Educational Video Clips

---

At 1:10, Yellow No5 gains possession by taking the ball from Red No4 and immediately advances toward the Red teams' goal. At this moment, the Red team is using a flying GK, meaning the goal is effectively unguarded, as confirmed in the replay sequence.

As Yellow No5 continues his forward run toward goal, Red No4 attempts to recover defensively. At 1:08, in an attempt to evade a sliding challenge from Red No4, Yellow No5 pushes the ball forward and tries to jump over the opponent. However, Red No4 fails to play the ball and instead his left leg raises, making contact with Yellow No5 and tripping him, thereby stopping the attacking movement.

When evaluating whether this incident constitutes Denial of an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), the referee must consider the following elements:

- Distance to Goal: Yellow No5 is moving directly toward the Red goal and is within a realistic scoring distance.

- Direction of Play: The attacker is progressing straight toward goal, with clear attacking momentum.

- Control or Likelihood of Control of the Ball: Yellow No5 has played the ball forward and remains in position to continue his run, indicating a high likelihood of regaining control if not fouled.

- Number and Position of Defenders: a) The goal is unguarded due to the use of the flying GK, b) Red No2 is positioned too far to the left side of the play and cannot realistically challenge Yellow No5 before a potential shot on goal. Consequently, Red No2 cannot be considered an active deefender capable of preventing the goal-scoring opportunity

Decision:

Tripping foul by Red No4 on Yellow No5, sanctioned by a Red Card to Red No4 for DOGSO-Foul.  The restart would be a DFK to the Yellow team and the Red team would have an accumulated foul

Mentoring points for Referees:

In futsal, situations involving a flying GK frequently create unguarded goal scenarios, which significantly increases the likelihood of DOGSO when an attacker is fouled while moving toward goal. Referees must carefully evaluate the position of remaining defenders and determine whether any defender has a realistic possibility of intervening before the attacker can shoot.

The white team is employing the flying GK tactic, with the GK wearing a blue jersey. White #7 attempts a pass to his flying GK, who is positioned inside his own half of the court.

At this moment, the referee must:

• Be aware of whether the ball has been touched by an opponent after the GK’s previous release.
• Monitor potential infringements related to the four-second rule and the GK’s participation in play.
• Remain attentive to any act that may unfairly deceive opponents.

Just before the pass is initiated, the flying GK, located inside his own half, loudly shouts “No, no, no,” clearly indicating awareness that the ball may not legally be played again by him.

As the pass reaches him:

• The flying GK deliberately steps over the ball.
• He does not touch it.
• The ball continues its trajectory and crosses the end line.
• The referee stops play with a whistle.

Technical Analysis
The GK does not touch the ball. Therefore: There is no technical infringement related to a second touch, and the ball simply goes out of play over the goal line.Since the ball crosses the goal line without touching the GK, there is no offence committed and the play stops solely because the ball has left the field of play.

Restart

If play was stopped only because the ball went out of play, the correct restart must be determined in accordance with the LOTG. However, the referee stopped play for another reason (e.g., uncertainty regarding possession or an external factor), then the dropped ball procedure applies: If play is stopped and no infringement has occurred, the restart is a dropped ball for one player of the team that had or would have gained possession, if this can be determined. Otherwise, it is dropped for one player of the team that last touched the ball.

Mentoring Referee Learning Points

- Anticipate GK participation when a team uses the flying goalkeeper.

- Be fully aware of the “second touch” restriction in the GK’s own half.

- Distinguish between verbal team communication and unsporting verbal distraction.

- Ensure the correct restart based strictly on the reason play was stopped.

- Apply dropped ball procedures accurately when no offence has been committed.

Many of you will be familiar with the expression: “Technically correct, but practically wrong.” This clip provides an excellent case study for referee development.

In the UEFA EURO third-place match between Croatia and France, Croatia leads by one goal with 0:47 remaining. A goal clearance is awarded to the blue team. The blue goalkeeper (No1, in yellow) appears to initiate a substitution to bring on a flying goalkeeper (No10) to create a 5–0 attacking structure. For whatever reason, the substitution does not occur, and the goalkeeper remains on the field. As White No9 presses aggressively; the blue goalkeeper drops the ball in preparation for the goal clearance. Importantly, the match clock does not restart at the drop, it remains at 0:47, and only restarts when the goalkeeper kicks the ball.

Technical Analysis by the LOTG

Strict application of the Laws of the Game would lead us to consider:

- The GK has put the ball into play

- He then touches it again before it has touched another player.- This constitutes a "double" touch offence.

If this second touch denies an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), the correct disciplinary sanction would be:

- Red card if DOGSO is clearly established.- Yellow card if the opportunity does not meet the DOGSO criteria.From a purely technical standpoint, this is defensible and aligned with the Law.

Spirit of the Game & Match Management

However, elite officiating requires more than technical accuracy. It requires context awareness, football understanding, and application of the Spirit of the Game.In this situation:- There is no element of deception or tactical misconduct.- The GK’s intention is clearly to facilitate a substitution and transition to an attacking setup.- The error arises from poor execution and misunderstanding of procedure, not from unsporting behavior.

A rigid disciplinary sanction in this scenario would likely feel disproportionate to the futsal and competition context.  The match officials chose an elegant solution:

- Retake the goal clearance.

- Reset the clock to 0:47.

This approach preserved:

- Fairness

- Match control- Credibility- ProportionalityMost importantly, it reflected an understanding of the game rather than a mechanical application of the Law.
Mentoring Reflection

As referees, we must constantly ask ourselves:- What is the football expectation here?- Is there misconduct or simply a procedural error?- Will my decision increase acceptance and credibility?- Am I solving the problem or escalating it unnecessarily?

At FIFA level, we look for referees who combine:

- Technical knowledge

- Emotional intelligence- Game understanding- Courage to apply common sense appropriatelyThe key learning point is not whether the Law could justify a sanction, it is whether applying it strictly serves the game in that moment.

In your own matches, the outcome may depend on:

- Your level of competition

- Your match temperature- Your personality and communication skills- Your credibility with playersThe best referees are not those who are only technically correct. They are those who are correct for the game.

At 15:41, POR No7 delivered a pass to her pivot, POR No14, who controlled the ball with her right foot on the side opposite the defender in order to execute a turning movement. As POR No14 completed her turn toward the opponents’ goal, Fixo TAN No11 committed a holding offence by grabbing her left arm and jersey. At the moment of the foul, the TAN GK was positioned in and guarding the goal, while POR No7 became an active attacking position with no defending player between her and the goal.

Decision / Restart

The foul committed by TAN No11 is clearly flagrant and requires the referee to immediately evaluate whether the offence constitutes a Stopping a Promising Attack (SPA) or Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO), applying the considerations outlined in Law 12 (LOTG Futsal, p.82). As highlighted in the Laws, “the goal being guarded does not mean that a DOGSO offence cannot be committed, and the goal being unguarded does not mean that every offence is DOGSO” (p.83).

In this situation, the presence of POR No7 in a clear active attacking position without defensive opposition upgrades the attacking phase from a promising attack to an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity. According to the DOGSO decision table (p.85), the criteria are met: 

• no attempt to play the ball, and
• offence committed outside the penalty area.

Therefore the final decision is:

DFK to POR team (recorded as an accumulated foul against TAN),

Red Card to TAN No11 for DOGSO – foul offence.

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.