Goal Situation

[Jerlon]

Correct me if im wrong, but is it not the truth that if any field player deliberately plays the ball with his hand, it is a yellow? If a player catches the ball in midflight is it not a card?

[GlennAA11]

Nope, not the truth. A player who deliberately handles the ball is guilty of a foul. It is possible that he's also guilty of misconduct as well, but not necessarily.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Jerlon
Correct me if im wrong, but is it not the truth that if any field player deliberately plays the ball with his hand, it is a yellow? If a player catches the ball in midflight is it not a card?

This is not true, but it is understandable why so many misunderstand this aspect of the Laws. Deliberate handling is a foul, punishable by a direct free kick at the point where it occured. It is not, in itself misconduct and referees must judge fouls and misconduct each on their own merits.

For handling to be a foul at all, it must be deliberate. If it is accidental, irrespective of who is advantaged or disadvantaged, no foul had occurred.

This said, you can have both a foul and misconduct, such as a tripping foul and since it was done recklessly, a caution for unsporting behavior, or tripping to deny and obvious goal scoring opportunity, the player is sent-off. The same applies to the offense of handling.

If handling is done as a tactical foul, then it could be cautioned as misconduct. A tactical foul is one where a player deliberately commits a foul in the belief that the restart will be of greater advnatage or prefereable than allowing play to continue. For example, a defender facing a 3 on 1 break away deliberatedly and cynically jumps up and handles the ball so give his teammates time to come back, they should be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

The caution, however, is not for the handling but for the players cynical abuse of the Laws. The same applies to an attacker who deliberately tries to put the ball into the net through the offense of handling. This is considered unpsporting behavior and the attacker may be cautioned. But, again, the caution is a separate issue from the foul.

So the answer is no, even if a player catches the ball midflight, and spins it on his or her finger while spining cartwheels at midfield, this is not necessarily misconduct and you should keep your cards in your pocket.

[MPJ334]

Originally posted by whipple


So the answer is no, even if a player catches the ball midflight, and spins it on his or her finger while spining cartwheels at midfield, this is not necessarily misconduct and you should keep your cards in your pocket.

how likely is that? everyone knows that u can't spin cart wheels if you're spinning a ball on ur fingers!

to clear things up a lil, the handling was the 2nd touch of play. thanks whipple for pointing out that an OGSO wasn't present as that it was IFK. i hadn't even thought about that.

thanks all for the numerous replies today. and thanks for keeping them moderately short! (i usually do'nt realy long replies)

[Alberto]

Originally posted by whipple


Alberto,

The problem here is that if the defender deliberately handles an IFK from its initial touch, and it prevents the ball from passing over the goal line, between the uprights and under the crossbar, it has only prvented the ball from going out of play, it did not deny the goalscoring opportunity, because it never existed. Had he not touched it, it would not have been a goal, therefore he cannot be sent off for DOGSO.

It could, however, be DOGSO if the ball had already had its second touch, or if the kick were direct, but this is not the case if it is indirect.

I actually had a situation like this about a year ago when a defender deliberately handled a ball directly from a throw in by an opponent, which might have gone into the net, but even if it didn't would have been an easy tip-in for an attacker. Here, there was no send-off, but the player was cautioned for the tactical foul and the attackers were awarded a PK.

Agreed. I see your logic.

[blech]

Another interesting thread.

I would note that the term "advantage" has not been used in any of the responses. Keeping in mind the proper application of this principle, how does anyone defend calling a foul and penalty kick after the ball has already gone into the net?

Also, it didn't jump out at me immediately that this was not a "goal scoring opportunity" (since there is the possibility that the ball will ricochet off the wall), but I think this analysis makes a certain amount of sense and would warrant keeping the redcard in your pocket. (Of course, even though it wasn't a goal scoring opportunity, this doesn't change the intent of the defensive player, who thought he was going to stop a goal by using his hands. Reminds me of the old question of whether a defendant can be found guilty of murder or attempted murder after sneaking up and shooting someone in the back of the head only to learn that the person had died of a heart attack hours earlier).

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by blech
Another interesting thread.

I would note that the term "advantage" has not been used in any of the responses. Keeping in mind the proper application of this principle, how does anyone defend calling a foul and penalty kick after the ball has already gone into the net?

Also, it didn't jump out at me immediately that this was not a "goal scoring opportunity" (since there is the possibility that the ball will ricochet off the wall), but I think this analysis makes a certain amount of sense and would warrant keeping the redcard in your pocket. (Of course, even though it wasn't a goal scoring opportunity, this doesn't change the intent of the defensive player, who thought he was going to stop a goal by using his hands. Reminds me of the old question of whether a defendant can be found guilty of murder or attempted murder after sneaking up and shooting someone in the back of the head only to learn that the person had died of a heart attack hours earlier).
Objection---------relevency!

[RushOnze]

The player who attempts to handle the ball has simply tried to deny a goal-kick opportunity. (whether he knew it or not)

The goal stands as the ball has been touched by a second player and thus, fufills the requirements of an IFK.

No further action is necesary.

Kick off.

Keep it simple, dont go looking for trouble.