Goal Situation

[MPJ334]

i was observing a game before one of mine a few months ago, and an interesting thing happened. i meant to put it on here then, but never got around to it. and it would've been bombed anyway. :)

OK. here's what happened. defender (blue) passes ball to GK. referee whistles. IFK...attackers(red) take kick. blue defender is standing on goal line, jumps w/ his arm up. the ball hit his arm and then crossed the goal line. goal disallowed. PK. goal scored.

what do u all think you would have done? i think i would've allowed the goal. it was IFK, but he played the ball with his arm...then i would've cautioned him for USB...he didn't DOGSO bc it went in, but he attempted to.

feedback? (this was this referees second season. he certified with me...this was a U13 game.)

[jeeeesus]

simple advantage played. goal, no booking, no penalty.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by jeeeesus
simple advantage played. goal, no booking, no penalty. Agree, with caviat that I would tell the attempted offender that he nearly earned a send off.....

[GlennAA11]

Did the referee in question at least caution the defender when he awarded the PK? Did you give him any feedback on the play after the game? Sounds like it was a good teaching moment.

[timmy409]

if i awarded a pk which i wouldt have i woulda red carded him

[Jerlon]

Can you allow the goal, and still card the kid for an intentional handball?

[enderjed]

Play advantage, allow the goal. Yellow card the player, tell him if he had stopped the goal, it would be red.

[whipple]

I think the referee in this case did the right thing. Straight PK, no caution, no send-off.

Remember, since the foul by the defender did not deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, since the opportunity did not pre-exist the foul, nor could it be called tactical, no misconduct occurred. It was just a penal foul.

Further, I do not believe it would be good game management to allow the goal, and consider the offense triflijng, because it did effect play, even though not in the normal sense.

Now, if it were a direct kick, then I would have no problem allowing the goal, and possibly considering unsporting behavior, but in this case, I think not.

[jeeeesus]

Originally posted by enderjed
Play advantage, allow the goal. Yellow card the player, tell him if he had stopped the goal, it would be red.

you can't do both within the rules

[Jerlon]

Just because it was an Indirect, do we know what the goal might not have decided to touch it with his fingertips? Not handing out any card is not right. He denied a possibly scoring opertunity.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Jerlon
Just because it was an Indirect, do we know what the goal might not have decided to touch it with his fingertips? Not handing out any card is not right. He denied a possibly scoring opertunity.

There are several issues here where, under both the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law, misconduct did not occur. It is important to remember that the resetart was not for a foul by a player against an opponent, but for a technical infraction, therefore as with all tecnical infractions the restart is an IFK and a goal cannot be scored directly from an IFK.

Therefore, no obvious goal scoring opportunity pre-existed the handling offense by the defender, assuming he handled it directly from the initial kick by the attacker. Whether it went in or not, there was no misconduct.

Now, this might be different if he handled it after a save by the keeper. or the second touch by an attacker, etc. Then, there might be misconduct,but then again, maybe not.

When you say "not handing out a card is not right", you are missing an important aspect of game managment.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by whipple


There are several issues here where, under both the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law, misconduct did not occur. It is important to remember that the resetart was not for a foul by a player against an opponent, but for a technical infraction, therefore as with all tecnical infractions the restart is an IFK and a goal cannot be scored directly from an IFK.

Therefore, no obvious goal scoring opportunity pre-existed the handling offense by the defender, assuming he handled it directly from the initial kick by the attacker. Whether it went in or not, there was no misconduct.

Now, this might be different if he handled it after a save by the keeper. or the second touch by an attacker, etc. Then, there might be misconduct,but then again, maybe not.

When you say "not handing out a card is not right", you are missing an important aspect of game managment. Deliberate handling is not a IFK. It is a foul regardless of the outcome.
A caution can be issued for USB if the CR feels it is necessary. I think you are being a bit uncreative to use a card here but it isnt completely outside the realm of reasonable.

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by jeeeesus


you can't do both within the rules What rules??? you cant SEND HIM OFF but you could certainly caution if you needed to.

[jc508]

I would agree with Whipple and add a bit.

I would allow the goal as the defender added the second touch to make it a good goal on this IDFK.

I would then have to evaluate what I needed to do to the defender. I believe that the Referee must do something in this situation.

While I could see a reason for issueing a yellow card after considering overall game management purposes and how it could help, I can see no reason to issue a red card.

