Does everyone agree with this? "You can't then reason that it would have legally stayed out of the net because it would have hit his chest." I think I can. "What if he had cowered from the ball?" If, in the act of handling the ball, you believe that, had his arms vaporized into thin air just before making contact with the ball, that a goal would not likely be scored, then you shouldn't send him off. "What if he pivoted his body some and it deflected in?" How much can happen between the time he handles the ball and the ball contacts his body? If, for whatever reason, cowering from the ball, twisting body, etc, you think that a goal likely have been scored, you send him off for the hand ball that certainly did prevent a goal. But a ball aimed directly at a players chest, parallel to the goal, is not going be scored, regardless of whether the player catches it or lets it his chest. The handling of the ball didn't deny a goal, as a goal would not have been scored regardless.
Please, read Law 12. (bold mine) How on earth is a ball on a clear heading towards the goal not an obvious goalscoring opportunity. It's not saying an obvious goal, but a goalscoring opportunity. This is how the rule is accepted and used by every single referee in the world, except apparently you. I agree completly with MassRef's block that you quoted.
path? trajectory? I assume you meant one of these. If there is a chest between the ball and the goal, the path to the goal is not clear.
Yes. This is denial by handling, no question, although I'm sure you're going to make some ridiculous argument.
I don't know. Self-torture I guess. Maybe I am not making myself clear. The ball is headed toward goal. When it is one inch from the center of a defender's torso, which is parallel to the goal line directly between the ball and the goal, the defender makes contact with the ball, in an obvous hand-to-ball maneuver, deflecting the ball clear of the goal. Short of the defender vaporizing immediately into thin air, the ball would otherwise, without the handling, hit the chest of the defender and carom harmless to several waiting defenders, well out of the range of any attacker. Clearly, a hand ball has to be called. Clearly, a goal has been prevented by the defender. But clearly, a goal would not have been scored even the defender had done everything the same, except touch the ball with his hands/arms. This is a DOGSO-H?
How on earth is a ball on a clear heading towards the goal not an obvious goalscoring opportunity? Easy. AR pops the flag and the attacker pulls back. Defender bends down and picks the ball up. Whoops the CR didn't blow the whistle! (If he is any good, he does so now and indicates offside.) Really guys, categorical answers are almost always wrong and PVancouver is sharp enough to spot them. He hasn't reffed however. Just point out that it is very difficult to conceive of a shot hard enough to require punching out, but soft enough that it would clearly be chested down otherwise...
Actually, I am thinking of a hard hit shot that is handled anyways. Many people "deliberately" handle the ball even though it is clearly not in their best interest.
PV, Is it DGH? - No. Is it something the referee can ever perceive. - No. It's as pointless as discussing whether Demsey's toe was offside. No AR could possible look across a field the spot an offside toe. The rules of soccer are not applied to the reality of video tape slow motion. They are applied to human vision. It's a very different thing...
If there's a goalie between the ball and the goal, the path to the goal is not clear...but we still red card the last defender that brings him down stopping an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
ATR 12.37 (a). Last sentence in Judging an Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity: "...ITOOTR, the ball would likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling". Statement: "You can't then reason that it would have legally stayed out of the net because it would have hit his chest." Seems clear from that language that if the referee thinks it would have hit his chest and not "gone directly into the goal" the correct call is a caution for USB and a PK. I know the "conventional wisdom" would make it a hard sell, but the referee would have the ATR on their side should they choose that route. I had a discussion with an instructor/assessor on this question a while back, and it cleared up some confusion I had regarding this. In a scenario where two attackers were bearing down on on a defender, and one attacker passed the ball forward to the other attacker but the defender intercepted it with his hand, I had believed that this was DOGSO-H, because in my mind it was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling, but because the ball wasn't going to go into the goal but was in fact just going to the other attacker, it is not DOGSO-H. According to the instructor and the ATR, the ball has to be going DIRECTLY into the goal for handling to rise to DOGSO-H. So it seems fair to say that if the player's body was in the way, or another player or the keeper was behind him and in the path of the ball, that you don't have DOGSO-H.
I do. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. No, it doesn't work that way. If a player could have used his chest, he should do so. The spirit of the game dictates that the players either use some part of their body other than the arms, or get out of the way of the ball. Would you call handling in this scenario elsewhere on the field for a player whose chest was behind the ball, but chose to use his arms instead? I think so. If that's the case (and it is), then if it's done for a ball headed into the net, by definition it's DOGSO-H. You know where I see this exact type of handling call fairly frequently? Younger rec girls games (or O-30 women's games). Ball headed for them, they have plenty of time to head, chest, thigh trap, or get out of the way. But they fold their arms over their chest and "trap" the ball with their arms. Handling? You bet. I call it, and IMHO any other ref worth their salt should too. That's simply not the way the game is meant to be played.
The "Is it handling?" part of the call isn't being debated. Take it as a given. My point is that it shouldn't be a red card for DOGSO. "If that's the case (and it is), then if it's done for a ball headed into the net, by definition it's DOGSO-H." But if the handling only prevented the ball from hitting a player's chest, and the ball would not have reached the goal anyway, then how can you say a goal was denied by the foul? The handling offense did not deny a goal, as there was no opportunity for a goal to be scored anyway.
