Can someone clear something up? I'm watching the SJ-DC game on my DVR, and I've just seen Rodney Wallace's handball in the penalty area. If you didn't see it, he quite clearly jumped, reached up and batted away an offensive chance. It was a goalkeeping move. The result was a yellow card for Wallace and a penalty kick for San Jose. But, isn't that a straight red? I thought when it came to handballs in the box, the rule was yellow for inadvertant, red for deliberate. And this was obviously deliberate. No? Man, if you aren't carrying a yellow card, this would seem to be an incentive to bat away a ball rather than allowing a goal. Sure, it's a penalty, but at least your keeper would then have a chance. ------RM
He has to be deliberate to be a foul. You get sent off for denying a goal by deliberately handling the ball. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hIDuokJ3VA"]YouTube - DC United at San Jose Earthquakes - Game Highlights 07/25/09[/ame] Incident around the 3:18 mark When I saw it live I thought the red was coming but the referee must have felt the ball wasn't going into the goal. If the ball was going into the goal, then he should have been sent off. In this case it looks like the correct decision. I don't think the cross was going into the goal. It was going wide.
As code1390 states, the premise of your question is based totally on a myth. "Inadvertent" handballs are not fouls at all--period. It has to be deliberate for it to be a foul. And this incident was quite clearly deliberate so we have no debates about the penalty kick. The question is red, yellow, or no card. For it to be red, the ball has to be going into the net or the handling has to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity--to US referees, that means several specific criterion need to be met. Those criterion were not met and I think it was pretty clear the ball wasn't going into the net. Stott even waves away the quick protests from San Jose players who appeared to be looking for a red, as if to say it wasn't even close in his eyes (which, I think, is why he got the yellow out so fast--to show everyone that he knew what he saw and that he made his decision instantaneously). So the question becomes yellow or no card at all. The standard for yellow, as has been debated recently in another thread, is that the handling has to stop the opponent from having possession and/or stop an attacking opportunity. In this particular instance, I think it's purely a judgment call. On the one hand, an argument can be made that a cross was knocked down to the intent was to prevent an attacking opportunity or prevent someone from heading the ball, so in that regard the yellow is absolutely justified. On the other hand, it was unlikely that anyone was going to connect to the cross on the back post and it was likely just going to go out for a goal kick--if you believe that to be true then there's really not need for a card. It's a complete judgment call left to the referee's opinion, and I totally see why Stott gave a yellow.
Actually, that is MassRef's standard for yellow. As he points out, the matter is being debated in another thread, which indicates that opinions are not unanimous. Everyone does agree that unless the handball prevents a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity, a red card may not be shown.
Seriously? From the guy who cites chapter and verse of every single document ever issued? Oh, and also the guy that has never had to make such a decision in a game? I'm sorry, I'm referring to FIFA's standard and the IFAB's standard for what constitutes misconduct when handling. There is no debate about that one, guy. Some people are arguing that misconduct can arise from handling under a separate clause of our instructions related to the Laws, which I do disagree with. But even if they're right, that doesn't make it a "new" standard for misconduct with handling--it just would mean that referees can apply the "disrespects the game" clause to whatever they want to (again, which I disagree with).
Can I ask a question here of PVancouver? Are you a referee? If you're not a referee, why do you post here? R
Right. Or if you try to score a goal with your hands. Those two are also straight from our instructions but I didn't want to confuse the original poster because those two clearly didn't happen here. I also doubt the necessity/effectiveness of cautioning for the situation you cite (would you give a second caution/red for this in a close game???), but that's a different debate for a different thread.
