Last night I had the center on a HS girls varsity match with two very low-skill teams. It was the second game of the season for both teams, and not a conference match. The score was tied 1-1 with 10 minutes remaining, when a striker took a strong shot from a short distance outside the penalty area. A defender about even with the penalty mark jumped, raised her arms above her head, and made contact with the ball with her hands. The shot was clearly going well wide of the goal and the ball was minimally deflected by the touch, but the contact was clearly audible to everyone in the area. To this point in the game I had called two or three handling offenses, and there were close to a dozen incidents of hand/arm - ball contact that I had deemed not deliberate and did not whistle. I bit the bullet, signaled the PK, the captain buried the shot, and the game finished 2-1. I know I made the correct call by the rules, but it didn't feel good to make. The coach of course took the opportunity to complain about me making that call while ignoring other "handballs" earlier in the game. And it is certainly possible that I missed a handling or two among the sloppy play at midfield. I can rationalize it as a learning opportunity for the player so they won't make that mistake when the games actually count for something, but what I'm wondering is would any of you, given the situation as I described, find a way to ignore the pointless touch by the defender and not give the PK? And how would you defend the non-call to the other team?
I'd call the PK. And I'd call it against my own low-skilled HS JV team from a few years back when I was coaching them. The way you describe it, it's pretty clearly deliberate--in soccer, you don't jump up to a ball with your arms above your head. No matter how inexperienced you are. Easy to explain: she deliberately put her arms up where the ball hit them; her arms had no good reason for being there. The no calls? Not deliberate... arms were in a natural playing position and the ball hit them without any action by the player. I'd call it in your scenario in just about any league that is advanced enough to use a referee, U-littles on up. That's simply not the way soccer is played, and they need to learn.
There's no way to avoid that call apart from deliberately disregarding the Laws. " raised her arms above her head" really gives you no flexibility. Make the call because it's right, even if it sucks. At any level, players should know you cannot do that, and if they don't, they have to learn now. Had a game last year (Women's O-35) where my only two fouls were PKs for deliberate handling. It happens sometimes, you just have to enforce the Laws.
You are displaying acumen far above what seems in the capability of the white badge guys. These were all goals. Ok, I cheated. The first two were the same goal.
No/NA. As another of my boring anecdotes...on my U13 rec coed team I had a player who on a couple of occasions during our scrimmage time deliberately handled the ball to prevent it from entering the goal. I allow for a little bit of horseplay during practice, but in this instance I got on him a little, explaining to him, and everyone else, that he did not want to get in that habit because the consequences of doing so in a game would be that he would have to leave the game and the field entirely, we would have to play the rest of the game with only 10 players, and he would not be allowed to play in the game after that. Sure enough, he did it early on in our next to last game, and his season ended almost 25% early. Moral of the story: When the consequences get severe, at the teenage level, the kids deserve to know what they are, and there is no reason to assume anyone but you is letting them know.
I'd just take this out of the decision-making process. How hard or easy a decision is to explain has no bearing on whether we should make. Some stone-cold-wrong calls can be very easy to defend. And some 100% correct, courageous calls can be very difficult to explain, especially when they involve a goal/no-goal score. This whistle was warranted because the player deliberately handled the ball. That's all.
To be fair, the referee and linesman were both severely criticized for the HOG goal at the time, and doubtless would have been blasted on BS if it had been in existence at the time. The worse example was in the WWC last year. I don't have a picture, but in one game a defender actually picked the ball up in the PA...no call! PH
I omitted the pick-up because it wasn't a reach in the air. But the great one commented himself on his goal of Divine Assistance and on Fabiano's
uote="Pierre Head, post: 27385031, member: 73379"]To be fair, the referee and linesman were both severely criticized for the HOG goal at the time, and doubtless would have been blasted on BS if it had been in existence at the time. The worse example was in the WWC last year. I don't have a picture, but in one game a defender actually picked the ball up in the PA...no call! PH[/quote] I attended a seminar given by our top Female FIFA (Keri Seitz) who was at the WWC and told the full story. Ref did not have the call due to jerseys of team/keeper being in same color spectrum. AR2 did not have it due to players in her way. AR1 had it and communicated it too the CR multiple times via headset. Every ref team meets everyday to review previous days matches. When questioned why she did not call anything the referee never once answered or made a statement. Entire ref team sent home. Guessing that it was so blatant and WTF at a high level the ref just figured it HAD to be the keeper. Kinda like those occasions when I am on the line and 4 guys are to far offside I almost treat them like defenders... That said, remember that instinctive protective reactions to a ball in USSF are not considered handling (not planned and deliberate) unless they turn the reaction into their advantage. In Federation, instinctive protective reactions are considered handling.
In international play instinctive protective reactions are handling as well, as demonstrated by the call in the Canada -Finnland match yesterday at the Cyprus cup, and of course, the USA-Canada Olympic match.
I attended a seminar given by our top Female FIFA (Keri Seitz) who was at the WWC and told the full story. Ref did not have the call due to jerseys of team/keeper being in same color spectrum. AR2 did not have it due to players in her way. AR1 had it and communicated it too the CR multiple times via headset. Every ref team meets everyday to review previous days matches. When questioned why she did not call anything the referee never once answered or made a statement. Entire ref team sent home. Guessing that it was so blatant and WTF at a high level the ref just figured it HAD to be the keeper. [/quote] Thanks for the picture and the story. I don't want to prolong this thread, but I have two points which might be helpful to other referees. 1. Someone somewhere should have not allowed the keeper shirt color. I know they are pre-arranged in top class matches, but the referee has the final word. Orange and red are way too close and could be hard to distinguish in some light conditions. Actually I am amazed that the TV people did not complain. 2. The defender dropped the ball like a hot potato, which no keeper would do, so I don't buy the "it must have been the keeper" line. Again, the players will provide information. I think it was a brain freeze and being afraid to call a PK (and possible red card) in a big game. But yes, ticket home time! PH
I think every good referee ignores unintentional handling so there is no need to explain why one incident is handling and another isn't. It's all about the opinion of the referee. That's why they pay us.
That is why we whistle the foul and send off the defender for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. If the game ended 2-1, sounds like this was either the tying or game winning goal. How can anyone who calls himself a referee ignore this?????????????
As I mentioned in the original description, the shot was clearly going well wide of the goal before the touch, so DOGSO was not applicable. One thing I forgot to mention was that the player realized at the last moment that she was making a mistake and tried to pull her arms down, but it was too late. I decided that the late change in heart did not negate the original attempt to stop the ball, therefore the handling and PK.
As you describe it, the call was proper. No need to beat yourself up over it. Handling calls are the probably the biggest issue I have as a referee, not from me, but from the players, spectators and coaches. Every time a ball hits an arm or hand I hear the screams. When I see an accidental handling I now say "unintentional, play on". I know it is unnecessary to do so but at the level that I usually referee at I think it helps somewhat. At least the interested parties know I saw it and know I chose not to call it handling.
Precisely. You might want to consider different words. Since "play on" is used to signal advantage, you might want to use "not a foul" or "keep playing" as an alternative. (And to really nitpick, you might want to substitute "not deliberate" for "unintentional," as deliberate is the word that appears in Law 12. While I don't get as wound up as some in the difference between the two words, I do think it is valuable for us to use the words of the Laws as much as possible.)
