I'd be curious to know some of your thoughts on this call. This is in the Canada T&T game in the CONCACAF U20 WWC qualifying group stage match. Handling in the box by a defender, which results in a red card. Referee is Melissa Borjas (HON).
There was no way the ball was going into the goal after the GK saved it. Penalty kick yes, but not even a caution IMO. But, with the speed that the ball was shot and saved, I'm not surprised that the ref was fooled by something that she was probably in her peripheral vision. This can be seen when watching the video for the first time. I didn't know what to expect and the handling happened within the first couple seconds of the video. My first reaction was 100% red card. It wasn't until the 2nd and 3rd look that I changed my mind.
Definitely not a red card. (Does not deny a goal-scoring opportunity by handling). Not a penalty. (Does not intentionally or deliberately handle the ball -- the ball hits the hand).
Agree. From that distance there’s no way the player could react to the carom off the keeper. No handling.
- Could anyone in the crew have seen it as a deflection/Yellow (AR2 definitely, AR1/4O from distance?) in real time? - Would you have the guts to be the crew member yelling over the headset "Yellow Yellow Yellow" while everyone is thinking Red?
like these questions, but Why would it be a caution? There's no attacker around, no promising attack remaining once we agree ball not on goal
Huh? Strange question tbh, there is no causation going that way. If it isn't handling then it isn't an offence regardless if the ball would have gone into goal or to an opponent or anywhere else. But the question of where the ball was going is irrelevant to the question if it was handling. That said, IMO, this wasn't handling, and even if there was no reason for a card. Poor decision on all accounts.
I'm sure I'll get incoming for this, but I think I take an opposite approach of many here. First, yes, on replay you can tell the ball was certainly not going in the net. On that point, a red card for denying a goal is incorrect. And given there was no Canadian player to follow up a rebound, a red for denying an OGSO would be incorrect and there really is not need for a yellow card. So I'm with people who say "no card." That said, everyone here has essentially said they couldn't tell that on first view. Why would we assume an AR or 4th could help here? Maybe--maybe--the lead AR would be able to tell the angle of the deflection was taking the ball wide. But she also would be focusing on a lot of other things right before that deflection occurs. Given the delay in the red card, there was plenty of time for the AR to give input. She didn't. So, to answer what seems to be the first major question, no, I don't think any crew member could or should give information here to say it's not a send off. VAR might be the only thing to prevent or reverse this red card. Second, I'm somewhat surprised by the people saying "not even handling." I mean, I get what you're looking at. But it's also easy to sit here with multiple replays, dissect every little movement, and come up with "well, I really don't think it was deliberate" after I've seen it a few times. Doing so ignores the reality of the real-time situation and the expectations on the field. We are looking at an incident where the captain of a team is sent off for deliberate handling after she tries to sheepishly walk away from the referee in the hopes of avoiding the red card. When that red card is delivered, no one protests. And when the initial penalty is given, everyone on the field seems to expect the call and there are no protests. So we've turned a completely non-controversial red card and penalty kick on the field into a "nope, no call." The fact of the matter is she almost catches the ball in her arm, while her arm is outstretched. You can go through all the considerations on handling and reason the outstretched arm was part of her natural running movement and that she had no time to react. But sometimes the handling itself is just too blatant to ignore. I can't fathom not giving this as a penalty. I know some would argue it takes courage or guts to not give this as a penalty; I'd argue otherwise and that it shows a lack of feel for the game. I think "poor" is very harsh when it takes replays for us to realize it wasn't a goal or OGSO being denied and every single player on the field fully expects the penalty decision, including the penalized player. "Partially incorrect but completely understandable" strikes me as the accurate analysis.
To be perfectly clear I mostly agree with you. There is just one issue that I have with. Most players have no clue what a handball is, hell when you ask 10 referees if this was handling 5 will say it is and the other will say it is not. This weekend alone I called some ball to hand infractions as handballs and on another game I did not. The first game was a blowout and the ball bounced off the winning players foot into her arm in mid field. Everyone expected a hand ball and in this particular game it was the expected call. Technically it was a wrong call, but it was the right call for the game. In the later game which was a closely contested 1-1 draw. It was similar to the first one where a defender swinged for the ball and the ball bouncer right into her outstretched arm. There were a call for a handball by some players, but I loudly said "No, ball to hand" and everyone moved on. Both of these games were ECNL girls games. We must remember every game is different and expect a different approach. BTW from where the referee was positioned I can see why she made this call. A women's game is also a lot different than a men's game. Typically women don't complain or argue a call unless it's a really blatant mistake. This is just speculation on my part, but in this case most players knew that a handling infraction from the last defender will most likely result in a Red Card. However I'm pretty sure that a yellow card or just a PK would not raise an eyebrow. The referee would probably get a protest from Canada if she did not call anything at all. Did the referee make a mistake, in my opinion yes, but it can be defended.
