Goal / Non Goal in Crew v. Burn game

[kevbrunton]

Just curious if any of you saw the Crew v. Burn game when a shot on goal by Eddie Johnson. Dallas fans say that either the ball crossed the line or Martino handled it. Crew fans of course, think inadvertant handling and no goal.

You can see the goal on the MLS website -- go here http://www.mlsnet.com/MLS/sights/ and then click on the link in the middle of the page for "Is it a goal?".

What do you guys think?

[texgator]

What do you guys think?

That the ref was in on the fix! Upset Burn fan checking in.

[Brook]

Being one of the faithful who was at the match, from my vantage point behind The Crew bench, I was watching the AR to see his reaction. He appeared to be properly positioned and at no time did he break for midfield to indicate the ball had wholly crossed.

[NHRef]

Its absolutely a "handling" offense, question is is it a DOGSO? The first contact I think was incidental, the ball then goes up and hits the crossbar and comes back down and his arm comes up to meet the ball. Given that the first contact was ok, the question becomes was it moving towards the goal on the second contact? I don't believe the ball crossed the line, but this might fit as DOGSO.

I THINK if I were there I would have awarded the PK for handling, but not DOGSO.

[PVancouver]

This is what I posted in the Columbus Crew forum...


As for the "handball", let's review the play. Johnson smacks the header toward goal from 6 yards out. Martino is able to deflect a hard hit ball which is aimed just above his left shoulder. As he goes to contact it, he begins to raise his shoulder and gives a little jump with his left side. Naturally, he begins raise his arm in the air at the same time. He successful contacts the ball with his upper shoulder, and deflects it hard into the crossbar. The ball quickly richochets off the crossbar extremely quickly and hits the middle of his arm, which is now parallel to the goal line. If considered a deliberate action, it is clearly a hand ball.

Dave Dir insists Martino raised his arm. Of this there is no doubt. But clearly Martino's arm motion can be considered a natural movement in the context of Martino's initial play on the ball using his raised shoulder. You might also notice that Martino turns his face away from the ball. Is this because he is smarter than Behncke? ;) No, actually, this too, might be considered a natural movement. Martino does not have enough time to get his arm up to defend Johnson's header, and I find it rather unlikely that he is putting his arm up to deflect the ball's descent from the crossbar. For one, the play happens way too quickly. For two, he could have knocked it in just as easily as he kept it out by raising his arm. And for three, he could have been called for a hand ball! ;)

The Crew were extremely lucky with those two plays (Busch's save and the goal-line clearance) just before the end of the half, but the Martino play was a good non-call.



I guess will find out what Joe Machnik thinks in a couple of days.

[kevbrunton]

I agree with PVancouver this time. His analysis of Martino's actions are exactly my thoughts too. There is no way that he is moving his arm to play the ball. His arm movement is a direct result of his initial (completely legal) movement to stop the goal with his shoulder.

I also don't think the ball could have crossed the line completely. Martinos feet are planted on the goal line and his arm appears to be straight out, not angled back, so if that's correct, there's no way the ball crossed the line fully before making contact with his arm.

[Statesman]

Doesn't look like a goal, but certainly handling. Raising the arm like that is not a natural movement even when deflecting the ball with the shoulder. I actually believe he did have every intention of denying the goal with his arm, but the ball hit his shoulder instead (lucky him).

[kevbrunton]

Doesn't look like a goal, but certainly handling. Raising the arm like that is not a natural movement even when deflecting the ball with the shoulder. I actually believe he did have every intention of denying the goal with his arm, but the ball hit his shoulder instead (lucky him).
So you think that he intended to deny the goal on the initial shot but he got lucky and it hit his shoulder instead. Does it follow that he intended to have his arm in position to stop it once it comes back down off the crossbar? I am unsure how he could have possibly anticipated that event and therefore place his arm in such a way as to stop the goal.

[Alberto]

Doesn't look like a goal, but certainly handling. Raising the arm like that is not a natural movement even when deflecting the ball with the shoulder. I actually believe he did have every intention of denying the goal with his arm, but the ball hit his shoulder instead (lucky him).

Agreed. He was lucky it hit his shoulder. It it hit 6 inches further out it would be a PK and a send off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The key is the movement of the arm up he was grasping at anything to try and prevent the ballfrom crossing fully over the goal line.

[superdave]

Dave Dir insists Martino raised his arm. Of this there is no doubt. But clearly Martino's arm motion can be considered a natural movement in the context of Martino's initial play on the ball using his raised shoulder.
Get up from your chair, and from a two-footed position, jump.

OK, what did your arms do? Not what Martino's did. Shoulda been a PK, but not a DOGSO, IMO. The ball wasn't going toward the goal.

[jc508]

I am a Crew season ticker holder and supporter.

I can see why no call was made, in my opinion. Seeing it one time, I was not sure, and I would hate to give a PK for something that I was not sure about. However, after reviewing the footage several times, I have to agree that it did look to me as if Martino may have lifted him arm to make contact with the ball, so that it probably should have been a PK. It appeared doubtful that I would have considered it a DOGSO.

[SCBozeman]

No goal.

Yours truly, Hugh Dallas

cc: Torsten Frings

[Red Star]

No goal.