If a shot on goal is taken, and a field player decides to assume the role of goalkeeper and punches the shot away with their hands instead of heading it or knocking it down with their chest, it's a red card every day of the week, twice on sunday. I don't give two flying s**ts if you can technically make a case against it. It will never fly with me. The rule was put into place to discourage field players from committing deliberate handling infractions to stop goals. I'm not going to let a defender who knows the rules going in off the hook because of some twisted logic that says a shot bouncing off a player on the line somehow isn't obvious enough to be called an OGSO. And if a coach/player wants to complain to the league office, I'll hand him my cell phone. The only possible exception I can think of making here is for a U-11 game or lower (and I'm talking the Everyone Plays rec leagues here), where the player might not know the entire rule book yet, and may be acting in the interest of self-preservation instead of cynicism. Anything above that, the player walks.
I 100% agree with the DGH call here. PV, in order to back up your position, which I disagree with, here's the leap you have to make: you can predict what "could have happened", not react to what "did happen". We never get that ability, we react to what we see, what the players do, not what we think the should have done, could have done or meant to do. It's really simple, keep it that way, the player commited intentional handling of the ball and this prevented the ball from entering the net. DGH, text book. If we make the leap to "he could have", or "should have" or "meant to", then we only call fouls that we are sure are 100% intentional? This brings back the "I was going for the ball" argument from players. "Gee you're right, you were going for hte ball, or at least should have, so I won't call that ankle breaking late challenge a foul, bummer for the guy heading to the hospital" We react to what happened, not what could have, should have or possibly was meant to happen, but what DID happen.
I am not asking you to care about what he is thinking. The only thing I am asking you to considere is what would the result have been if everything else had been the same, but the player's arms vaporized just before contacting the ball. Would a goal have been (likely) scored (or an OGSO continue to exist) or not?
Again, we should be making things more simple. The proper question is: Did his intentional handling prevent the ball from going in the net? the answer is clearly yes. Off he goes. We can't get into the realm of considering things that didn't happen. We have to react only to what did happen.
Sounds like it prevented the ball from hitting the defender's chest. (No, I'm not a troll, but this thread has got me really confused.) I'm a new grade 8, pretend I'm not PV. How does this rise to DOGSO-H when the handling didn't stop the ball from going into the net?
Again, try and keep it simple: - was the ball heading to the net? Yes. - If the defender did not do what he did, would the ball have gone in the net? Yes - Did the defender, illegally, intentionally handle the ball? yes DGH - he's gone.
I can't believe I am going to state this, but I agree with PV. There are a couple of reasons why. 1. ATR 12.9 ..."Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made." One could argue if the shot was close and fast enough we don't even have a hand ball. Note, it doesn't say what part of the body...head, face, chest, groin, etc. It just says body. An april 2005 USSF memo stated this: What characteristics of ball contact are clearly not handling offenses? • The ball strikes the hand or arm (i.e., the ball initiates the contact) • The contact is accidental (not the result of action by the player) • The contact is the result of a purely reflexive effort at self-protection 2. ATR 12.37 ..."the ball likely have gone directly into the goal but for the handling." Would the ball have likely gone directly into the goal in PV's scenario? NO, it would NOT go into the goal DIRECTLY, it would have hit his body. 3. Does it deny a goal scoring opportunity...perhaps if offensive players were close enough to the defender it might. 4. In Feb 2009 USSF sent out the handling memo. Basically, it asked the following: Did the player make himself bigger by using his hands? In PV's scenario..no Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural position?” I don't think so. because as stated if his arm wasn't there it would have hit his chest. 5. Finally all the pictures I have seen that illustrate this shows the defenders arm extended OUTWARDS, not inwards. So to me...if it was a quick reaction to a hard shot taken close in and the arm was protecting the body and not making the defender bigger AND there was no subsequent movement of the ball unnaturally afterwards, no there is no red card...and maybe not even a foul.
But where the offensive players are is irrelevant for DOGSO-H, according to ATR/USSF. For DOGSO-F, the conditions for an obvious goal scoring opportunity need to be met (4D's, etc), but the ball does not actually have to have been on its way DIRECTLY into the goal for DOGSO to be there. But for DOGSO-H, the ball has to have been going DIRECTLY into the goal, but for the handling. So the standard as to what defines OGSO is different for DOSGO-H vs DOGSO-F, and that's what I think confuses this issue.
This does seem to be true, but why? Why would IFAB include "goals" and "goal scoring opportunities", the latter of which could easily be confused with DOGSO-F "goal-scoring opportunities", if truly players should only be sent off if their handling denied a goal? The Corsham site says differently: Although Corsham does muddy the situation a bit when it makes it appear that the handling mentioned in (b) would fall under DOGSO-F, and not DOGSO-H. Why would IFAB want to exclude handling that clearly prevented an OGSO for an attacker from the DOGSO rules? Is anyone saying that Juan, in today's Brazil-Portugal match, could not have been sent off, because his hand ball did not deny a goal? (An OGSO there may or may not have been, but clearly a goal was not denied.)