I'm going to throw this out there because I am not finding some of these argument confusing based on answers that have been given in similar situations in past threads, which of course I can't find right now. I believe the scenario went something like this: "A keeper kicks the ball towards his own goal, an aware attacker sees this and begins running towards the "free" ball. The keeper, who is the last defender, fouls the attacker just before the ball crosses the goal line. I argued that this was not a send off due to the ball not being score able until another touch occurred, many including yourself I think MassRef, argued that because they potential for the attack was a possibility it was still DOGSO. I know this scenario is slightly different but can we confidently say with 100% certainty there was no opportunity for attack here? Further, let me throw this in the equation on this specific play. What if the attacker realized the defender was standing where they were and intended to use them as the 2nd touch. The defender steps aside and instead of the ball deflecting off their leg or something else and going in the handle the ball and stop it? Still no caution?
We are going off a hypothetical question based in text with no visuals--we can't say anything with 100% certainty. But the question said he was on the goal line and the ball was just about to cross the line. And the goalkeeper was not near that part of the goal. I read that as implying there's no attacker around either. If there's an attacker nearby who could re-direct or deflect the ball with a touch at the last second before it enters the goal, then you have a different situation. But that doesn't sound like what the question was asking. I think you're reaching now. Why on earth would a defender deliberately step aside so as not to have it deflect off of him and then deliberately handle the ball? "What ifs" can be interesting, but they have to be somewhat plausible. That scenario is not. A better "what if," if you want to go down that route, is that an IFK is blasted at the stomach or head of a defender on the goal line, who reflexively--and deliberately--handles the ball before it strikes him. Since there was the possibility that the ball could have deflected off the defender and into the net for a good goal, does our decision change now? That's a little trickier and might all be down to "you have to see it to judge."
ATR doesn't separate deliberate handling and other fouls in discussing tactical fouls. (Both the ATR and I&G give examples of what can be USB - neither is drafted to be exhaustive. The ATR's advice to caution for unsuccessfrul DOGSO ("should caution") contemplates something similar albeit it not exactly the same.)
Uh, oh, we're about to digress into a messy discussion of the legal distinctions between mistake of law and mistake of fact . . . run away, run away . . .
And this is an irreconcilable difference of opinion. For me, there must actually be an OGSO to attempt to DOGSO. For you, it only matters that the player thought there was an OGSO. I suspect neither of us convinces the other on this point.
You're probably correct. I find it interesting that you suggest I not take into account that the goal is directly behind the defender, while the crux of many other people's arguments hinges on the fact that the goal IS directly behind them, thus there can be no further attack. This point probably has nothing to bear on the conversation but I found it interesting.
I think the crux of many other people's argument (and mine really) hinges on the fact that the goal line is directly behind the defender. That's what causes there to be no further attack. I'm merely inviting you to move the situation away from goal to evaluate what you would do there and then suggesting that, given this ball can not score a goal, you should do the same even with the goal is directly behind him.
Well, to defend my remarks, the crux of my argument technically hinges on the fact that the ball would be going out of play, so there can be no further attack. Practically, the ball would be going in the goal (which is why the defender likely chose to handle it), but the lack of the chance for there to be an attack would be the same if the defender did the exact same thing somewhere else on the goal line, but not in front of the goal.
Without the goal though there would be no argument for a card at all thus, you have to have the goal to argue against the card. It's a circular argument but you are the one arguing against the card, which is the start of the circle.
If the ball is definitely going out of play without any chance of an attacker ever touching it, then I don't think that's true. I'm arguing against the card*, on technical grounds, because it does not stop the attacking team from gaining possession because the ball is going out of play. *I'm talking about the yellow card via a "tactical" justification, that socal lurker has called for or justified. In my eyes, the red card is unquestionably out because no OGSO is denied. Actually I'm pretty ambivalent. I think, legally, a yellow isn't supposed to be given. Practically speaking, it might make everyone's lives easier just to give it.
