Handling + Handling = Goal??

[Scott Zawadzki]

Scenerio for you all to look at...

Red team up 3-0 vs. Yellow with under 5 minutes to play in a boys U11 Premier match. Yellow takes a shot on goal with Red's keeper out of position. Red defender (D1) puts up his hand away from his body and intentionally prevents the ball from going into the goal. As the whistle is moving up towards your lips, another Red defender (D2) slaps the bouncing ball with his hand intentionally into his own goal.

Other than signaling GOAL and thanking D2 for his action, is there anything else that should have been done by the CR in a U11 match??? How about if it was a U19 match??

Scott

[jc508]

D1 needs a Red Card for Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

D2 could be given a Yellow card for USB, but you will probably be busy enough with all of the static from the red card to keep you from giving the yellow card too. D2 himself and D2's team will probably "punish" him enough.

Just my opinion.

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by jc508
D1 needs a Red Card for Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

D2 could be given a Yellow card for USB, but you will probably be busy enough with all of the static from the red card to keep you from giving the yellow card too. D2 himself and D2's team will probably "punish" him enough.

Just my opinion.

Thanks to D2, D1 did not deny a goal. Scott didn't say how intentional either hand ball was or how much time elapsed between touches. I think D2 did a sporting thing by allowing the opponents a deserved goal. I would allow the goal, and warn D1 that D2 just saved him a red card.

[Scott Zawadzki]

Originally posted by IASocFan
Thanks to D2, D1 did not deny a goal. Scott didn't say how intentional either hand ball was or how much time elapsed between touches. I think D2 did a sporting thing by allowing the opponents a deserved goal. I would allow the goal, and warn D1 that D2 just saved him a red card.

Let's say that both were clearly intentional handling violations and the time elapsed was little enough that the whistle had not blown before D2 handled the ball into his own goal.

Scott

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by Scott Zawadzki
Let's say that both were clearly intentional handling violations and the time elapsed was little enough that the whistle had not blown before D2 handled the ball into his own goal.

Scott

That was my assumption.

[Tame Lion]

Originally posted by jc508
D1 needs a Red Card for Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity.

D2 could be given a Yellow card for USB, but you will probably be busy enough with all of the static from the red card to keep you from giving the yellow card too. D2 himself and D2's team will probably "punish" him enough.

Just my opinion.
D1 needs some card, but wouldn't yellow suffice?

Red card for DOGSO is always optional. In this case, YES, it is within LOTG, but why punish D1 excessively? D1 and D2 and "red team" are already severely embarassed.

Likewise, just my opinion.

[pkCrouse]

In the U-11 game, if you really think it will serve a useful purpose, caution to D1 and explain to him that D2 saved his butt for him. In an older game, definite caution to D1. Although you can argue that D1 did in fact deny the goal and that D2's action constituted a separate scoring event, you basically slap D2 in the face for doing the honorable thing if you eject D1 and make the team play short.

[Gary V]

By the book, D1 committed a send-off offense. His handling of the ball did indeed prevent the goal. That a goal was scored on a subsequent play, even immediately following, does not change that fact.

However, the referee will need to determine if a red card is necessary in this situation. Just as we often give a yellow card if the ball rebounds to an attacker who stuffs it in, that might be applicable here.

Re: D2. The wording of the original post is a little indistinct. I assume the "intention" mentioned was the intention to score an own goal. Not a second deliberate handling that just happened to go in. So just why would D2 do this? Would he have been thinking, "Aww, my stupid teammate just cost them a goal. That's not fair - I'll score it for them myself." Or can we believe that a U11 Premier player might just be cynical and devious enough to reason, "That stupid D1. He's just got himself sent off. Maybe if I score, the ref won't card him. We need him in the next game." If that were the case, D2 would be deserving of a YC for USB himself. But since we can't know D2's thought process, I'd keep that card in my pocket. But I wouldn't let his actions automatically excuse D1 from a send-off. This being toward the end of the game, I'd probably have a pretty good basis for making a decision if I were there. From a question on a BB, I just can't tell. (If this were U19, I'd be much more likely to believe the players were cynical and devious.)

[Ictar]

I'm no ref, but if you whistle D1 for his handball then isn't the play dead right there, making D2's actions occur when the ball is dead anyways? I'm not sure. I'm really asking. ;)

[Tame Lion]

Originally posted by Ictar
I'm no ref, but if you whistle D1 for his handball then isn't the play dead right there, making D2's actions occur when the ball is dead anyways?
Yes, the whistle puts the ball out of play. However, the whistle did not sound in this case.

[whipple]

Originally posted by Tame Lion
Yes, the whistle puts the ball out of play. However, the whistle did not sound in this case.