Probably better still, I would take the defender aside and use this as a teaching moment. I would tell that defender that had he not touched the ball before it went into the goal, it would NOT have been a good goal, but a goal kick. By telling that defender that he just helped the opponents, I believe that the defender would feel worse that if had received a caution.

It would be interesting to see how the scorer recorded the goal. Was it scored by the attacking kicker who would not have scored had it not been for the defender, or was it scored by the defender, or does the defender get an assist on this? :-)

[billf]

If a defender handles the ball and it then crosses the goal line in this situation before another player has touched the ball, this is a valid goal and it should be allowed. There was no goal scoring opportunity denied since the restart would have been a goal kick had the defender not touched the ball.

If you do not allow the goal, and instead award a PK, you run the risk of denying the attacking team a goal that it has earned. What if the attacker then steps up an misses the PK? The defenders in this situation would clearly have gained an advantage that they did not deserve.

I don't think a card is warranted in this situation either. If you allow the goal and the player's teammates know that his/her action was the reason the goal was valid, then I think that is punishment enough. This action is simply stupid, it isn't unsporting.

Now I have to admit that had this situation presented itself to me before a presentation by Vinnie Mauro that I attended back in February, my head would have exploded and I'm sure I would have screwed this up. As a matter of fact, I've learned the proper way of doing a number of things on the field by first screwing them up. That's part of being a referee I guess.

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by billf
... I've learned the proper way of doing a number of things on the field by first screwing them up. That's part of being a referee I guess. Truer words were never spoken.

[GlennAA11]

Originally posted by billf


If you do not allow the goal, and instead award a PK, you run the risk of denying the attacking team a goal that it has earned. What if the attacker then steps up an misses the PK? The defenders in this situation would clearly have gained an advantage that they did not deserve.


But, if the player had not handled the ball it would have been a goal kick. So would the defenders really be gaining an advantage they didn't "deserve" in such a case?

I suppose an important piece to this particular puzzle is the question of whether the handling was the 2nd touch or whether is was subsequent to the 2nd touch. I'm not sure we know the answer to that question from the way the scenario was laid out for us.

I don't see how you could not allow the goal in such a case if the ball went into the net. But it also wouldn't be the biggest mistake a referee ever made either. :-)

[whipple]

Originally posted by GlennAA11

But, if the player had not handled the ball it would have been a goal kick. So would the defenders really be gaining an advantage they didn't "deserve" in such a case?

I suppose an important piece to this particular puzzle is the question of whether the handling was the 2nd touch or whether is was subsequent to the 2nd touch. I'm not sure we know the answer to that question from the way the scenario was laid out for us.

I don't see how you could not allow the goal in such a case if the ball went into the net. But it also wouldn't be the biggest mistake a referee ever made either. :-)

Glenn,

After reflection I would agree with your last point. In most cases we should allow the goal.

I would have to say that the stoppage and restart with a PK, even if the ball went into the net, is not necessarily wrong, but is not the best approach in most cases. If for example an IFK is taken and it deflects off a defender in the wall and continues past the keeper and into the net, we say good goal.

If the ball from an IFK deflected off the defender's arm, it is still a good goal. No foul occurred, the defender made the second touch.

Therefore, if the defender deliberately plays the ball, and a foul occurs, it could considered trifling while satisfying the second touch, good goal.

If the deliberate handling denies the goal, then award the PK. Simple foul no misconduct.

In each case, a slow whistle to observe the result. But, if you do blow a quick whistle, after observing the handling, and the ball has not yet passed into the goal, you probably will be able to sell the PK as well.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by whipple


Glenn,

After reflection I would agree with your last point. In most cases we should allow the goal.

I would have to say that the stoppage and restart with a PK, even if the ball went into the net, is not necessarily wrong, but is not the best approach in most cases. If for example an IFK is taken and it deflects off a defender in the wall and continues past the keeper and into the net, we say good goal.

If the ball from an IFK deflected off the defender's arm, it is still a good goal. No foul occurred, the defender made the second touch.

Therefore, if the defender deliberately plays the ball, and a foul occurs, it could considered trifling while satisfying the second touch, good goal.

If the deliberate handling denies the goal, then award the PK. Simple foul no misconduct.

In each case, a slow whistle to observe the result. But, if you do blow a quick whistle, after observing the handling, and the ball has not yet passed into the goal, you probably will be able to sell the PK as well.

Sherman, I think in the case of deliberate handling to deny the goal. Send-off and restart with a PK.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Alberto


Sherman, I think in the case of deliberate handling to deny the goal. Send-off and restart with a PK.

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.