I think the most *technically correct* answer based on the way the Laws are worded is #3. Accidental handball offense is structured such that it doesn't become an offense without the ball entering the goal. That never happened. Similarly, we can't send off the defender for denying a goal because none would have been scored had it not happened. But the defender did commit a handball offense inside their own penalty area so...penalty it is. And a good laugh at the defender since all they actually managed to do was prevent their team getting a free kick. But I also agree that this is the sort of wonkery that is unlikely to be accepted (if it even crosses the referee's mind) on the field. #2 is probably most within the usual punitive spirit of the Law when the defender's handball is deliberate.
Seems right. Consider a variety of situations after the “accidental handball” by the attacker, bearing in mind Massref’s warnings about how seldom such events should be considered to occur. A. Ball goes directly into the goal. As we know, DK coming out from the location of the accidental handball. B. Ball deflects off a defender’s body part that can legally play the ball, and the deflected ball goes into the goal. Surely this has to be a goal—neither directly nor immediately should apply. C. Defender also experiences an accidental handball (piling up the low-probability events), and the deflected ball goes into the goal. Surely this has to be a goal. D. As in the original question, defender commits a deliberate handball, and the deflected ball enters the goal. If situations B and C are goals, surely this situation must also be a goal. In all three, after the attacker’s accidental handball, the ball deflects off a defender into the goal. For the only situation of these three that includes misconduct by the defender, how could someone justify not calling the result a goal?
Consider the following ridiculous example: goalkeeper blasts an attempted clear; the ball smashes into an attacker, hitting an arm pulled completely into the body; the ball heads back toward the goal, brushes against the similarly withdrawn arm of a defender (not the goalkeeper) on the goal line, and deflects into the goal. Not a play I've ever seen or expect to.
I understand where people are coming from with this, but I think this is the wrong interpretation. Think about it this way: if there's an accidental handball by an attacker near the penalty spot and the ball goes into the goal, where is the DFK from? Surely it'd be the spot of the ball touching the hand/arm. That's where the offense occurred, even though you didn't know it was an offense at the time it happened. You wouldn't give the FK inside the six-yard box because that's where the ball was when you learned that the handling action was an offense. As with place, I think the same thing is true with time: just because you don't know it's an offense when the ball actually touches the arm, that's still when the offense occurred.
That’s where the action occurred, yes. But it didn’t become an offence until after the the ball entered the goal. So until that happens, it’s nothing.
Okay. But that still wouldn’t be anything on the defenders part other than a deflection. The ball hitting the defender will never be illegal there. It’s not different than it hitting their leg or head or anything else. The fact it hits their arm is irrelevant
I think immediately definitely applies if it merely “deflects” off a defender. The point of the Law change was to not let accidental handling be the cause of a goal. Absent a deliberate play by a defender, I think the immediate provision still applies. (And as I think about that, I think more and more that deliberate handling has to wipe the “immediate” provision, as there is a play by a defender before the ball goes in the goal, so advantage, goal, no card [unless it is a sufficiently cynical act to caution for failure to respect the game].)
And I think a lot of people would agree that’s fair. But I think most of those people are refs and not players and fans. It would be nice if IFAB would clarify.
I had thought that “immediately” was intended to apply to the situation in which the player accidentally handles the ball, gets some semblance of possession, and then shoots and “scores” on that same possession, without intervention by anyone else. Your version of “immediately” would be broader. Upon reflection, I think I agree with you at least in part. Suppose that directly from “accidental handling” by an attacker, the goalkeeper attempts a save but the ball goes into the goal anyway. “The point of the Law change was to not let accidental handling be the cause of a goal” would probably apply. Should an attempted but failed save be treated differently than deliberate handling by a defender? My head hurts.
Why not? One is an offense and one is trying to stop the result of an offense. A pretty direct analogy to a save in the context of OS. but since the odds of this ever happening are so low, IFAB is not going to address this, and any ref is going to have to make the call the R finds most appropriate in the heat of the moment.
My takeaway from this topic is that IFAB has managed to create the soccer equivalent of Schrodinger's Cat.