Hello A fellow referee, who is a (former) grade 7 and a college ref has asked me his opinion on two incidents. As he is a higher grade than me, I have listened but I was not quite sure if I am understanding right and if I agree, so I'd like to pose those two situations here. 1. NPSL game. An attacker, in the box, about 16 yards out of goal, has a defender on his back. The attacker is with his back to goal, defender is bodying him, he has nowhere to go. It lasts for a few seconds. The attacker, with the defender still tight behind him, drops down to the ground and executes a bicycle kick, the ball hitting the defender very hard in the head to the fact that it jerks back, and the only reason the attacker's foot did NOT make contact with the head is because the ball did. The attacker's foot stopped inches away from the face. Referee gives a free kick, the attacker is livid, because he thinks "bicycle kicks are legal!". The college ref I spoke to thought it should have been a red card as well because he intentionally struck the attacker's head with the ball very hard and endangered the safety of an opponent. Based on this description, what do you think? 2. This is from an indoor open men's league game, so as I have never seen that in any higher level games (and doubt I would), this is more of a theoretical BUT still something I would like to know. Goalkeeper is maybe 3 yards in front of the goal line, there is one defender in front of the goalie, maybe about 3 another yards. Attacker takes a very weak shot that is a bit of a lob, but not that much of a lob. The goalkeeper is ready to pick it up, the defender, forgetting he's not a GK in this game, strikes the ball with his hand. The ref told me he thinks he can sell the yellow card because in his opinion there was no obvious goalscoring opportunity - while the ball was going on target, it was very clear that it was going to be a very easy save for the keeper who would have had it had the defender not interfered needlessly. I am thinking - the ball is going on target, regardless of whether it is going to be an easy save or not, it is an obvious goalscoring opportunity that the defender took away. So I would go with red. Maybe not in an indoor rec league, but thinking about this theoretical situation in an affiliated league in a "normal" game. What are your thoughts? Would love to hear some opinions as I always want to learn and develop - and said college ref is interested as well, as I'll pass that onto him.
For me, 1) is a an easy YC for PIADM to the attacker. The defender had to jerk his face away to avoid being hit? Not allowed. 2) DOGSO isn't in play here because the keeper had a reasonable play on the ball. YC for handling is what is the expected and easiest call here.
To clarify, the bicycle kick propelled the ball into the defender's face and that's why his face went backwards - strong ball into face, if the ball wasn't there to do that, it would have been the attacker's foot that would hit the defender's face.
Do we know that 100%? We cannot officiate what MIGHT of happened, only what did. I would go with PIADM unless I see the attackers foot make contact with the defender then I might elevate, but it was an adult game.
You're right. The college ref I was talking to was saying that he thought it should be a red card because he "struck the opponent in the head with the ball." To me, it does not make sense, because the only way to do that is in a violent conduct situation. In this case, he's making a dangerous play on the ball - but could we count a bicycle kick which does that with the ball as endangering the safety of an opponent, or do we have to say that since the contact was only with the ball, we can't punish for that, as there was no food to head contact?
On (1) I don't see any basis for a sendoff. We don't guess as to whether the attacker "would have" kicked the defender but for the ball. (If you look at it that way, a number of excellent, legal tackles would be fouls because the opponent would have been tripped by the tacker's leg but for the ball being controlled there and the opponent tripping on the ball.) IMO this is either legal or PIADM (cue the debate on whether you can caution for PIADM). On (2), agree fully with @SparkeyG that this is no way, no how DOGSO. Heck, why does this even warrant a caution--a boneheaded play turns a GK possession into a PK. I don't see even a caution there.
No offense to your friend, but just because he/she is a "college ref", that does not qualify them any more than anybody else.
No it isn't. The ball doesn't get to have an opportunity, an attacker does and the attacker took it (i.e made the lob). So what you are left with is the possibility of denying a goal but if it's an easy save by the keeper then that doesn't fit either. Caveat 1, It could possibly be DOGSO if the handling stops the ball from going to another attacker but that doesn't seem to fit with the description. Caveat 2, This is as per the LotG, if indoor games use other rules then they could possibly differ but it seems unlikely they would on something like this.
Thanks for all the explanations, it seems I was really misapplying the DOGSO thinking. It makes perfect sense now. And just like that, thanks to the forums, I know I will never make this particular mistake ever. If I ever see that play.
I hate making calls on bicycle kicks, so I won't here! For #2 it doesn't sound like this met the criteria for a DOGSO: -- The distance between the offense and the goal – The likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball – The direction of the play – The location and number of defenders It seems like the last criteria nullifies the DOGSO.
Except that this isn't a DOGSO scenario. This is a potential case of denying a goal by handling (which I suppose you could call DOGH, although no-one does), and is different to denying a goal scoring opportunity. For example, the second DOGSO requirement mentioned above, does not apply to denying a goal. If you're trying to decide if the ball would have ended up in the net, you don't (and shouldn't) consider whether an attacking player would have kept or gained possession of the ball.