Consequences for a hand ball to prevent goal?

[Jimellow]

Hypothetical situation...

In a premier league (EPL, La Liga, Serie A, etc.) there is a free kick that is taken just outside the box. As the ball curves and heads for the corner of the net, a defender uses his hands to block the ball, thus making an illegal save.

What are the consequences for this action? A penalty kick? A red card? More?

I was watching the West Ham / Spurs match earlier and the goal scored off the free kick made me ponder the question above. Sportsmanship aside, I'm very curious what the consequences are for a defender directly, intentionally, and obviously, preventing a goal with his hands.

I find it hard to find a punishment that would be severe enough to warrant it not being done, especially in key moments, but am hoping to get an accurate and intelligent response here.

Thanks!

[Caesar]

If the ball is fully blocked and doesn't go in, red card for Denying an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity. If he doesn't block it successfully and the goal is still scored, yellow card for Unsporting Behaviour.

Although some interpretations (including in the US I think) say that regardless of whether the ball goes in, it's a send-off.

[USSF REF]

[/URL]Hypothetical situation...

In a premier league (EPL, La Liga, Serie A, etc.) there is a free kick that is taken just outside the box. As the ball curves and heads for the corner of the net, a defender uses his hands to block the ball, thus making an illegal save.

What are the consequences for this action? A penalty kick? A red card? More?

I was watching the West Ham / Spurs match earlier and the goal scored off the free kick made me ponder the question above. Sportsmanship aside, I'm very curious what the consequences are for a defender directly, intentionally, and obviously, preventing a goal with his hands.

I find it hard to find a punishment that would be severe enough to warrant it not being done, especially in key moments, but am hoping to get an accurate and intelligent response here.

Thanks!

Caesar is right... but here is the legal reasoning behind that.

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off and shown the red card if he commits any of the following seven offences:

4. 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)


And... it's also a penalty kick because:
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

10. handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)...

Penalty Kick~
A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play.


Now you have read the actual laws covering you question - pretty cut and dried.

In case you're more interested here is a link to the Laws of the Game, from the FIFA website. FIFA Laws o the Game (in HTML) (http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/menu.htm)

[Wreave]

Although some interpretations (including in the US I think) say that regardless of whether the ball goes in, it's a send-off.

This is incorrect. From the USSF ATR:

A red card for denying a goal by handling cannot be given if the attempt is unsuccessful; in other words, if the ball goes in the goal despite the illegal contact. However, the referee should caution the player for unsporting behavior before restarting with the kickoff.

[Caesar]

This is incorrect. From the USSF ATR:

A red card for denying a goal by handling cannot be given if the attempt is unsuccessful; in other words, if the ball goes in the goal despite the illegal contact. However, the referee should caution the player for unsporting behavior before restarting with the kickoff.
Oh wow. Has that changed in recent years? I could have sworn it used to be a sendoff regardless.

[Ref Flunkie]

Oh wow. Has that changed in recent years? I could have sworn it used to be a sendoff regardless.

I believe the different interpretations comes in if the the foul/handling stops the goal scoring opportunity BUT the ball continues to a TEAMMATE who then puts it into the goal. This is the whole "team goal scoring opportunity" vs. "individuals goal scoring opportunity".

[NHRef]

I believe the different interpretations comes in if the the foul/handling stops the goal scoring opportunity BUT the ball continues to a TEAMMATE who then puts it into the goal. This is the whole "team goal scoring opportunity" vs. "individuals goal scoring opportunity".

What is the current USSF and/or FIFA "decision" on that? Team vs Individual chance denied?

[Ref Flunkie]

What is the current USSF and/or FIFA "decision" on that? Team vs Individual chance denied?

I THINK the USSF looks at the individual. If a player is taken down and the ball rolls to a teammate, who scores, it is still a send-off for the defender who denied the initial scoring opportunity. I believe the rest of the world would say it is a caution. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

[gosellit]

I THINK the USSF looks at the individual. If a player is taken down and the ball rolls to a teammate, who scores, it is still a send-off for the defender who denied the initial scoring opportunity. I believe the rest of the world would say it is a caution. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

This memo from last summer covers this.
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advantage-OGSO.pdf

It is considered a TEAM concept. This is an exerpt from the memo.

Given a foul judged to be an interference with a goal or a goalscoring opportunity
and given the referee’s decision to apply advantage, the following scenarios
should be considered carefully:
• If the advantage does not continue, the referee is expected to stop
play as soon as this is evident. The defender committing the foul
must be sent off and shown the red card, and play must be
restarted correctly (based on the foul and its location).
• If the advantage continues and the attacking team is able to score a
goal (regardless of whether it was by the attacker who was fouled
or by a teammate), the defender who committed the foul may not
be sent off (since a goal was not prevented and the team’s
goalscoring opportunity was not interfered with successfully). The
misconduct would be more appropriately categorized as unsporting
behavior (tactical foul) warranting a caution and the showing of the
yellow card. However, if the foul involved violent conduct or serious
foul play, a red card must be given.

[Jimellow]

Great information guys, thanks!

I was dicussing this with my dad and he is of the mindset that if the potential goal is of such importance, then players should do anything necessary to keep it out. Thus, that brought up this question.

I presume the reasons they don't use their hands is a mix of sportsmanship, a lifetime of repetition in which the hands aren't used, and also the potential backlash from the fans and media. One on hand it does seem worthwhile to use one's hands to prevent a goal and provide the defending team with a slim chance of not giving up a goal (though penalty kicks generally go in), but on the other I'm pretty sure it's something that doesn't enter the thought process of the players on the pitch in such a situation.

