Handling do need the review and hopefully they do it in the "clear up, expand and clarify" way of late and not in the "take stuff out and call it everyone knows" kind of way they've also gone the last few years.
The point was that you can argue whether it was right or wrong because video will show it actually happened. In the made-up scenario, a discussion of right or wrong could never happen because there would be no evidence to show a foul. Interpretation is one thing, but fabrication is another.
what would forum referees' decision be for this situation -- deliberate handling by psyc1Ops posted Jan 25, 2018 at 5:06 PM
No call. This is not deliberate handling. Yes his hands are away from the body but he is not trying to block a shot nor controlling the ball. Additionally the speed at which the ball arrives at his arm, he has no time to react.
I'd also add that the defender had no reason to expect the ball to be played that way but otherwise, spot on.
Here is the controversial call in question against @PackersSoccer, as Centeno was issued a red card. @shpackerspride Highlights & reaction on @KETV tonight! #nebpreps pic.twitter.com/hESQjkS1mv— Thor Tripp (@ThorTripp) May 10, 2018 This happened today in a High School State Quarterfinal. Reminded me of the original post so I just figured I would share.
That contact potentially prevents the ball from dropping in front of the second attacker. Definitely DOGSO.
Let's walk through this one with Law 18 in mind. Attacker through on goal. Shot taken. Shot partially deflected by the goalkeeper and the ball continues to head toward goal. Defender is tracking back, running directly at his own goal, in an attempt to keep the ball out of the net. I think we'd all agree on those set of facts to start. The ball strikes the crossbar. I think it's safe to assume the defender didn't plan for that. So now the first question becomes whether or not he reacts to this new reality. Did he throw his arm up because he sees the ball coming off the crossbar? Or has his arm been thrown up because he's about to run full speed into the net and he's bracing himself for his imminent collision into the net? I have an opinion here, based on the fact that both arms go up and both arms end up holding the net less than a half second later. But let's say you either don't have the same answer as me or you think the act of moving the arm inherently means this is deliberate handling... Where is he trying to handle the ball to? He doesn't strike it with his hand. It literally hits his outer arm and falls near the goal line. So if this is deliberate handling, the argument has to be that he wanted the ball to stay closer to the goal line rather than rebound further upfield and away from goal. That makes no logical sense, particularly when you realize the defender doesn't have eyes in the back of his head and has no idea who the next person to possess the ball might be. Also, to get DOGSO the ball and/or play has to be moving toward goal. We allow some deviation from that edict when players are rounding a defender. A ball going 180 degrees away from goal is not, by any definition, "toward goal." Unless you can say he denied a sure goal (which I'm pretty sure you can't here), you really don't have a technical case for DOGSO. This is never a red card for me. In fact, I'm not even calling handling. What person would look at this play and say "yeah, he swatted the ball back toward his own net on the goal line to deny the other team a goal?" It's nonsensical. If you felt compelled to call the handling here because of the deliberate movement of his arm, video would give you credibility and I suppose you'd walk away feeling you were "right." I'd disagree but could understand the call. A red card? I don't understand. I don't understand what would compel a referee to think that is the correct or just call here. It's looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
No. Same logic as above. Don't go looking for a solution to problem that doesn't exist. Everyone understood this was a weird play and passions ran high for a moment. Everyone is fine with the outcome once the whistle blows and no goal is scored. The two players are being sporting to each other in a genuine fashion before any referee could even arrive on the scene. What message is a yellow sending?
While I don't think the play is deliberate handling either and a no call is the more preferred and correct decision. I can understand why the referee made the call there. Once you do make the determination that it is deliberate handling, I don't see how you don't produce a red card. An attacker is coming in to tap the ball into an empty net. It's not DGH (Denial of Obvious Goal by Hand), but it is DOGSO (Denial of Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity). I don't see how it is not. Without the "handling" there is a tap-in.
That smashing into a player's back hard enough to send them off their feet with no play on the ball is something we want to discourage at the high school level. Yes I saw the sportsmanship moment after it happened, the blue player must have said something conciliatory to the keeper who initially looked quite upset. In my opinion in a high school game this still deserves a caution.