No no no. The argument for not giving a card is not the starting point, it's the end point (or conclusion if you want) you come to after realising that the goal frame being there is irrelevant because a goal cannot be scored.
I disagree, you start you thought process for a card or not when you see the goal is there. Thus it is your starting point. I feel you might have tricked me into falling victim to the loop. If that was your intent. Excellent trolling. On the red text we both agree. It is the blue where I agree with Socal for both legal and practical reasons. I believe that the idea of handling to take away a promising attack opportunity is a philosophical reason for giving a card rather than a question of fact. The concept is to stop the players from acting in a manner which can take away an attack or goal. Whether they are smart enough to realize they are doing that, as in this situation, I believe should be irrelevant. If all else fails, the laws don't list every reason we can give a card for UB because it is impossible. This act I think regardless of black and white examples is an unsporting on at heart. [Edit] I just saw my email but did this situation come from the USSF referees linked in group?
The technical argument can't preclude a USB caution. USB is what the referee deems to be USB. The lists in I&G and ATR are not exhaustive but examples of common issues -- you don't have to find an exact match on the list to give the yellow. (Indeed, the technical analysis you offer would preclude the yellow that the the ATR expressly says should be given for DOGSO handling that fails to prevent the goal when a goal is scored.) I think this comes down to ITOOTR in the context of a partiular game -- as a general proposition, I would not fault a referee for going either direction with this. (Which makes me think that, as a test question, it would be a poor question if it offered "PK + yellow" and "PK only" as alternative answers, but would be a fine question if, say, the possible answers were "PK + red," "retake the IFK," "IFK because the ball was not yet in play," and then had either "PK + yellow" or "PK" as the correct answer.)
I think the technical argument precludes the normal reason for the USB caution. I agree that a referee is still in his purview to give the caution for USB. I think, however, it would be unwise to do so. We talk a lot about how draconian the DOGSO penalty can be: PK, play short and a suspension. Here we have a similarly harsh punishment. For a ball that was going out for a goal kick we're giving a PK and putting a defender on a caution. It's unnecessarily harsh and you wouldn't do it anywhere else on the goal line even though the ball crossing the goal line would be the same result outside of the goal as in it.
Yes but it's the principle behind the idea that makes this different. We all know it was going to be a goal kick, heck the other 21 players might all have known. Clearly this player did not and was trying to use an illegal act to deny a "goal". He should be punished for that, to the extent that we can, which is a PK and caution. I'll also put it out there as well that as referees we shouldn't consider DOGSO to be draconian, our concern especially shouldn't extend to include something completely outside our control such as a match suspension. That is for the league to decide and I would hope no referee ever decides to not give a DOGSO for this reason. If so they should re-evaluate which side of the whistle they want to be on.
Isn't that kinda sorta on the same order as the action we're discussing here? We caution someone for clear USB based on an attempt to do something. In one case, they fail, in the other, they can't possibly succeed - but the intent is essentially the same in both cases.
Can we? Yes. Are we "supposed to," per the ATR? Probably. I never have, despite having a few opportunities. Explained my reasoning in post #100:
As was said earlier, I think this argument is going in circles. I also think it's way too technical. If you ever had to actually make this call, it would all come down to feel of the match. In the same way that the "unsuccessful DOGSO-H" situation would come down to context and feel. To wit: I recognize the technical justification for and the instruction of the "failed DOGSO-H" yellow card. But I've never given it and can't think of many instances where I would. I don't think there's a good technical justification for a yellow card when deliberate handling stops an IFK from going into the net. But, I can see a lot of situations where I would give one (there's much more latitude on this one for me). Those are two blatant contradictions and some would argue they are contradictory to themselves. But I'm fairly certain that's how I'd handle either these situations if they arise.
Only if I could, which I can't now that the "attempts to" was removed from the handling infraction. Handling either happened or it didn't. Sucks that I can't find a legal leg to stand on to make your suggestions a reality.