I was doing a small sided Over 38 Men's game last night. Before the game, one of the players and I were talking and he brought up something that happened on the other field in the previous game that I would like to get a concensus on. Apparently, a defender, not the GK, was between the ball and goal. A very hard shot was made that was coming directly at the player's face. The player instictively raised his hands in front of his face to protect himself from certain injury. The referee on the game ejected the player and showed him a red card for DOGSO-H. Maybe my view is not 100% correct, but IMO, if there is something other than the hand(s) between the ball and the goal, the ball would not have gone in the goal. In the case cited above, had the hands not been there, the ball would have been blocked by the player's face (ouch!) and not been able to reach the goal. I also question whether we can classify an instinctive act of self preservation as being a deliberate one. Keep in mind, this is based on another player/observer's description and physical demonstration of what had happened so I don't know how far the ejected player was from the goal or whether he was immedieately in front of the goal. It does puzzle me as the referee in question is very experienced and also an instructor so the description may not be completely accurate. ATR 12.A.9, Handling the Ball, seems to cover this. Specifically, bullet #3. A handling offense should not be called if: • the ball moves to the hand. • the ball strikes the hand unexpectedly. • the player reflexively moves the hand to protect himself or herself when the ball is coming in at speed and/or from a short distance away. • the hand is held in a position deemed normal for players of that age and/or experience level. • A player does not unfairly control or direct a ball that initially made contact with the player’s hand entirely accidentally. • the ball contacts a hand which is not being held away from the body at a restart in order to make the player bigger. I'm curious to know if there is any other written guidance on this, and what opinions some of you may have on the matter.
First question I would ask is how far away was this shot taken. The shorter the distance, the more likely I am to dismiss the thought of handling and just chalk it up to a self-preservation reaction. However, I can understand what the referee was thinking once you decide it is handling. Yes, the DOGSO-H is less about a goal scoring opportunity but actually preventing a goal with the hand ("but for the handling would have entered the goal" to paraphrase). But I think it's dangerous to play the guessing game too much here. For me, it's a simple as the answer on handling -- yes or no. If yes, I think it being just the defender between the ball and the goal makes it really tough for me to say no DOGSO (the H or F is inconsequential at that moment, to me).
My first thought is, YHTBT. However, having thought more about it, the send off is correct. If it's not so certain a goal was actually denied as to not make DG-H applicable, there is no question there was still an opportunity denied, thus you have DOGSO with handling being the foul. I'd like to address an additional point: First, "certain injury" is hyperbole and speculation. But second, and most importantly, and I realize this may be unpopular, I believe disregarding handling on claims of "protection" ends at high school level and beyond. It comes down to this. If a ball is coming at a player's face, he can more quickly and more easily get a forehead on the ball before he can get his hands up and in front of his face. In short, the claim of "protection" is a cop out.
Except now it's clearly stated in the new ATR. I don't recall that it was - or at least not nearly so clearly - in the old one.
Interesting and not that simple issue. If there was something else in the path of the ball then most would have no trouble to discount DOGSO but when it is the player himself that both commits the offence and stands in the way of the DOGSO then it gets a bit dicey. IIRC other discussions about this usually comes out as hypothetically removing the player that commits the offence (as is usually considered for DOGSO-F) and thus there is nothing stopping the ball and thus it's DOGSO
Huh? In some situations perhaps but not a sure thing by a long shot. I agree with what you said about the handling though.
Not certain I follow. What's not a sure thing? Are you saying a single defender on the goal line with the ball heading at his face is not a scoring opportunity?
Actually, it states: the player reflexively moves the hand to protect himself or herself when the ball is coming in at speed and/or from a short distance away. As the CR, I get to decide if it's being done for protection. Since I don't see such action necessary to protect oneself at that level, it's being called.
I understand the YHTBT aspect of this example, but assuming the shot was as the player described it. An extremely hard shot directly at the defender's face. In accordance with bullet #3 of the ATR excerpt above, and if he were in in position and stationary at the moment the shot was taken, I personally would have to question whether it would be handling at all. On the other hand, if the defender moved to block the shot after it was in the air, and then used his hands to protect his face, that would be another matter all together. When you say "at this level", these are amateur players 38 y/o and over. Some of them may have played in as high as college, but this is basically adult rec soccer. I know we still have to enforce the LOTG, but they are not as fast or agile as the once were or as it sounds like you expect them to be.
