Futsal Laws of the Game

---

The Key Focus areas of this clip are Decision-making, teamwork, and positioning. 

Following a counterattack by the Dark Blue (DB) team, DB #11 finds himself in a 1v1 situation with the White team goalkeeper (GK), who is positioned outside his penalty area. As DB #11 attempts to play the ball past the GK, the ball makes contact with the GK’s shoulder/arm area, raising the question of a potential Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) offense.

Given the potential impact of this decision, accuracy is critical, especially as video assistance is not always availablein futsal. Therefore, teamwork and optimal positioning between the two referees are essential.

Teamwork and Positioning

In this sequence, Referee 2 holds the optimal angle of view, as the contact occurs on the GK’s right side, directly in his line of sight. His positioning and movement, adapted to the pace of the counter-attack, allow him to observe the incident clearly. Although the Lead Referee is physically closer to the play, his viewing angle is less favorable since the contact occurs on the side opposite to his position. This emphasizes the importance of maintaining a dynamic angle during transitions to ensure an unobstructed line of vision between the key players.

Effective teamwork requires clear communication and mutual awareness. In this scenario, Referee 2 should provide supporting information to assist the Lead Referee, who ultimately holds responsibility for the final decision.

Decision:

The Lead Referee should make the initial decision, supported or confirmed by Referee 2 as necessary. It is essential to remain composed, focused, and unaffected by player reactions in such high-pressure situations. As the video review was available in this clip, the decision is clearer. The contact is confirmed to have occurred on the GK’s right shoulder. Therefore, no handball offense has been committed, and the play should continue.

Key Match Incident (KMI): Following a kick-in, the White team played the ball to their “flying goalkeeper” #2 (yellow jersey) in the opponents’ half. While attempting to control the ball, he was challenged by a Gold team player and lost possession. Gold #10 gained control with open space directly toward the White goal. In an attempt to recover the ball, White team GK #2 committed a holding foul on Gold #10.

At the time of the foul:

• The White goal was unguarded.
• Only one White defender was in an “active” defensive position.
• The foul denied Gold No10 a clear opportunity to score.

This situation fulfills the criteria for Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity.

Decision

• Direct Free Kick for Gold team (counted as an accumulated foul against White team).
• Send-off (red card) to White team GK #2 (flying goalkeeper) for DOGSO. 

Incident Description:

During an attacking phase by the Red team, Black No8 committed a tripping offense against Red No30 at the top of the Black team’s penalty area. At the time of the offense, the Black GK was positioned inside the penalty area, with no other active defenders between the attacker and the goal.

Decision and Restart:

The challenge by Black No8 denied Red No30 an "obvious goal-scoring opportunity" by an offense punishable by a free kick at the edge of the penalty area. The position of the offense, the absence of other defenders, the attacker’s control and proximity to the ball, and the direction of play all satisfy the DOGSO considerations. However, at the moment of the foul, the Red GK was positioned inside her own penalty area, within the triangle defined by the two goalposts and the ball (according to the Approved 2025–2026 Amendments provided above, refining the concept of a guarded goal). With the GK considered as guarding her goal, the conditions for DOGSO are not fully met. Instead, the foul meets the criteria for stopping a promising attack (SPA).

Restart: Direct free kick awarded to the Red team at the location of the foul (accumulated foul against the Black team).

Disciplinary Action: YC to Black No8 for UB – SPA by foul.

Incident Description:

During a counterattack by ARG No9, he was challenged by CRO No7 near the half-way line. While executing a slide tackle, CRO No7 lifted his left leg, making contact and tripping ARG No9. This contact caused a temporary loss of balance, but ARG No9 quickly recovered and advanced toward the CRO goalkeeper, who was positioned inside his penalty area at the moment of the challenge. No other CRO defender could be considered as actively involved in protecting the goal at that time.

Decision & Restart:

The challenge significantly reduced ARG No9’s ability to maintain or regain effective control of the ball in a clear attacking opportunity. The CRO GK’s position inside the penalty area was noted (goal guarded), but the impact of the challenge met the criteria for Unsporting Behaviour – Stopping a Promising Attack. Direct Free Kick (Accumulated Foul) to the ARG team from the location of the infringement. Caution (Yellow Card) to CRO No7 for UB–SPA.

To analyse this clip, the key task is to correctly identify the direction of play and assess the legality of the challenge involving the goalkeeper. The Black team is defending the right side of the screen, with the Yellow team attacking toward the right. The sequence begins with a throw by the Black team GK (wearing purple). A Black team teammate then attempts a headed clearance, which inadvertently sends the ball backward in a looping trajectory toward their own penalty area. As the ball descends, a challenge occurs between the Black team GK (in blue) and a Yellow team attacker, both competing for possession in the air. The GK ultimately manages to punch the ball away. What is essential for the referee team to focus on is the exact location where the ball was played - that is, the point of contact when the ball was boxed - not the position of the goalkeeper’s body. This distinction is critical for determining whether the action was within or outside the penalty area at the moment of contact, which directly impacts the decision regarding a potential handling offense or infringement.

