USMNT vs HON - Caution or Send-Off?

[intechpc]

I'm a little surprised that I didn't see a thread on here pretty quick following the play. Does that man everyone agreed with the caution vs send-off decision on the handling call that lead to the US PK in the first half? When I first saw it I was in agreement with the US players that seemed to be arguing for a Send-Off for DOGSO-H. However, after seeing the replay and having time to think objectively about it, I did agree with the call to only Caution.

I'm curious what others here thought and why. For me, I like the caution because the ball is coming through the box and there is a good chance that even if it's not handled it does not become a goal scoring opportunity. By first look it did appear that there was a sure shot on goal, but after thinking about it and seeing it again, I'm not so sure that the US players were going to connect that play anyway. At least enough doubt in my mind that I can't say it was an obvious opportunity. Your thoughts?

[gosellit]

I'm a little surprised that I didn't see a thread on here pretty quick following the play. Does that man everyone agreed with the caution vs send-off decision on the handling call that lead to the US PK in the first half? When I first saw it I was in agreement with the US players that seemed to be arguing for a Send-Off for DOGSO-H. However, after seeing the replay and having time to think objectively about it, I did agree with the call to only Caution.

I'm curious what others here thought and why. For me, I like the caution because the ball is coming through the box and there is a good chance that even if it's not handled it does not become a goal scoring opportunity. By first look it did appear that there was a sure shot on goal, but after thinking about it and seeing it again, I'm not so sure that the US players were going to connect that play anyway. At least enough doubt in my mind that I can't say it was an obvious opportunity. Your thoughts?

I'm not sure it was even a caution. Very unlucky play by Honduras and an easy PK, but didn't see anything that would cause me to caution. Much less, a send off.

[DWickham]

The issue for a sendoff is whether, but for the deliberate handling, the ball would have gone into the net. That seems to be an easy "no." The question for a caution is whether the handling was tactical - to prevent the ball continuing to Donovan. The AR had information that the referee wanted to make the decision.

[code1390]

The issue for a sendoff is whether, but for the deliberate handling, the ball would have gone into the net.

The law says "denies a goal or obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberate handling the ball."

[Craig P]

If I had to guess, I would guess that the referee's reasoning is that he wasn't sure the bounce of the ball would give Donovan a scoring opportunity. Thus, a caution for the tactical foul, but not a send-off for an OGSO.

My question is, was that handling deliberate? My immediate instinct when I saw the replay was that it was not. (Mind you, I also thought they botched the Rico Clark penalty shout, so I didn't mind that it evened out.)

[Alberto]

That was deliberate and if I was the referee I would have sent him off. Donovan was behind him 12 yards from goal with only the keeper to beat. That was a cowardly call. Just because the hand did not extend out in an obvious manner does not offset the tremendous advantage the Honduran defender got from his deliberate play.

We also got robbed when I believe Clark was clearly taken down a few minutes before the penalty. We should have been up 2-1 in the first half assuming we would have converted the earlier penalty.

[hefftheref]

there is NO WAY that's a sendoff. i dont think that it was an OGSO, the keeper was almost on the ball when the player handled it.

yellow was fine to sell the call, but red would have been terrible.

[Alberto]

there is NO WAY that's a sendoff. i dont think that it was an OGSO, the keeper was almost on the ball when the player handled it.

yellow was fine to sell the call, but red would have been terrible.

Really, watch the replay and then comment again. The ball got past the Honduran back line that's why the Catracho grabbed the ball. It was in no man's land and Donovan was past him next to the ball. Also the keeper was on his line. Pray tell why would that not be a send off?

[o5iiawah]

What exactly was the yellow for again besides selling the call? Its not a yellow in the midfield thats for sure.

I think the ref issued it to say "you just got really, really lucky'

[Alberto]

What exactly was the yellow for again besides selling the call? Its not a yellow in the midfield thats for sure.

I think the ref issued it to say "you just got really, really lucky'

I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point here. DOGSO has all to do with distance to the ball, distance to the goal, direction, and the number of defenders. Of course if this was at midfield it would be a foul and not a send off.

Let's look at the play.

Distance to the ball: The ball falls within playing distance to Landon Donovan.

Distance from goal: The handling occurs about 14 yards from goal.

Direction: The ball is traveling towards the goal when it is handled.

Number of defenders: The ball is past the fullbacks. Only the keeper is there to defend the goal, all other defenders must recover their position to get goal side of the ball.

[Ref Flunkie]

It was always my impression that DOGSO-H delt with balls going into the goal, not balls going to an attacker that could have a OGSO. There is no way I got a RC here, and as others have stated, I'm not even sure I give a caution in that case.

Here is the quote from the ATR:

12.37 JUDGING AN OBVIOUS GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY
(a) Denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. The send-off offense for deliberate handling, number 4 under the seven send-off offenses, "denies the
opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)," does not require any particular alignment of players for either team, but simply the occurrence of the offense under circumstances in which, in the opinion of the referee, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling.

Denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball would apply to any player (or substitute) other than the goalkeeper in his or her own penalty area who handles a ball to prevent it from entering the goal, even if the ball was last played by a member of the defending team. A red card for denying a goal by handling cannot be given if the attempt is unsuccessful; in other words, if the ball goes into the goal despite the illegal contact. However, the referee should caution the player for unsporting behavior before restarting with the kick-off.

Therefore, this would likely fall under to DOGSO-F area (as all that says is it needs to be punishable by a free kick). IMO, this would be similar to if LD was tripped while the ball was bouncing to him in the penalty area. I don't see how that is a send off, as he does not have an OGSO at the time of the foul. Now IF the ball were to make it to LD, THEN I would say he is in an OGSO situation, but as the ball had not arrived yet, I don't see how that is a RC.

