Stolen from another board . . . Defender blocks a shot with her hands trying to prevent a goal, but the ball crosses the goal line before the handling. Caution or not?
Absolutely not. I'm possibly not even giving the caution if an illegal handball occurs before the ball crosses the line. I think there are a number of real-world reasons not to, and at least real-world factors to consider before reflexively doing so. But we've had that debate before. In this case, a goal occurs before handball so the ball is out of play. We don't caution a player who, say, deliberately catches the ball when they know it's gone out for a throw-in or goal kick. The ball is out of play. End of story. Or at least it should be.
If a goal is scored, then by definition, it's not DOGSO, because the goal wasn't denied. If the goal was denied, it would be a red-card/send-off for handling stopping a goal. In your scenario, if the ball was already outside the field of play, it's not anything and didn't deny anything. That's called picking up the ball after a goal is scored so that you can get it to the kick-off to restart.
That’s my view as well. There is strong support on the other board that it is a caution as it was an unsuccessful attempt to stop a goal by handling the ball.
IFAB apparently sent this response to an inquiry: "A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"
Some people also have strong support for this caution (failed attempt to stop the goal by handling) generally and seem to relish the opportunity to one day give it. Again, I think in the real world this is less necessary and less desirable of a caution even when it 100% conforms with the Laws. A blatant and unambiguous act of attempted cheating with significant hand-to-ball contact is the only situation where I can see it worthwhile and then I'd still consider other match circumstances. The idea of wanting to caution a defender for a failed effort while the other team celebrates its goal is just foreign to me. I think this is one of those bright-line Rorschach tests that separates two fundamentally different types of referees. That's David Elleray's polite way of saying "you could go that route if you have absolutely no feel for the game."
I mean, I guess you could ground the caution in "shows a lack of respect for the game," but please no. That would be a referee demonstrating they really want to give the card and they're going to find a way to do it.
I’m confused by the question. So this is like if a player was standing in the goal and tried to slap the ball out of the air after it fully crosses the goal line? That’s not a caution because the ball is out of play (in the goal) before the handling occurred so it can’t be a failed DOGSO if the ball is out of play.
Well, the player tried to slap it away before it crossed, but was only successful in to “stopping” it after it crossed the line.
Oh no… this sounds like the SFP/VC thing massref mentioned last week. Where if a ball is out of play, technically it can only be VC, but then you start debating the semantics of “well if a SFP motion began while the ball was still in play but actually completed with the ball out of play, can it be SFP if it didn’t rise to VC?”. But regardless, if the person slaps the ball away after it crossed the goal line, I wouldnt give a caution because the ball is out of play so it’s not even a failed attempt at DOGSO, ball has to be in play for an OGSO to exist. I would just treat the result, not when the attempt “started”
I've had this happen to me in a game, and the attacking team were all screaming for a red card. Which is clearly wrong, obviously -- there was no denial, and really there was no handling as the ball is out of play. We always have tremendous leway in what we determine to be "unsporting". How you use that leeway is more a matter of wisdom than knowledge. Adding insult to injury after a goal is scored doesn't seem wise to me. What's the point?
To me this isn’t unsporting and a YC can’t be justified by the LOTG. It was a failed attempt to be unsporting, therefore isn't punished as unsporting, just like a failed attempt at unsporting SPA isn't punished as unsporting. "Handling" a ball that's out of play in the goal is to me basically the same as if a player handled a ball that was already out for a GK/CK/TI, i.e. nothing. At least that's how I would justify it to players/coach if they cried about it to me. Same way that I justify not giving a yellow card for an egregious defensive handball that didn't affect or maybe even started a promising attack/led to a goal when the coach/players cry for one, another example of a failed unsporting act that you don't penalize. It's completely different from a legit failed DOGSO attempt.
If the offense occurs before the ball is in the goal. Not when a goal is scored and an player just quickly touches the ball after its already a goal.