[geego]

I presume the reasons they don't use their hands is a mix of sportsmanship, a lifetime of repetition in which the hands aren't used, and also the potential backlash from the fans and media. One on hand it does seem worthwhile to use one's hands to prevent a goal and provide the defending team with a slim chance of not giving up a goal (though penalty kicks generally go in), but on the other I'm pretty sure it's something that doesn't enter the thought process of the players on the pitch in such a situation.
Players refrain because the punishment is severe. Before the 70s it was common to handball when opponents had a nice breakthrough, goalscoring opportunity or not, and the yellow card for handball had to be introduced. And then in the 90s the DOGSO rule had to be introduced as well. Sportmanship does not play much of a part in that.

[USSF REF]

I presume the reasons they don't use their hands is a mix of sportsmanship, a lifetime of repetition in which the hands aren't used, and also the potential backlash from the fans and media. One on hand it does seem worthwhile to use one's hands to prevent a goal and provide the defending team with a slim chance of not giving up a goal (though penalty kicks generally go in), but on the other I'm pretty sure it's something that doesn't enter the thought process of the players on the pitch in such a situation.

They have made the penalties so severe that it doesn't become worth it.

In trade for denying a goal - you a reduced one player for the remainder of the match, and the other team gets a penalty kick which is converted between 80-90% of the time. Given that you are likely to concede a goal anyway - then you are simply reducing your team by 1 player.

If you did this 5 times in a game the match would end because your team would not have enough players to field a team within the laws of the game.

Thats all aside from the fact that the sport is very clear that the hands are not to be used to play the ball, aside from the GK in his own penalty area.

[TheRefIsBlind]

the penalty is actually even more severe since a send off requires a mandatory sit out for at least one game. given all that, if you want to use your hands you're better off playing baseball.

[Ref Flunkie]

This memo from last summer covers this.
http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Advantage-OGSO.pdf


See, I knew someone would cover my butt :).

[gosellit]

See, I knew someone would cover my butt :).

Anytime. Glad to be of service.

[bluedevils]

Personally, I preferred the old USSF interpretation which required the sendoff even if a goal was scored in a subsequent play. There was a HUGE discussion/argument on the OSI UK forum last year sometime. Definitely USSF was in the minority with its prior position and last year's memo brought us in line with what seems like the rest of the world.

[blech]

They have made the penalties so severe that it doesn't become worth it.

In trade for denying a goal - you a reduced one player for the remainder of the match, and the other team gets a penalty kick which is converted between 80-90% of the time. Given that you are likely to concede a goal anyway - then you are simply reducing your team by 1 player.

If you did this 5 times in a game the match would end because your team would not have enough players to field a team within the laws of the game.

Thats all aside from the fact that the sport is very clear that the hands are not to be used to play the ball, aside from the GK in his own penalty area.

The rule change has certainly had this effect, and adjusted player-conduct. One might argue in the WestHam-Tottenham example referenced in the initial post, that with so little time left, the "strategic" play would have been to use your hand if necessary and take your chances, bad as they are, with the penalty kick rather than give up the goal. With little time left in the game that they had to win, i think playing down a man for a few minutes and getting the miracle pk save or miss could have been "justified" under those circumstances if the player had to explain it to the coach. But, it's one of those rare instances that if you haven't thought through in advance, you don't have time to process at the time (and he may well have thought he didn't need to use his hands as he got a part of the ball with his head).

I'm trying to think of examples from other sports where players do the thing that is routine, but shouldn't, such as the football safety who makes the interception 30-40 yards down field on 4th down, where if he just knocks the ball down they would get it at the line of scrimmage. The reality is that the red card aspect becomes less meaningful the later it gets into the game (granted, you have to sit the next game, but that's a sacrifice a professional makes), and the real deterrent remains that the PK is likely converted so it's unlikely to make a difference anyway....

PS - sorry for the digression from the "ref" aspect of this - seems like that has been pretty much covered at this point

[Jimellow]

Good stuff guys, thanks!

[USSF REF]

The rule change has certainly had this effect, and adjusted player-conduct. One might argue in the WestHam-Tottenham example referenced in the initial post, that with so little time left, the "strategic" play would have been to use your hand if necessary and take your chances, bad as they are, with the penalty kick rather than give up the goal. With little time left in the game that they had to win, i think playing down a man for a few minutes and getting the miracle pk save or miss could have been "justified" under those circumstances if the player had to explain it to the coach. But, it's one of those rare instances that if you haven't thought through in advance, you don't have time to process at the time (and he may well have thought he didn't need to use his hands as he got a part of the ball with his head).

I'm trying to think of examples from other sports where players do the thing that is routine, but shouldn't, such as the football safety who makes the interception 30-40 yards down field on 4th down, where if he just knocks the ball down they would get it at the line of scrimmage. The reality is that the red card aspect becomes less meaningful the later it gets into the game (granted, you have to sit the next game, but that's a sacrifice a professional makes), and the real deterrent remains that the PK is likely converted so it's unlikely to make a difference anyway....

PS - sorry for the digression from the "ref" aspect of this - seems like that has been pretty much covered at this point

As another person on this thread pointed out - the red card earns a minimum of 1 match ban. That is also something to be concerned with.

[blech]

As another person on this thread pointed out - the red card earns a minimum of 1 match ban. That is also something to be concerned with.

I recognize that, and it's a fair point. But especially at the EPL level where you would expect teams to have able players on the bench, there could well be situations where one might reasonably "sacrifice" himself. The play in question, given the must-win nature of that game for West Ham, could well have fit that category if one had time to think it through (or to ponder it now after the fact)...