Decision and Restart:According to Futsal Law XII, this constitutes a handling offense, as goalkeepers are not permitted to use their hands outside the penalty area under any circumstances. The correct restart is a direct DFK in favor of the Yellow team. Additionally, this incident is recorded as an accumulated foul against the Black team. The referee must now assess whether the action warrants a disciplinary sanction, specifically under the criteria for: Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) or Stopping a Promising Attack (SPA).All four standard DOGSO considerations should be applied:

• Distance between the offense and the goal – Very close.
• General direction of play – Toward goal.
• Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball – High, given the ball was played forward and was accessible near an unguarded goal.
• Location and number of defenders – None; the goal was unguarded.

While all four considerations are relevant, the key DOGSO criterion in this situation is the likelihood of gaining control of the ball. Given the attacker’s proximity and the absence of any other defending player or goalkeeper between the ball and the goal, the likelihood of scoring is very high. Therefore, the disciplinary sanction is a red card to the Black team GK (in blue) for DOGSO by Handball outside the penalty area.

Comments:

The position of the referee at the moment of the incident is crucial, as the key decision hinges on whether the handball offense occurs inside or outside the penalty area. Given this, the referee must quickly prioritize their line of vision to accurately assess whether the GK's hand makes contact with the ball outside the penalty area line. When observing the GK moving to challenge for the ball, the referee should anticipate the potential for a boundary-related infraction and position themselves with a clear, unobstructed view of the penalty area line, instead of monitoring the goal line. 

At 6:47, the ball exited the pitch on the touchline, last touched by Red # 4. White #10 attempts a quick restart via a kick-in, recognizing a numerical advantage for his team at this exact time. However, Red # 4 positions himself less than 5 meters from the ball and makes no visible effort to retreat to the required distance. The behavior of Red #4 appears rooted more in personal frustration following the previous challenge than in any tactical purpose. Despite this, the action interferes with the proper execution of the restart. The referee must anticipate and prevent such situations through proactive management, ensuring opponents respect the restart procedure. From a technical standpoint, play should be stopped, and an indirect free kick awarded to the opposing team from the position where the interference occurred. This moment highlights the importance of the referee ensuring correct restart procedure to preserve fairness and uphold the tempo of the match. Quick and unimpeded restarts contribute significantly to the fluidity and excitement of the Futsal game and must be consistently protected.

Decision and Restart:

Infringing Law XV – Kick-In, which mandates that opponents must remain at least 5 meters away from the ball until it is in play. Furthermore, a YC should be issued to Red # 4 for unsporting behavior, as the player fails to respect the required distance and disrupts a legally taken restart.

- IDFK (Non-Accumulated Foul) awarded to the White Team

- Yellow Card issued to Red #4 for Failure to Respect the Distance 

At 4:49, the ball is openly contested and playable by both White #6 and Red #22. White #6 is the first to make contact with the ball, executing a rolling motion to control it. However, during this action, White #6 arrives with noticeable speed, force and intensity. In doing so, he initiates contact with the leg of Red #22 just below the knee. Despite an apparent bending of White #6’s leg during the motion, the point of contact is forceful. His leg is perpendicular to the opponent’s leg at the moment of impact, and his full body weight is transmitted through the challenge. This is not a glancing or brushing contact, but rather a direct and impactful one.

The way he commits to the action - at speed and with significant weight transfer - endangers the physical integrity of his opponent. This type of contact meets the criteria for Serious Foul Play (SFP) under FIFA Futsal Laws of the Game, as it demonstrates a disregard for the opponent’s safety.

Decision and Restart:- DFK (Accumulated Foul) awarded to the Red Team. Red Card issued to White #6 for SFP.

At 4:53, while shielding the ball from Yellow #30, Red #13 used his right arm in a backward motion, making contact with his hand on Yellow #30’s head. This action is not consistent with a natural arm movement for protecting the ball, as the arm was raised to an unusually high level. Such positioning carries an inherent risk of making contact with an opponent’s face, which must be carefully assessed for potential misconduct.

FIF Panel Decision:

A direct free kick (accumulated foul) is awarded to the Yellow Team, and Red #13 is cautioned for Unsporting Behavior (reckless challenge).

Comment:

The referee closest to the action must identify such conduct, while the other referee, with a clear view of the incident, should use the radio communication system to inform his colleague.

Additionally, at 4:44, when the play is stopped for a goal clearance in favor of the Yellow Team, the Yellow Team GK #1 is seen running from his goal area to dissent against the referee's decision. Such behavior is unacceptable and warrants a caution for dissent.