yet another handball question...Arsenal-Bolton, 9-18

[superdave]

OK, did anyone catch this match? Corner kick for Bolton, Ashley Cole on one of the posts. Bolton header goes in, Cole's arm goes up, reflexively, to try to stop it, but it's in.

I don't know whether the CR didn't see the clear, clear handball or thought it wasn't deliberate (unlikely) or he thought the ball was already over the line (quite possible) or played advantage (I have no idea.)

Let's say you were doing the match, and the ball was NOT already over the line yet. What is the correct call? I would think it would be goal and a red for Cole. I base that on the times I see advantage played, but the CR coming back and giving a yellow for a foul at the next dead ball. But I wonder if, as a practical matter, the smart thing would be to just "not notice" the defender's handball. They just gave up a goal, if you make them go a man down for such an inconsequential play, you're really inserting yourself into the match.

Just curious.

[Chubbywubby]

First thing you do is play advantage. There's no greater advantage for the attackers than having the ball in the back of the net and the ref pointing to the center circle. ;)

Then consider the possible misconduct. Did the defender deny a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball? If the goal is scored despite the handling, the answer is no and there can be no sendoff. Depending on the circumstances, the ref may consider cautioning for USB, or just letting the defender know how lucky he is that his handling the ball failed to stop the goal.

This assumes that the handling and the goal are all part of the same play on the ball (kind of like the continuation play in basketball). If the handling does prevent the ball from crossing the goal line, but the attackers subsequently score from what you consider to be a separate play, you can still go back and send the defender off for denying the first goalscoring opportunity.

[jkc313]

Well, can't be a red as the goal was scored (assuming the ref allowed advantage). My guess is, the ref missed it ot thought the ball had already crossed the goal line and scored. Most refs, I think, would allow advantage and the goal. Many would then caution and show a yellow card. I think our Canadian and European brethren would caution more quickly than US referees, but I could be wrong. The worst thing any referee in this situation could do, would be to decide he'd seen the handball and the game stopped at that point, no advantage,take away the goal, award a pk and send off the defender for DOGSO even though he only did this in the referee's mind.

[superdave]

Then consider the possible misconduct. Did the defender deny a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball? If the goal is scored despite the handling, the answer is no and there can be no sendoff. Depending on the circumstances, the ref may consider cautioning for USB, or just letting the defender know how lucky he is that his handling the ball failed to stop the goal.

This assumes that the handling and the goal are all part of the same play on the ball (kind of like the continuation play in basketball). If the handling does prevent the ball from crossing the goal line, but the attackers subsequently score from what you consider to be a separate play, you can still go back and send the defender off for denying the first goalscoring opportunity.
Good point. And I guess the rest of your post covers the situation where a GK takes out an attacker, and then the attacker, or a teammate, gets to the ball and bangs it home.

[whitehound]

OK, did anyone catch this match? Corner kick for Bolton, Ashley Cole on one of the posts. Bolton header goes in, Cole's arm goes up, reflexively, to try to stop it, but it's in.

I don't know whether the CR didn't see the clear, clear handball or thought it wasn't deliberate (unlikely) or he thought the ball was already over the line (quite possible) or played advantage (I have no idea.)

Let's say you were doing the match, and the ball was NOT already over the line yet. What is the correct call? I would think it would be goal and a red for Cole. I base that on the times I see advantage played, but the CR coming back and giving a yellow for a foul at the next dead ball. But I wonder if, as a practical matter, the smart thing would be to just "not notice" the defender's handball. They just gave up a goal, if you make them go a man down for such an inconsequential play, you're really inserting yourself into the match.

Just curious.Allow the goal and say quietly to the player " I am REALLY glad you didnt stop that goal with your hand arent you?!"

[HoldenMan]

An earlier post mentioned that if the original shot bounces off the arm, towards another attacker and that attacker scores then it's a goal and a RC as the first attempt at goal was denied.

If I'm not mistaken, this is an interpretation offered in the ATR, and I think you'll find that a lot of referee's from across the pond don't agree with that one. Either the goal is denied or it isn't, not both. At least, that seems to be the more common interpretation.

Just thought it'd be worth mentioning that for any of the other nations that visit.

[jkc313]

An earlier post mentioned that if the original shot bounces off the arm, towards another attacker and that attacker scores then it's a goal and a RC as the first attempt at goal was denied.

If I'm not mistaken, this is an interpretation offered in the ATR, and I think you'll find that a lot of referee's from across the pond don't agree with that one. Either the goal is denied or it isn't, not both. At least, that seems to be the more common interpretation.

