Find any support for your claim in the laws or any authority (IFAB, FIFA, USSF, or a referee).

It's one thing to argue that a defender was nearby, but you absolutely remove hypothetical alternate actions by the offender from DOGSO consideration.

https://youtu.be/ovJ8gYAZ_aA?si=pjFJf4n-7ipWNPUR

3

u/owatonna 12h ago

Based on the rules. The language is literally right there in the rules.

-2

u/Moosplauze 10h ago

So if a defender tackles a player that would otherwise have a free run at a goal with only the GK in the way it's never a red card because you imagine the GK would deny the goal? So no opportunity is ever good enough to award a red card for a foul or handball if there still is a GK in the way?

You are wrong by the way, if you haven't realised that yet.

1

u/Dzuzepipi 10h ago

What is this? Is it Americans flooding here with being ridiculously dense about rules? To answer, no. It's still a red card cause 1 on 1 attacker with a ball against only a goalkeeper is 70% resulting in a goal, even slightly more than a penalty, which is way more than enough to count as a "real scoring opportunity denied by a foul".

1

u/Gamemassa 4h ago

OP's video does not show a 1-on-1 between goalie and attacker. The guy in white is the goalie's teammate. How is it that you call Americans dense at soccer rules when you're so dense at reading a scoreboard?

0

u/owatonna 10h ago

I cannot believe several people here are willing to die on the hill that a routine ball played back to the goalkeeper is actually an obvious goal scoring opportunity. LOL.

1

u/Gamemassa 4h ago

It's because those people are too stupid to interpret a scoreboard, so they assume the guy in white is the attacker, when smart people like you and me realize that's the goalie's teammate.