First and foremost. This. But... let's continue with the academic question at hand. I really wish the more lawyerly interpretations on this forum would stop making DOGSO into "an obvious goal" instead of "an obvious goal scoring opportunity." Nowhere in my real-life community is this such an issue. The LotG get their annual colonoscopy here, monthly. Most of the time it's useful, often it's repetitive, and every now and then it's just silly. If I am saying to myself "his face was going to be in the way anyway" or "that was going to be 12 inches wide of the post" as an excuse to not go to my back pocket then something wrong, either I have misinterpreted the spirit of the law and am treating it like a court of law or I don't have the _____es to do this job. In programming terms, if I'm asking these questions it's what we call a "smell" and should be setting off mental alarms. Of course, in this case we have the definition of deliberate firmly behind us and is entirely within the spirit of the laws. I would say it is absolutely in the not-deliberate category, assuming the player had no time and the skill to do something else instead. Even here I don't think there will be much dissent on that. The very ATR directives you go on to quote appear to back this up so I'm a bit befuddled about a request for more references.
Even if they're experienced professionals at the highest level, (which they aren't in this case) it doesn't mean they lose the basic human instinct of self preservation. "Reflexively" being the key word above...if something's coming hard at your face, it's reflex to reach up and block it. No time to work out in their heads if it's truly necessary or not, even at that level.
Agree, you had to be there, but this is an "older" mens amateur league with probably some rinky dink trophy as a prize for winning the league. When I played O-30 and O-40, I wouldn't risk a concussion or detached retina - if it's instinctive to protect the head, then it would be a no call. To say he should have lowered his forehead to the ball, think about it, something is suddenly zipping at your face - you would have the thought process to lower your forehead? I think not - it's instinctive to use the hands/arms.
I had a similar situation on Sunday in a non-sanctioned small sided men's rec league. A free kick taken just outside the box. The player blasts the ball the the wall and a player blocks it with his forearm. The attacking team wants a PK and I say play on. No quibbles about my decision. Most of the players know that they are there just to have fun and they are not going to the World Cup.
A head of a defender (or another defender or a keeper) wouldn't negate a denial of OGSO, an extra player could negate a denial of a goal though. Denying a goal and denying an OGSO are separated by decision of the IFAB though, not by referee preference.
You are, of course, absolutely correct that they are separate. And, as you point out, the terminology is quite different as far as opportunity vs certain goal. However I'm curious as to your thoughts here: Ball isn't going directly into the goal. Defender handles the ball, preventing the opportunity by an attacker. By strict reading of the LOTG, not DOGSO-H, but would you agree this would be DOGSO-F? I have a feeling I know where you stand (and I've built my conclusion to this theoretical long ago) but I hate to put words in people's mouths, even it's all in my head anyways.
Preventing what opportunity? While not explicitly written in the LotG I do not think that DOGSO-F is applicable to handling fouls. Constructive discussion is always fun though.
Theoretical at this point. Just to drive home my point with a ridiculous example, what if a defender grabs the ball that is at an attacker's feet vs bear hugging them? Or handles the ball to break up a pass to another attacker when the GK is out of the picture and it's a 2 vs 1 breakaway? We excuse the denial simply because they used their hands? And this is what makes these discussions go off the rails so quickly! Fun.
No of course not. DOGSO-H have two parts, denial of a goal and denial of an OGSO. Both of your examples here would be denial of an OGSO but neither would be denial of a goal. The example in the OP would not (as written) be denial of an OGSO but could well (IMO it is) be denial of a goal. Of course that's my opinion based upon how the LotG are written and applied (on this side of the pond). I just realised (well more like remembered) that the ATR disagrees (leaving at least your second example as a non-DOGSO) but that's your problem, not mine. You didn't agree?
Here's my take: if it's not an instinctive, protective use of the hands (in which case, no foul at all), then if there was something else between the ball and the goal, they should have used that something else instead of their hands. If they decided to use their hands, too bad... DOG(SO).
My thought is that if the hand is protecting the face, then the ball would not be going into the goal - therefore, at most a hand-ball. If the referee thought the hand blocked a ball that would not have hit his face or chest, but made himself bigger, then I agree with DOGSO and PK. A player can use his hand to protect his privates or face on a free kick; he should also have that opportunity in the open field.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/mar/20/you-are-the-ref-paul-trevillion Mr Hackett agrees! (for whatever thats worth, anyway....) I know its not an EXACT match, but its the same idea *No opportunity is denied because the shot is off *No goal is denied as it was not going in anyway
Just for clarity, if that something is the goalkeeper ready and in position to make the save would you still consider it to be denial of a goal (for simplicity assume no attacker close by)???