Just thought it'd be worth mentioning that for any of the other nations that visit.
2 different events. First player denies a goal, while you allow for advantage, the ball doesn't go into the goal until it's kicked by another player. ATR tells us to send off and award the goal, as the goal wasn't scored "directly" from the handling but by a susequent action. I can see how this is confusing as the advantage could be the second player banging it home

[Crowdie]

2 different events. First player denies a goal, while you allow for advantage, the ball doesn't go into the goal until it's kicked by another player. ATR tells us to send off and award the goal, as the goal wasn't scored "directly" from the handling but by a susequent action.

Ah the US interpretation of DOGSO. If you did that in the "British" soccer world then you would have the coach from that team in your face calling you every name under the sun - the goal has not been denied so a DOGSO situation has not occured. Different country different interpretation.

[Statesman]

Which begs the question, which is the correct interpretation in the World Cup? FIFA has yet to answer ...

[Caesar]

Which begs the question, which is the correct interpretation in the World Cup? FIFA has yet to answer ... I think you'd have to assume the "English" version. As far as I'm aware, the USSF interpretation isn't used anywhere other than the USA, where the ATR spells it out. If it ever came up, the UK FAs basically run IFAB, and it's ultimately IFAB's decision.

There are several interpretations in the ATR that are considered unorthodox outside the US.

[Statesman]

Care to elaborate on the other interpretations you refer to?

[Crowdie]

Care to elaborate on the other interpretations you refer to?

Now there is a challenge if ever I heard one :D

[Statesman]

Just curious, I love hearing foreign opinions on officiating in the U.S. and Caesar seems a good perspective.

[Caesar]

Care to elaborate on the other interpretations you refer to? Well, there's the one we've just discussed, which is the most obvious. There's also the USSF interpretation that "During the match" includes the period immediately before the beginning and immediately after the end of play, with the caveat that the players must be on the FOP. Also, ATR states that the minimum 7 players/team does not apply to KFTPM. There's also the opinion in the ATR that Impeding can occur when there is contact.

That's all I can think of at present. Most of them have no official stance outside the US, but the accepted practice just differs. I must admit that my personal experience only extends to the UK and Australia - knowledge of other countries only comes from discussion with other referees from around the world, and of course what we all see on television.

[Statesman]

That's all I can think of at present. Most of them have no official stance outside the US, but the accepted practice just differs. I must admit that my personal experience only extends to the UK and Australia - knowledge of other countries only comes from discussion with other referees from around the world, and of course what we all see on television.

And so you are willing to admit that perhaps your perspective of US interpretations as "unorthodox" may only apply to your own country? I think you may find there are more countries applying the same interpretations as the U.S. than not, and that some UK interpretations are considered quite unorthodox by them. As you might recall, FIFA did have to clarify the offside interpretation for the sake of the UK, did it not? And, now UEFA is seeking a different interpretation more like what they have been doing all along, which is quite different than the majority of the world. I do not suspect FIFA will pay it any attention.

The point I am making here is that "unorthodox" interpretations exist within all federations. To assume FIFA will side with the "English" interpretation may have been safe in previous decades, but it appears they are very much taking a more global perspective into account within the past decade.

I will also point out that there is strong precedent throughout the laws to consider each touch or play of the ball on its own merits, and not the overall play. Thus, consistency of the interpretation of play would suggest the same applies for DOGSO, which is what USSF currently advocates. Unorthodox as it may be, do not be too quick to dismiss this interpretation.

[Caesar]

And so you are willing to admit that perhaps your perspective of US interpretations as "unorthodox" may only apply to your own country? Well, no. I've discussed the DOGSO interpretation with referees from Europe, Asia, South America, South Africa, Zimbabwe and NZ and they all follow along the general lines of the UK interpretation. Obviously, I am not familiar with all countries, but as I said, as far as I'm aware only the US uses their interpretation.

As for the interpretation of "during the match" WRT cautions etc, the 2003 ATR contradicts the FIFA Q&A at the time (Q&A 1997, Law 3, Question 16). I apologise for any outdatedness, but due to out season differences here we are still working on the 2003 version of the laws.

The other issues again come from my discussions with overseas colleagues - not conclusive, I agree, but reasonably indicative that the interpretations used here are not unusual.

I think you may find there are more countries applying the same interpretations as the U.S. than not, and that some UK interpretations are considered quite unorthodox by them. I would certainly like to hear of any examples you might know of, because I have not run across them myself.

As you might recall, FIFA did have to clarify the offside interpretation for the sake of the UK, did it not? The problem was far more widespread than just the UK, although it was most visible there due to the incidents in the Premiership. It also wasn't that the UK was interpreting it incorrectly per se, but there was a lack of uniformity - some correct, some incorrect.

And, now UEFA is seeking a different interpretation more like what they have been doing all along, which is quite different than the majority of the world. I do not suspect FIFA will pay it any attention. Well, that's a seperate issue, and has more to do with the interests of the big clubs and what would be most convenient for them.

