Knees, Goalkeepers and a Death: IFAB's Law Already Exists, So Why Isn't It Enforced on the Pitch?

That Tenerife versus Andorra match on November 2 stopped at 2-2, but the scoreboard is not the number I am going to carry through this piece. The real number is 12 — Article 12 of the IFAB Laws of the Game, which already permits a direct red card for serious foul play, for endangering an opponent's safety, and for excessive force. That law was on the books when Andorra goalkeeper Jesús Owono came out of his box near midfield, raised his knee in the challenge, and collided with Tenerife's 30-year-old forward Jesús de Miguel. De Miguel died the following morning. Owono was sent off with a straight red. And yet the debate that has followed is demanding a new law — when the question is not the absence of a law, but the enforcement of the one that exists.

Let me first state the argument in its strongest form. Former Colombia goalkeeper Nelson Ramos told Caracol Radio's Blog Deportivo that goalkeepers are trained to protect their bodies, that raising the knee is a reflex formed in training, mainly for situations inside the penalty area where they can use their hands, and that they are never taught to use the knee to hurt an opponent. His solution is clear: a rule should exist so that when a goalkeeper leaves the box for a legitimate challenge, opponents are not allowed to make dangerous impacts on him. Spanish referee Joan Fabregas went further on Versio RAC1 — referees often avoid issuing cards to keep the match 11 versus 11. So the problem, he suggests, is refereeing culture. The two men point in different directions, and that divergence is the most interesting crack in this whole affair.

My suspicion is that this is not a story about a missing rule but about inconsistent application of an existing one — and that is why the demand for 'a new law' sounds stronger than it actually is.

Start with the text of Article 12. It states plainly that when a player — goalkeeper or outfielder — challenges with excessive force and endangers an opponent's safety, a direct red card is warranted. The provision applies to a goalkeeper outside the box exactly as it applies to a defender. What happened was not outside the law. The red card the referee gave was inside the law. So why is Ramos asking for a new one? His technical argument is coherent — goalkeepers are trained in hand-based protection, they are not taught the sliding or diving repertoire an outfielder has, and when they push up to midfield they default to a protective posture in which raising the knee is the easiest reflex. That same reflex can be lethal in the middle of the pitch. The problem is a mismatch between technique and context, not a gap in the law.

And this is where my strongest objection to Ramos's proposal sits. If you legislate that an opponent may not make a dangerous impact on a goalkeeper who has left his box, you build a shield that also protects legitimate sweeping. A goalkeeper outside the box is a normal footballer and should carry the same duty of care as any defender. My question runs the other way: if the raised knee is a protective reflex, why is that reflex not re-trained for the space outside the box? That is a federation-level coaching-curriculum question, and it is where the durable fix lies. Ramos himself concedes goalkeepers are not good outside the box, and that concession weakens the foundation of his rule proposal. If the skill is missing, teach the skill — do not hide it behind a law.

Now the angle that is getting the least room in this debate — the 2026 Bundesliga incident. Wolfsburg goalkeeper Koen Casteels and Stuttgart captain Christian Gentner collided in the same way, outside the box, knee raised. Casteels was not penalized. Those are two opposite outcomes under the same Article 12 — a straight red in one, nothing in the other. Fabregas's point becomes the spine here. If referees withhold cards out of a cultural habit of keeping the game 11 versus 11, the problem is not the wording of the law but the intent behind its application. And this is not about one case — it is about the credibility of the entire disciplinary framework. Two different verdicts on identical collisions hollow out public trust, and losing that trust is itself a player-safety issue.

I also have to say plainly that the silence around Owono is the most unheard part of this story. A red card, an abandoned match, a death the next morning — and in between, no official statement from his club, the league, or anyone about his mental-health support. A goalkeeper involved in an incident where a man lost his life carries the heaviest psychological burden of anyone in the team. Player welfare is a governance responsibility, and the quiet on that front is as troubling as the argument about rules. I would add that the media frame around this story rests entirely on external expert voices — not De Miguel's club, not Owono, not any official investigation.

Now the part where I try to prove myself wrong. Suppose I am wrong and Ramos is right — that the current law is not sufficiently clear about protecting a goalkeeper outside the box. Then I have to concede that Article 12's definition of 'excessive force' does not measure the biomechanics of a collision: speed, body orientation, knee height, the opponent's position. A referee has no instrument to measure that on the pitch except his own experience. And if experience is the only basis, inconsistency is unavoidable. That is the softest corner of my objection. In fact, Ramos's proposal could be one way of reducing that inconsistency — drawing a clear line about what is legitimate against a goalkeeper outside the box and what is not. I will not claim his intent is wrong. My doubt is only that his solution is bigger than the illness he wants to cure.

But there is another layer that cannot be ignored — FIFA's goalkeeper guidance encourages raising the knee when jumping for high balls, while making clear the knee must not be used to endanger an opponent. The law itself creates a gray zone: the very posture that protects in the air can produce a catastrophic ground collision. That is the most technical layer of this debate, and it shows the answer is not a binary 'raise the knee or don't.' The answer lies in understanding that the meaning of a posture changes when its context changes.

My last point is blunt and measurable. If, within the next 12 months, IFAB or FIFA does not issue a clarificatory circular stating explicitly that excessive-force goalkeeper challenges outside the box warrant a mandatory card, then I will accept that this death, too, has gone into the same file as the 2026 Casteels collision. Do not rush to rewrite the law — the law already exists. What is needed is a refereeing directive and a coaching-curriculum fix that teaches goalkeepers to slide outside the box rather than survive on their knees. The question is not what the law says. The question is when the referee standing on the pitch remembers it.