A typically excellent overall analysis by MR. I would put one caveat on it: at this level. At this level, absolutely the expected call under the whole concept that professionals are expected to have control over their bodies, etc. At lower levels a "non-deliberate" no-call becomes more appropriate--and we'll all have varying views on where the line on that would be. (Side note: when I watched on my phone, I found the red totally inexplicable, as I thought the deflection by the GK sent the ball away from the goal line. Watching it bigger makes clear that it deflected away from the goal but not away form the GL, which makes the DOGSO make sense. It does raise the question of what are standard should be on DOGS)-H. In other words, how sure should we be that the ball is entering into the goal, and do we resolve doubt in favor of the send off or to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender. I can't justify it in the LOTG, but to me the grey areas should be be affected by how cynical the play was. A player committing a calculated handling is providing information that the player believes the ball was going in. Here, "deliberate" is far from that. To me, where the R can't have had good cause to believe the ball was in fact going into the goal after that deflection, I think the better default position is the PK without the sendoff.)
Our direction here in Ontario, Canada at the last few training sessions I've been at, plus reports from colleagues at other sessions is that "you'd better be sure that ball's going into the goal directly or within a second or two to make that a red for DOGSO-H." Neither of those criteria are even close to satisfied for me in this situation, as per the discussion above (ball not clearly going INTO the goal from the GK's stop, nor is there an opponent anywhere nearby to attempt to score).
As much as I appreciate the reminder that it is seldom wrong to call what everyone expects, I would point out two things. 1. The obviousness of handling does not correlate with deliberateness. 2: even though it is seldom wrong to make a call (or noncall) that everyone expects, our obligation is to know the rules better than everyone else. I surmised that the time of the ball to the defender from the gk carom was too small for the defender to have any deliberate motion. After reading the opinions in favor of handling violation, I thought I’d look at it a little more. Thankfully, YouTube vids give their frame rate, in this case 25 FPS. It takes 5 frames for the ball to go from the gk knee to the defender’s arm, so 0.2 seconds. The average reaction time (the time it takes for a stimulus to Initiate a motor response) for a visual stimulus is 0.25 seconds, but can be as short as 0.2 seconds, So, by the time the defender is struck by the ball, she could not have even begun a motor response to its new vector off the gk’s leg. How can her handling then be deliberate? Sure, you can still get to handling by “biggering” but I think it’s implausible to argue that this player had her arm intentionally out to block the potential path of the ball, since that would require the player to believe that the shot ball would deflect towards her. As for what I believe happened in this case, I think the CR was unsighted to the deflection off the gk, and so believed the shot was a straight one that the defender reached out to block.
I think you make a fair point, but I also think based on the guidance we've seen from FIFA/USSF (see Esse Baharmast national referee video), this is deliberate handling. The players expect this to be called. The fans expect this to be called. FIFA/IFAB expect this to be called. A FIFA referee called it. The error was the red card.
i recall it but the examples in that talk were scenarios where the defender makes a desperate, loss of control effort at blocking a cross or shot: baharmast says something like “the attacker has done everything right, and the defender is out of control- why do we bail out the defender?” Or something along those lines. I’ll review it.