The point I am making here is that "unorthodox" interpretations exist within all federations. To assume FIFA will side with the "English" interpretation may have been safe in previous decades, but it appears they are very much taking a more global perspective into account within the past decade. Well, I wasn't so much assuming that FIFA would side with the English way, but pointing out that IFAB makes the laws, and the UK controls IFAB, so it means that the UK interpretations are going to carry a fair bit more weight than most.

[HoldenMan]

Other interpretations...I know a number have come up, I'm at a bit of a loss now to remember them.

The backpass thread a few posts down is one example - the ATR seems to interpret it as a pass which happens to go to the keeper and is handled is a backpass, while a number of other countries will put more emphasis on the intention to pass to the keeper (yes, officially most, if not all, bodies are removing our judgement of intent, but it's always going to be there).

As mentioned before, in the US I believe you can card after the match.

Can't you also card the coaches or managers, or is that only in School Soccer (let's not get into the differences in US school soccer!)

Aside from that there are always going to be some more minor/unofficial cultural differences in the way the game's played and the way the rules are enforced - that happens between every country. If anybody for another country, especially Australia or the UK, were to visit the asktheref site, then they would find some advice which, quite frankly, would be considered poor advice in other countries (but which is undoubtedly quite solid advice in its cultural context. There is also a lot of good advice for all countries on that site, don't get me wrong, but non US referees should always take that site with a pinch of salt due to the ATR and other cultural differences).


So is the ATR a replacement for the LOAF or merely an interpretative document?

[Englishref]

I would tend to agree with Caesar on this. The IFAB is made up of 8 members, 4 from FIFA, and 1 each from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, so it fair to say that Britain does have a big say in what law changes there are, and how they are worded.

But once that is done, it is up to each country to apply the laws, and of course you will get your own interpretations. Wrt the handball, unfortunately I had a game so missed the Arsenal game so can't comment on the exact question, but wrt the US interpretation of DOGSO, quite frankly it would be unheard of in Europe for a referee to play the advantage, the attack score, and then still to send off the defender. I suppose this is down to your interpretation of a GSO. We would take the view that the defender hasn't DOGSO as his handball has lead to it falling into the path of another attacker to score. His intervention hasn't prevented the team scoring. In this case, a goal would be awarded and at most a YC produced for the intent to try and prevent the goal (USB). But another interpretation of DOGSO is that at the moment the defender handles it and the ball moves away from goal, that is a phase of play and in that phase of play, a goal has been denied, with subsequent events irrelevant, which is fair enough. But I would put a big bet on the fact that if a US referee did that at a WC, he would be pulled up on it. You can say that is my English/European-tinted glasses view, but i would be pretty certain it was the FIFA view too.

Wrt the offside law, it wasn't actually England that strictly lead to the 'new interpretation'. There was a directive issued by FIFA, that absolutely no one, but the top level guys, in England new about, explaining how the offside situation could be exploited. It was only when Ruud Van Nistelrooy scored that infamous goal that Graham Barber produced the directive, and everyone knew about it. I very much doubt even RvN knew it when he scored! However, the publication of it lead to several PL teams exploiting it as far as possible. Bolton had about 6 players 'offside' before a free kick, who then ran back onside before the kick was taken. After this game, FIFA decided to 'clarify' the 'new interpretation', and since then it has improved. But had the initial problem (RvN) occured in Spain/Italy even the US, i'm sure the same would have happened. You could see at Euro 2004, the only players who really knew how to exploit it were the English-based players. Whether it will get changed, I happen to think it will. Not quite how UEFA want it, but I have a feeling goals like Ruud's at Euro 2004 won't be allowed in the future.

It's an interesting topic though, and one I never knew too much about, having only really seen European and South American football, with the odd MLS game, and African Nations Cup tournament plus other Int'ls thrown in. :)

[whitehound]

As mentioned before, in the US I believe you can card after the match.

Can't you also card the coaches or managers, or is that only in School Soccer (let's not get into the differences in US school soccer!)


You cannot card after the match. You include anything you deam important in the report but it is improper to show cards

You dont show cards to coaches. You simply tell them they are cautioned or ejected.

[MassachusettsRef]

Ah the US interpretation of DOGSO. If you did that in the "British" soccer world then you would have the coach from that team in your face calling you every name under the sun.The same would happen in the United States. You're adding insult to injury and, unless the foul warranted a red on its own due to excessive force or violence, I would never come back to send off the player. Yes, I know what the ATR says, but the ATR just isn't practical in this instance. I think the recent memo about when and why to use cards (having a "feel for the game") should supercede the ATR in this instance.