To emphasize this, their reaction is a good indication, too. Simple foul caused mostly by momentum. Nothing really reckless or more about it. Keeper wants the foul and hears the whistle and immediately settles down (presumably thinking he got the foul, not the penalty call) I'm with you on the not-red as well, and I don't think red is really even an option, let alone a bad one. I'm probably on the opposite side of calling it a foul. Calling a penalty or not calling a penalty are both reasonable options and a couple considerations would back up both. Then again, I seem to act with a little less clemency than you on things.
Look, I wouldn't have even considered a caution on this if it happened in one of my games. So I'm giving you my honest answer. That said, if you truly think this is misconduct, I'd at least look at it one more time with this lens: both players (goalkeeper and attacker) are rushing full speed toward goal with two different purposes. They are both running at the ball. One to catch/handle it, the other to head it. The ball hits the ground and spins, prompting the goalkeeper to change his trajectory slightly (look closely at this and note the goalkeeper has to deviate his run more into the attacker's path). The attacker is trying to score a goal until the very last moment, when he realizes he can't head it before the keeper. He then, in my opinion, carelessly charges him and fouls him. If you look at all that and you think the attacker has committed a reckless foul, then you've got to do what you've got to do. But I don't think you're discouraging anything. Any attacker at any decent level is going to do the exact same thing this attacker did. You're essentially just giving him a card for trying hard to score a goal and being half a second late. Sometimes, when the actual nature of the challenge is inherently dangerous in such situations (like studs showing or a very high boot) we need to recognize and sanction misconduct. This just seems like two players running full speed for the ball and colliding.
Do you do high school games? This is asked out of curiosity, not meant to be accusatory in any way. I did not notice that on the first viewing - which is when I decide what I would do. Yes you are right I see that on re-watching the play. On first view it looked to me like he threw his shoulder into the keeper, hence my reaction to sanction as misconduct. By the time contact is made he is fully sideways. After more rewinds (which of course we don't get in real games) I could buy that it's possible didn't see the keeper was going to get there first until too late. Even so, with high school boys, I don't think yellow is a bad choice with a play that gives even the appearance of being aggressive. Maybe I need to forget about my own high school playing days when I'm refereeing .
Even if he sees he’s going to be late he still lowered his shoulder into the the middle of the keeper’s back- I agree that yellow is perfectly reasonable. My opinion is that direct contact to the back is often inherently dangerous: the victim often is not anticipating contact (I think that is the case here), and can result in uncontrolled movement of the head (whiplash) in addition to direct injury to the vertebrae (Neymar), which as we all know have very little soft tissue over them.
Sorry I forgot to reply here... No, I don't, thank God. I don't view the question as accusatory at all! I see where you're going with this. For me, a big part of this is skill and maturity level. I can concede, without doing high school matches, that in some high school matches you might need or want a card here. But I'd never give this in a U19 or U17 DA match if this happened exactly as it did here (including the aftermath). So it's not age that should be the deciding factor. From the very limited clip we have above, these don't look like bumbling junior varsity players who only play soccer one season a year or even less competitive varsity players. These kids look like they know what they are doing and appear, in this clip, to "get it." So based on this clip, high school or not, I don't see what a yellow gets you.
So I posted about my H.S. state soccer assignments in another thread and this incident happened in that very tournament. The referee who made the call is a dear friend of mine and I have debated on whether or not to comment on this. To add some context to this scenario: - The CR stated that when this incident happened, it appeared to him that the ball was going straight down onto the line and not coming back off the crossbar He was given a lot of flack from our local media for this incident and he was pretty torn up about it. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we all can have positive takeaways for it. I don't mean to derail from analysis on the call, but the state tournament has been brutal this year in terms of the media. We have some local journalists and armchair fans that have a following that are spewing out so much nonsense that is extremely painful to hear. These are guys who come from basketball and american football offering their narrow sighted and uneducated views on these things and it's damaging the spirit around here a lot.
Is this editorializing common among local sports reporters? I saw a tweet from the same reporter linked above in which he gives his opinion on an important call in one of the boys semifinals.