My perspective is, if you can make an (even quite generous) argument that it was not deliberate handling, the caution is not necessary by the Spirit or the Laws of the game. However, if it’s a case where you really can’t honestly argue against the deliberate nature of the offense, the law does require the caution, and everyone would expect it, too. Anecdotally, I had a high-school-aged boys game where a defender tried to block a goal with his hands above his head on the goal line like he was Luis Suarez’s protégé. He probably didn’t make contact until the ball was already across the goal line. This was the equalizing goal pretty late into a very competitive high-school-aged boys game and no one batted an eye when I showed a card as the opponents were celebrating. Player knew he deserved it, teammates knew he deserved it, everyone understood the reason for the punishment. If the game didn’t expect this card, that’s news to me. Maybe it’s Rorschach Test but I actually don’t see very much of a difference between the Laws and the Spirit of the game here. The Laws only require the card if it’s clearly deliberate handling, which is right where I think the game expects or at least accept a sanction. (Maybe the fact that I think that is itself the Rorschach test!) There’s no way Elleray is actually the one responding to those inquiries, right? I trust he has better things to do all day than sit around reading whatever poorly-vetted questions amateur referees/fans/coaches send in from around the world on any given day. And from what I’ve heard about the quality of response people tend to get, I hope they’re merely written by interns and not people that actually matter.
I think there's very much a distinction between "game didn't expect" and "game didn't mind." It's "only" a yellow. And yes, everyone knows why you're giving it so there really can't be protests or hard feelings. But if you had just gone back to the center circle and done nothing but record the goal, would anyone have said anything? And that's at least partially rhetorical. I wasn't there. And the caution is justifiable in the Laws and, as I conceded, there are instances where I could see myself giving it. So maybe this is one of those cases. But as you implied with the first sentence in your post, my baseline would be looking for a reason not to give it. I also think this is the classic "would you give it as a 2CT" scenario. Player fails at his intended misconduct. Team concedes a goal (probably in some sort of desperation moment--at least at the professional or higher levels). And we're going to still send him off when everyone's attention is over at the goal celebration? It's easier said in theory than done in practice. I've sent two questions directly to IFAB (one on the requirement to give a yellow card when you score a goal with the hand, after the change to punish accidental handling; the second related to how VAR processes a perceived bad application of advantage related to DOGSO). Elleray personally signed one of the replies (and subsequent back and forth) but not the other. So he does reply to at least some of the inquiries and I imagine he signs off on any that are perceived to be um, good, questions. I don't think the standing IFAB infrastructure is that big. In fact, it's five standing staff counting Elleray and one is Legal/HR while the other is the Corporate Secretary: https://www.theifab.com/organisation/ Maybe the Muller guy is handling the simple inquiries. But he's a journalist and communications professional. Elleray is giving the actual answers that matter. He's an army of one.
Sorry, I didn't read @StarTime's concession that the ball was probably over the line. I thought I was replying to a scenario where the failed DOGSO occurred on the field of play. I might be dancing around this too much in the interest of being polite (or of in not occurring the wrath of people who feel differently). I'm pretty much never giving this caution (that said, in 25+ years I think I've maybe had one real opportunity to do so). And I'm definitely not giving it if the ball was already in the net, as I said at the outset. At the same time, pretty much any behavior is cautionable as UB, so the "what justification" angle isn't my issue. It's the "what are you accomplishing" question that is my focus.
On this point, I actually think you’d be more likely see visible signs of the game “expecting” a caution if the player is already booked. I think the biggest safeguard right now is that players and fans simply don’t know what the law says. If a CONCACAF or CONMEBOL team knew the rule, depending on the score, I would be 0% surprised to see them mob the referee instead of celebrating the goal. Most players don’t know the rules well enough for that to happen currently, but all it takes is one viral clip to change that. Look, these plays are exceedingly rare, I don’t think I’ve even seen an example in a professional match, let alone one where the offender was already booked. It’s quite possible that we’ll never see the already-booked version happen in our lifetimes. So who knows. But if a team knows their stuff and protests hard, and it goes viral? I would be concerned that an explanation of “I’m ignoring a mandatory second yellow because the game—you guys—doesn’t expect it” might not hold water.
I am tempted to channel Yoda: "Do or do not - there is no try." I understand where the sentiment for a caution comes from. There are offenses which are punished for "trying". They are usually "X or attempts to X" wording. But that doesn't appear in DOGSO. There is no try. If there was no handball (because the ball was already across the line) then there was no goal denied by a handball.
Huh? I don’t see where you’re coming from. We are literally debating an explicit law that punishes a player for “attempting” to do something but failing. “Handles the ball… in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal” is the exact language from Law 12.
It means the ball hit your hand when you tried to stop it going in but it goes into the goal anyway despite your mischievous behavior.
For those of you who still do adult games, this is a scenario that might pop up where a guy is trying to prevent a tying or winning goal and purposely sticks out his arm (but the ball already crossed the goal line). While the team is celebrating the goal and the defenders are arguing among each other for leaving the guy open, you really want to show a caution here? If the goal is scored, regardless of what IFAB or anyone's "expectation" is, what are you achieving by showing a caution if a goal is scored?