Actually, play stops with the referee's decision to stop play, though not the foul recognition, if the whistle is delayed while waiting to observe effect.

At a U11 I would probably make a point of taking D1 aside and providing some stern words, and possibly a caution, at an older age group, a caution at a minimum, and most likely a send-off.

As to D2's play, probably nothing, at any level, since, by having no effect on the opponents, beyond the positive effect or advantage of giving them a goal, the handling becomes trifling.

Note to Scott: Had you sent off the player, I would hope that I had seen the game report prior to reading about it here. Otherwise I may start assigning you to matches in Peru. ;)

Sherman

[Scott Zawadzki]

Originally posted by whipple
Note to Scott: Had you sent off the player, I would hope that I had seen the game report prior to reading about it here. Otherwise I may start assigning you to matches in Peru. ;)

Sherman

I never said this actually happened. Just because you assigned me to a U11 match yesterday doesn't mean that the events were in fact true as I wrote them. Actually, it was a somewhat similar situation. Slight changes were made to make for a more interesting dialog on the forum....the jersey colors were actually blue and white! ;)

Scott

P.S. If this were an actual game that I reffed, it was a low-key, non-confrontational match and if I were the referee I thanked (er...I mean I would have thanked) the D2 for saving me a great deal of paperwork and told D1 (...would have told D1) what would have happened if D2 hadn't saved his sorry butt.

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by Scott Zawadzki
I never said this actually happened...

Peru is lovely this time of year. ;)

[Statesman]

The whole premise behind DOGSO-H is that the defender can only prevent the goal by cheating. Even though referees avoid the word like the plague, you should be reading the intent of the player. If he is seemingly unaware his actions are denying a goal, in this instance I would not send him off. If there were no other players around and he did it, unaware or not, then I would send him off.

If, however, the defender recognized the situation and resorted to handling solely to deny the goal then regardless of the subsequent action I would send him off. If the other defender purposely knocked the ball into his own goal with his hands afterward I would not consider it misconduct at all. However, if the other defender also handled the ball -- inaccurately -- to stop a goal or prevent an attack, he would receive a caution.

So really it all depends on what the players were meaning to do, at least at the U11 level. Take into consideration the Spirit of the Law before jumping to conclusions. I don't think it is sufficient to say, "this is the answer," and leave it in black and white.

[rcleopard]

Statesman,

But I thought we weren't judging intent anymore? Regardless of whether or not he apparently "meant to" handle or not, he did deny the OGSO, and there's nothing but redcard mandated in Fifa's LOTG. I know it should be tempered with judgement, but still, the laws are the laws, and this si one of those mandated things that's been reinforced umpteen times in position papers galore.

RC

[refpat]

As stated there "Must" be intent, or handling the ball is not an offense, i.e. "Deliberately Handling the Ball". If no intent - no sanction.

As stated in the original post, there was intent. At the U-11 age I would be very hesitant to send off any player, except for VC od SFP. AS Sherman stated the ball is dead when you, the referee, decides it is, whistle or no whistle. This is an excellent time to be sure you hold that whistle a few extra seconds to see what happens. In this case, I have to agree with the original post, Goal and thanks, with an added talking to all involved.
U-19 Level, Send off and PK, as ball was not legally propelled into the goal (if kicked in by second defender, OK). Ball propelled by hand to deliberately score a goal is a caution for Unsporting behavior.)

Pat

[Scott Zawadzki]

Originally posted by refpat
Ball propelled by hand to deliberately score a goal is a caution for Unsporting behavior.

Pat

Only against an attacker.

Good discussion all around for a Monday. Let's see if somebody else can create (or rehash) sonething for tomorrow!

'tis the Season

Scott

[refpat]

Scott
LOTG do not stipulate that it has to be against an attacker. If you read under Addition Instructions etc on page 62 of the 2004 (Red cover) there is no mention of attacker. However - I think it would be a stretch to sell it. Just remember "If you call it - Right or Wrong - that's the way it is, after the restart.

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by refpat
...
U-19 Level, Send off and PK, as ball was not legally propelled into the goal (if kicked in by second defender, OK). Ball propelled by hand to deliberately score a goal is a caution for Unsporting behavior.)

Pat

I see absolutely no reason to call the goal back. You were about to whistle, but hadn't. This is what advantage is all about. At the U19 level, I would be more likely to give a yellow. Since a goal was scored, it's more a game management issue. Does my gut feel the need for a card? At both select u11 and u19, it's ITOOTR (opinion, not law).

[rcleopard]

Mrph. That's right.. intent is judged on that because deliberately is written into the rule. My bad.. I forgot about that.

Tough call, though. Issuing a red in the case of a deliberate handball that denies an OGSO is mandated by Fifa, no matter the age level, but man.. that would be a hard call to make in an U11 game.