Futsal Laws of the Game

---

At 2:01, Black #3 intercepts a pass attempt from Yellow #8 and immediately advances toward the Yellow team’s goal. At that moment, the Yellow team GK is acting as a flying GK and is positioned outside the penalty area, leaving the goal unguarded. In an attempt to stop the attack, Yellow #8 commits a reckless sliding tackle against Black #3.

Analysis

Although the tackle by Yellow #8 is reckless, the referee must assess the big picture situation by applying the principle of a “mental snapshot” at the exact moment the foul is committed. At that moment:

• The goalkeeper is outside the penalty area, leaving the goal unprotected.
• There are no other active defenders between Black #3 and the goal.
• Black #3 has clear control of the ball and is moving directly toward goal.
• The distance to goal is favorable.
• The direction of play is clearly toward the opponent’s goal.
• The likelihood of Black #3 retaining possession and scoring is high.

All six considerations required to determine a Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO) in futsal are therefore met.

Decision / Restart

Direct Free Kick (Accumulated foul for the Yellow team) awarded to the Black team and Yellow No8 is sent off for DOGSO-foul.

Following a direct free kick, Blue-Red #7 headed the ball towards the White team’s goal. White #5, attempting to defend his goal, initially played the ball with his chest, which caused the ball to rebound back towards Blue-Red #7. Immediately after this rebound, the ball made contact with the defender’s right arm.

Analysis: At the moment of first contact with the ball, the position of White #5’s right arm was natural, and the ball clearly rebounded from his chest onto his arm. This initial contact alone would not constitute an offence. However, as the ball rolled along his arm, White #5 made a subsequent movement with his hand, actively directing the ball away from a potential playing action by Blue-Red #7. This deliberate arm movement altered the path of the ball and prevented an opponent from challenging for possession in a promising attacking situation.This constitutes a deliberate handball offence under the LOTG.

Restart

• Penalty kick to the Blue-Red team
• The offence is not counted as an accumulated foul, in accordance with the LOTG 2025-26 Amendments.
• The handball annihilated a goalscoring opportunity, but not obvious: Yellow Card to White #5 for UB - SPA by handball

This clip highlights the high level of concentration required of futsal officials, as two potential offences occur almost simultaneously. Correct decision-making depends on identifying the first offence, which ultimately determines the restart. When multiple incidents occur in rapid succession, officials must remain patient, maintain optimal viewing angles, and apply correct offence sequencing to ensure the appropriate restart and disciplinary outcome.

At 14:02, Red #2 successfully evades a challenge from White #10 and proceeds toward the White team’s goal, where he takes a shot. The White GK parries the ball, which then rebounds into a space between Red #2 and White #9, where it is playable by both players. As Red #2 attempts to play the rebound, White No10 trips him inside the penalty area. Following the trip, Red #2 makes contact with the ball, which subsequently strikes the left arm of White #9.

Decision & Restart:

The first and decisive offence is a tripping foul committed by White No10 inside his penalty area. Consequently, the correct restart is a penalty kick for the Red team, which DOES NOT count as an accumulated foul against the White team under the 2025-2026 Amendments.

The potential handball offence by White #9 must be disregarded, as it occurs subsequent to the initial foul.

Regarding disciplinary action, the referee must assess whether White #10 made a genuine attempt to play the ball. If so, no disciplinary sanction is required. If not, a caution should be issued, in accordance with Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct) of the Futsal Laws of the Game (page 85).

At 9:56, Red No11 received a pass from a teammate and advanced alone toward the White GK, who was positioned inside his own penalty area. At 9:55, White No10, chasing from behind, pushed Red No11 with both hands on the back, an action correctly penalized with a DFK (accumulated foul for the White team).

Decision:

The Officials must determine whether this constitutes DOGSO or SPA, as the at the moment of the foul, the goal was guarded. Considering that, without the foul, Red No10 could have passed the ball to his unmarked teammate No5, placing him in front of a scoring position with an unguarded goal (GK not in the imaginary triangle formed by the goalposts and the ball). In consequence, the foul clearly denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a foul.

Restart:

DFK (Accumulated foul for the White-team) for the Red-team at the location of the foul and Red card to White No10 for DOGSO-Foul.

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:

At 5:17, the White team GK initiated a substitution. However, the incoming player did not appear to be assuming the role of a “flying goalkeeper,” as he was not wearing a vest or a jersey in a different color from his teammates. At 5:13, the designated “flying goalkeeper” for the White team subsequently entered the pitch. This sequence resulted in the White team being without a goalkeeper for approximately four seconds.

Decision:

The referees should have recognized that during this period (5:17–5:13), the White team did not have a player properly acting as a goalkeeper (Law III, p30). The correct procedure should have been:

1. Stop play immediately upon realizing the White-team was without a GK.
2. Caution the player who entered incorrectly for unsporting behavior (improper substitution/failure to wear the mandatory vest as flying goalkeeper).
3. Restart with an indirect free kick to the opposing team, from the position where the ball was when play was stopped (unless inside the penalty area, in which case the restart is from the nearest point on the penalty area line). 

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.

As White13 received a pass from a teammate and advanced directly toward goal, she was closely pursued from behind by Blue6. The Blue GK was positioned outside of her penalty area at the time. Blue6 attempted to challenge for the ball from behind and committed a tripping offense against White13. Despite the contact, White13 managed to score a goal.

Decision and Restart:This video should be considered with 2 scenarios:

Scenario A – Match without Video Support:

The referee applied the advantage, allowing play to continue despite the tripping foul, and a goal was scored. In this situation, as the goal was valid, play was restarted with a kick-off for the Blue team. Given the nature of the challenge (from behind and tripping), the referee may consider issuing a caution to Blue6 for a reckless challenge, though the successful goal may influence a more preventative approach. The possibility of a caution for reckless play remains a valid consideration but not mandatory.

Scenario B – Match with Access to Video Support:

Upon review (initiated by a team request), the video shows that White13 handled the ball just before scoring. The goal has to be disallowed due to the handling offense. The referee must now determine the proper disciplinary sanction and restart based on the tripping foul by Blue6 and whether the defender made an attempt to play the ball.1 - Did Blue6 attempt to play the ball?

• Yes → The foul is considered a DOGSO-YC.
  Restart: Penalty kick for White
  Sanction: YC to Blue6
• No → The foul is considered DOGSO-RC .
  Restart: Penalty kick for White
  Sanction: Sending-off  to Blue6

Comment:

The use of video support allows for a more accurate application of Law XII. Disallowing the goal due to a handling offense is correct. The referee must then apply the DOGSO criteria and determine the appropriate restart and sanction depending on whether an attempt to play the ball occurred.