I disagree. In this case, perhaps Wallace is afraid that Cornell Glen or some other San Jose player is making a run to the back post (Glen had begun a run but then held off), so he "commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack". Your argument is, well, there was no run, and thus there was no promising attack, but I don't think this is critical. He appeared to me to be committing a tactical foul to ensure that no goal would be scored. At least, that is the only explanation I can give for it. It would be interesting to hear Wallace comment on it. The CorshamRef site talks about how in the English FA, a yellow card is shown in cases where a ball crosses the goal line, but a defender deliberately handles the ball in a failed attempt to prevent the ball from crossing the line, after it crosses the line. This is done "because of a line in the FA 2 Tier Referees’ Instructor Training Syllabus, Basic Syllabus Part 1, Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct," which specifically states that: You won't find an exact correlation in the FIFA LOTG. Let's make it more clear. A field player deliberately handles a backpass from his teammate in order to prevent the ball from going into his own goal. The ball deflects off his hand (while still in play) and into the net. Advantage is played, and the goal counted. FIFA lists two possible cautionable infractions for handling: This is repeated in slightly different form: Note the bolded text. The LOTG Interpretation does not attempt to list every possible cautionable offense. I think it would be difficult to argue that the example above fits the literal description of either case, although I think most referees would issue a caution in this case. The USSF lists the following cautionable offense in the ATR: Commits a tactical foul designed to interfere with or impede an opposing team’s attacking play (e.g., pushing an opponent, blatantly holding an opponent or an opponent's uniform, handling the ball deliberately) Note the use of the word "design". The foul does not actually have to interfere with or impede attacking play in order to be carded. I don't know who is talking about a "new" standard. And, no, not "to whatever they want to", but to whatever the referee sees an action that he believes blatantly disrespects the game.
Color me surprised. Learn to read. I never said there was no promising attack. For the guy that picks apart everyone else's words and posts, you are slipping. I said: I made no value judgment on Stott's call. I didn't say what I would do. I simply stated what the thought process would be for a referee in this situation. Under the Laws and our instruction, there is a justification for a yellow and there is also reason not to give one. It comes down to a referee's opinion, and Stott was perfectly within his rights. I almost hate to say it, because I feel like I'm kowtowing to you, but I will say now that if that happened on my field, I would caution the player. But I also wouldn't fault a referee for only awarding the penalty. These sort of grey areas that rest with the prerogative of the referee just seem to be something you can't comprehend. I'm sure you'll find a way (and 1000+ words) to quibble with the word "exact," but I will point out the additional instructions to the Laws state: "If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent's handling or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned." In my eyes, that's an exact correlation (hell, forget correlation, it's the exact same instruction) as: But have fun wasting an hour or two of your time explaining why it isn't the same. With your posts, I typically find that impossible. The example you provide in this post seems to support my inclination. The only point you have that is worthwhile is the one about "design" which equates, essentially, with "attempt to." I would simply note that I never meant to imply that such handling (where the player thought he was stopping an attack but likely wasn't) didn't fall under the category I spoke of. To that end, I should have included "or attempts to" in my initial post. EDIT: actually, re-reading my own post, I think I did say that when I wrote:
Actually, we are getting close to the same opinion. I admit I overreacted to your earlier post without reading your entire statement. It sounded to me like you were reiterating your earlier comment from the other thread, which said: In that case, a defender at the six yard line jumped up and swatted a ball away, after the keeper had already been beaten. You argued that since the shot was not on goal and would not remain in play, the defender could not be red or yellow carded. But, discounting the possibility of temporary insanity, how could this be considered anything but a tactical foul designed to ensure that no goal is scored? In this case, you said: "The standard for yellow, as has been debated recently in another thread, is that the handling has to stop the opponent from having possession and/or stop an attacking opportunity." I assumed you would argue that there could be no yellow card in this case because the handball did not actually deny possession or an attacking opportunity. The statement above can easily be read that way and I wanted to make it clear that I disagree with that interpretation (as you are probably aware by now). You didn't argue that opinion in the text that followed and you deserve credit for that.
Keep smiling there, pal. If you really think that I'd vociferously debate against a caution on another thread and then say Stott was well within his rights on an "exact play" to that of what we were discussing, well, enjoy the fantasyland you're living in. You and others were arguing for a caution for handling due to it being "blatant" and/or "disrespecting the game." I've said this caution falls completely under the stopping an attacking opportunity/denying possession (or attempting to) that is in the Laws. But the unnecessary (as the debate appeared over) accusation of total inconsistency/hypocrisy is duly noted. ***********