Yours truly, Hugh Dallas

cc: Torsten Frings

You just had to go and bring this up, now I am all mad again. Maybe some ref apologist will jump and defend that wanker.

[billf]

That's a tough one. The ball off the crossbar wasn't delibrate IMO. The arm is in an unnatural position when the ball came off the bar, but the ball played the arm there. Handling there would have been harsh, but calling that one could avoid DGH because of the direction the ball was going. The issue is the shoulder which is part of the arm. It looks like he go the first ball with the top of the shoulder and that's the handling infraction and DGH IMO. There was definitely a move to play the initial ball with the upper arm and he was succesful. At full speed and on the field, I may have made the same call the referee did though because where the ball made contact the first time (arm, shoulder, or upper chest) would not have been easy to determine. As someone pointed out earlier, it would be hard to make that call not being sure.

[kevbrunton]

Agreed. He was lucky it hit his shoulder. It it hit 6 inches further out it would be a PK and a send off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The key is the movement of the arm up he was grasping at anything to try and prevent the ballfrom crossing fully over the goal line.
First of all, there is no question that if the ball hits 6" further out on the initial shot, it is DGH and PK. But that's not what happened. So when did any handling occur.

I am still arguing a distinction between the first ball / human contact and the second.

In the first, I will give you that he raised his arm, but he was able to get his shoulder to the ball -- therefore, no handling and therefore, no DGH. Do you and Stateman agree with this assessment of the first ball / human contact?

Then, next "play" if you will -- ball ricochets off the cross bar and back down onto the now raised arm. In this case, the ball played the arm. What you guys seem to be saying is that he attempted to play the ball with his arm in the first contact, but was "unsuccessful" and wound up playing it with his shoulder. Therefore, when the ball comes back down onto his arm in the 2nd contact, it is handling. Is that what you guys are saying?

If that is what you are saying, I would argue that the ball clearly ricocheted off the crossbar back down to the arm. There was no way he could have intentionally played that ball -- meaning that he anticipated that the ball was going to come back down off the cross bar and therefore stuck his arm out to block the ball a second time.

[whistleblowerusa]

It's not 100%. No referee will give that PK or handling call if not 100% at that level.

[billf]

The ball looked like it went off the shoulder joint. IMO, that's the outter shoulder. I think most referees would consider the first play handling if it happened in midfield. The key to me is that he was able to direct the ball up with a lot of force. This really wouldn't have been possible if it simply hit the top of the shoulder or he directed it with the top of his chest. If he got it on the collarbone, that's another issue though. As small as the video is, it's hard to tell and I'm not so sure I would have been able to differentiate at full speed.

[Footer Phooter]

It's not 100%. No referee will give that PK or handling call if not 100% at that level.

There was a DC game against Chicago a few years ago that makes me disagree with you. AJ Wood came through on a slide tackle and the ball hit his hand. Noel Kenny called a pk.

[Statesman]

Well, here is how I come to my decision --

Players don't throw their arms up when they jump inadvertantly. They weigh enough to not come flying up on their own, so it takes either a conscious decision or reflex to make them move. In this case, the player knew the ball was going to be coming at him very quickly, so he is mentally prepared for the impact. That rules out the reflex, so we know the arm moving is intentional.

Next you have to consider why the player would put his arm up. He's standing on the goal line, and knows a shot is coming at him. If you are a player in this position, what do you do? You do whatever you can do deny the goal! Therefore the arm movement was intentional, and it was meant to block the goal.

The only reason why there is confusion here is the speed of the play. It just so happened that in this instance, everything happens very very quickly. So quick, in fact, that the shot is off and hitting the defender in the shoulder before he can get his arm all the way up. So, he gets lucky.

What the player does NOT foresee, though, is the ball rebounding from the crossbar and THEN hitting him in the arm! The action the player took is deliberate, and the end result is the handling of the ball. Therefore, he is guilty of deliberate handling. He may not have intended for the ball to hit his arm after rebounding, but certainly the positioning of his arm was a deliberate action on his part.

[billf]

Well, here is how I come to my decision --

Players don't throw their arms up when they jump inadvertantly. They weigh enough to not come flying up on their own, so it takes either a conscious decision or reflex to make them move. In this case, the player knew the ball was going to be coming at him very quickly, so he is mentally prepared for the impact. That rules out the reflex, so we know the arm moving is intentional.

Next you have to consider why the player would put his arm up. He's standing on the goal line, and knows a shot is coming at him. If you are a player in this position, what do you do? You do whatever you can do deny the goal! Therefore the arm movement was intentional, and it was meant to block the goal.

The only reason why there is confusion here is the speed of the play. It just so happened that in this instance, everything happens very very quickly. So quick, in fact, that the shot is off and hitting the defender in the shoulder before he can get his arm all the way up. So, he gets lucky.

What the player does NOT foresee, though, is the ball rebounding from the crossbar and THEN hitting him in the arm! The action the player took is deliberate, and the end result is the handling of the ball. Therefore, he is guilty of deliberate handling. He may not have intended for the ball to hit his arm after rebounding, but certainly the positioning of his arm was a deliberate action on his part.

I can agree with that reasoning. It's a stupid move though. The chance the pk will be missed is low and it's almost a sure send off. The team is almost certain to go down 1-0 either way, but by handling then team will also be down a man too. I guess the chance the referee doesn't make the call factors in as well.