The obviousness of the simple fact that ball-hand contact occurred, no (see Mike Dean's mistake a couple weeks ago). I agree with you there. But the blatant nature of the contact can absolutely be a clue relative to our considerations and the more blatant the handling is, the harder it is to excuse it with some of the potentially mitigating considerations. It's seldom wrong for a reason, though. When the Laws were re-written, the direct for referees--in subjective or controversial situations--to do "what football expects" was included as an over-arching and guiding theme. There isn't a soul on the field who does not expect this to be a penalty. Our obligation to know the Laws better than everyone else means we can't allow technical things to get screwed up; it does not mean we rigidly and pedantically stick to our guns on judgment calls when we are literally the only person on the field who arrives at the contrary conclusion. Telling an attacker who appeals for a passback that he is wrong because it actually came off the defender's knee is the kind of obligation we have to overrule player expectations because we can't just go around making up or changing Laws. But, telling every single player that handling isn't going to be penalized because of this... ... is not exactly showing a feel for the game and is inconsistent with the IFAB directive to make decisions in line with "what football wants/expects." We have an obligation to know the Laws better than everyone else so that we can apply them fairly and appropriately, not simply so we can prove we know them.
How far does it go, though? Like if a striker goes down in the PA after an alleged trip, and everyone is expecting a penalty, but you saw that there was no contact and he dove, do you call the penalty because the fans, players, and coaches expect it, or do you give the IFK going out and the caution to the striker?
Video evidence is going to support the handball that was called, because it actually happened. Assuming there are cameras with a clear view of your scenario (which is 90-100% likely in a pro match), video evidence would not support the penalty, because the foul did not happen. That is how far it goes. If it's an amateur match, you can depend on some capacity of fans, players, and coaches to also have seen the dive, and you wouldn't feel pressured to call a foul that did not actually happen.
Massref- thanks for your thoughtful reply- as you know i take posts from you (and many others) as instruction. I don't have any direct insight into the IFAB like many here do, but "what football expects" in the current revision refers to situations "where there is no direct provision in the laws." The great rewrite, per the IFAB's intro, was an effort to increase consistency and broaden understanding of the laws. Handling does have a direct provision, and the laws for handling use that pesky term "must" when listing considerations for handling. Distance is one of them. So I have a hard time accepting that we go back to "it looks like handling, so let's call it." Because the laws do address this issue, and don't support calling it. How can we ever improve consistency when empiricism doesn't matter? I think as well about other aspects of refereeing, like determining offside, where we are getting down to incredible details of human perception, the neurology of prediction. It doesn't seem wrong to acknowledge the limitation of human reaction when deciding deliberateness.
But you must consider distance as one of several considerations, right? And distance itself isn't a black and white measuring stick where a certain minimum distance between ball and hand is required for a handling call to be valid; there is a sliding scale that you then apply alongside the other considerations to make a final determination. A defender could be two feet away from a ball on the ground and be guilty of deliberate handling while he could be 5 yards away, looking to reflexively protect himself, and be not guilty. Distance itself isn't determinative. But as we get further into details regarding offside the focus is on offside position, which theoretically can have a black/white or yes/no answer, the VAR is being aided, in some cases, by additional technology. . Look, if you are 100% convinced that this is not deliberate handling and that all your instruction and all considerations lead you to that conclusion and you would decide as such immediately on the field, I can't fault you for saying no penalty. I would stress, however, that in any match with television replays the best you could hope for is a wash after the match and any in non-recorded match, insisting on no penalty here is going to invite otherwise avoidable problems. If you feel it is your duty to not call a penalty here, I can't insist that you cast aside your assessment of the incident with mine; but I would hope you go into any situation like this with eyes wide open about what participants expect and the approach they expect from the referee.
Wisdom! and duly noted. FWIW, on page 16 of the current laws, which is titled "The Future," the very last word on the page, at the end of the list of topics the IFAB will be considering is.... "Handball."
Thanks all for the discussion! As a sidenote, I was watching this match live, and immediately thought, "No way is that a red card" when I saw Borjas pulling a card out of her back pocket. On the replay, I started to wander if it was handling at all. So I wanted to know what others see and how Borjas might have come to her conclusion. All of you have helped enlighten me, so thanks!
The ball struck the arm yes but that doesn't automatically mean that it was an offence. I'd say that, at the top level at least, more often than not a ball striking the hand/arm isn't called as handling and for situations where the ball comes via a deflection that's even more true. Thinking that handling was an acceptable call on the pitch is one thing but I'm honestly a bit shocked by how many that thinks that handling was objectively the correct call for this situation.Especially compared to the PK Dean called against Arsenal a few weeks ago that for me ticks a lot more boxes (player having full view of the ball the whole time, player intentionally moving so to block/intercept the expected cross, some kind of arm movement after the ball was played) but still has been fairly universally considered an incorrect decision.