[nonya]

NO way was it either a caution or a send off.

If it was deliberate (which it obviously wasn't) caution, and stopping a GSO then send off. But with his back turned to the pass, the ball bounced and hit his hand, easy call.

The fact that the US wanted a send off is disgusting, and when I do games and that situation happens, the team that complains usually gets a card.

[Ref Flunkie]

NO way was it either a caution or a send off.

If it was deliberate (which it obviously wasn't) caution, and stopping a GSO then send off. But with his back turned to the pass, the ball bounced and hit his hand, easy call.

The fact that the US wanted a send off is disgusting, and when I do games and that situation happens, the team that complains usually gets a card.

Well it had to be deliberate or it wouldn't have been called (deliberately handling the ball) ;). Actually I do think the player had some idea what was going on and left his arm out there "just in case" the ball happened to hit it. Still, I think the caution was done more from a selling point than an actual game management point of view.

[Iforgotwhat8wasfor]

It was not text book, but it was an ept bending by the center referee.

If the ref judges the handling to be deliberate, he pretty much has to willfully ignore the letter of the DGH to avoid a send off. But was the handling deliberate? He could have let it go, but in the real world when there is that much potential, it gets called and accepted by the players and fans. Plus he already allowed CR a mistake - Clark got fouled with little doubt, but his potential threat was small... It's sort of like:

doubt x trifling > threshhold for the match, time, score -> no call

So he makes the call, issues a card, but decides it's tactical rather than denial...

At the end of the day, DGH is to stop cynical cheating. Did Donovan have a better chance in live play than the PK? No, so I think justice was served.

[DWickham]

The problem with watching on TV, is that it isn't clear what the referee initially called. Was anyone there? (I thought that Donavan was concerned that the referee wasn't going call the penalty kick, not that he was trying to get the opponent sent off. )

The mechanics were different, but excellent. Usually when a referee is getting information from the assistant referee in international play (despite the electronic communication), the referee moves to the assistant referee and they also confer face to face. While that can be helpful to the spectators and TV cameras, it never seemed necessary, it adds to the time to make the decision (which can convey indecision), and it suggests that the AR made the call. Here, the referee indicated to the players that he was listening to the AR, but stayed where he was. The referee's action indicates that the referee made the decision (not the AR).

[DWickham]

Therefore, this would likely fall under to DOGSO-F area (as all that says is it needs to be punishable by a free kick).

USSF has taught that if an misconduct involves handling, it must meet the requirements of DOGSO-H for a send-off. One can not use DOGSO-F to "fill in the gaps." (Thus, a goalkeeper cannot be sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity by touching the ball even when the touch is an IFK foul - second possession; received from kick; received from throw-in, etc. The exclusion for DOGSO-H for a keeper inside the penalty area means that the keeper cannot be sent off; DOGSO-F does not apply if the foul involves handling.)

[Ref Flunkie]

It was not text book, but it was an ept bending by the center referee.

If the ref judges the handling to be deliberate, he pretty much has to willfully ignore the letter of the DGH to avoid a send off.

Can you show me where this is the letter of DOGSO-H? I pasted my reference above.

[Ref Flunkie]

USSF has taught that if an misconduct involves handling, it must meet the requirements of DOGSO-H for a send-off. One can not use DOGSO-F to "fill in the gaps." (Thus, a goalkeeper cannot be sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity by touching the ball even when the touch is an IFK foul - second possession; received from kick; received from throw-in, etc. The exclusion for DOGSO-H for a keeper inside the penalty area means that the keeper cannot be sent off; DOGSO-F does not apply if the foul involves handling.)

If that is the case, then I see NO way you can send off the defender in this situation. I still equate it to a situation where the attacker is fouled, before the ball arrives, by the last field defender when a pass is coming into him. I'd like to see someone sell that as a send-off.

[MassachusettsRef]

I don't know why, but for some reason FIFA removed the DOGSO sketches from the Laws of the Game publication over the last couple of years. Regardless, it seems like most people never studied them (including some that teach DGH in the US right now). Here are the 2005-2006 Laws. See page 51: http://www.soccermidwest.us/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/refdoc6322.pdf

If that is a red card, then surely what happened with Donovan could be a red card. Those saying this simply cannot be red are wrong. And USSF has been wrong to imply/insist that a handling foul needs to deny an obvious goal for it to be DGH.

Despite that fact, I think this was a purely judgment call. Was the ball going to bounce directly to Donovan? Could the keeper get in a challenge before Donovan got it? How obvious was it that Donovan could control the ball? There are a lot of factors here that don't make it a clear-cut red card to me. I can understand why the US players asked for it, but I can also understand Morales not giving it. And the use of the AR to make the call was well done (initially, until I saw the replay, I thought he might be discussing with the AR whether Donovan was offside--which would have, consequently, negated any possible card).

On the whole, by the way, I thought Morales was very good. He was very cool and never rushed. Interacted well with the players. And he, in my opinion, got all the major decisions correct (it's a topic for another thread, but I disagree with those that think the earlier incident was a clear penalty). Wouldn't mind seeing him more in international matches but that might be rare because he's stuck firmly behind Archundia and Rodriguez.

[Alberto]

I urge everyone to go back and watch the replay. It is obvious the defender played the ball. He knew Donovan was behind them. The keeper is on his line just starting to move forward. There are at least 12 yards between the keeper and the ball/Donovan.