Goal Situation

simple advantage played. goal, no booking, no penalty.

 

Agree, with caviat that I would tell the attempted offender that he nearly earned a send off.....

 

Did the referee in question at least caution the defender when he awarded the PK? Did you give him any feedback on the play after the game? Sounds like it was a good teaching moment.

 

if i awarded a pk which i wouldt have i woulda red carded him

 

Can you allow the goal, and still card the kid for an intentional handball?

 

Play advantage, allow the goal. Yellow card the player, tell him if he had stopped the goal, it would be red.

 

I think the referee in this case did the right thing. Straight PK, no caution, no send-off.

Remember, since the foul by the defender did not deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity, since the opportunity did not pre-exist the foul, nor could it be called tactical, no misconduct occurred. It was just a penal foul.

Further, I do not believe it would be good game management to allow the goal, and consider the offense triflijng, because it did effect play, even though not in the normal sense.

Now, if it were a direct kick, then I would have no problem allowing the goal, and possibly considering unsporting behavior, but in this case, I think not.

 

you can't do both within the rules

 

Just because it was an Indirect, do we know what the goal might not have decided to touch it with his fingertips? Not handing out any card is not right. He denied a possibly scoring opertunity.

 

There are several issues here where, under both the Spirit of the Law and the Letter of the Law, misconduct did not occur. It is important to remember that the resetart was not for a foul by a player against an opponent, but for a technical infraction, therefore as with all tecnical infractions the restart is an IFK and a goal cannot be scored directly from an IFK.

Therefore, no obvious goal scoring opportunity pre-existed the handling offense by the defender, assuming he handled it directly from the initial kick by the attacker. Whether it went in or not, there was no misconduct.

Now, this might be different if he handled it after a save by the keeper. or the second touch by an attacker, etc. Then, there might be misconduct,but then again, maybe not.

When you say "not handing out a card is not right", you are missing an important aspect of game managment.

 

Deliberate handling is not a IFK. It is a foul regardless of the outcome.
A caution can be issued for USB if the CR feels it is necessary. I think you are being a bit uncreative to use a card here but it isnt completely outside the realm of reasonable.

 

What rules??? you cant SEND HIM OFF but you could certainly caution if you needed to.

 

I would agree with Whipple and add a bit.

I would allow the goal as the defender added the second touch to make it a good goal on this IDFK.

I would then have to evaluate what I needed to do to the defender. I believe that the Referee must do something in this situation.

While I could see a reason for issueing a yellow card after considering overall game management purposes and how it could help, I can see no reason to issue a red card.

Probably better still, I would take the defender aside and use this as a teaching moment. I would tell that defender that had he not touched the ball before it went into the goal, it would NOT have been a good goal, but a goal kick. By telling that defender that he just helped the opponents, I believe that the defender would feel worse that if had received a caution.

It would be interesting to see how the scorer recorded the goal. Was it scored by the attacking kicker who would not have scored had it not been for the defender, or was it scored by the defender, or does the defender get an assist on this?

 

If a defender handles the ball and it then crosses the goal line in this situation before another player has touched the ball, this is a valid goal and it should be allowed. There was no goal scoring opportunity denied since the restart would have been a goal kick had the defender not touched the ball.

If you do not allow the goal, and instead award a PK, you run the risk of denying the attacking team a goal that it has earned. What if the attacker then steps up an misses the PK? The defenders in this situation would clearly have gained an advantage that they did not deserve.

I don't think a card is warranted in this situation either. If you allow the goal and the player's teammates know that his/her action was the reason the goal was valid, then I think that is punishment enough. This action is simply stupid, it isn't unsporting.

Now I have to admit that had this situation presented itself to me before a presentation by Vinnie Mauro that I attended back in February, my head would have exploded and I'm sure I would have screwed this up. As a matter of fact, I've learned the proper way of doing a number of things on the field by first screwing them up. That's part of being a referee I guess.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

But, if the player had not handled the ball it would have been a goal kick. So would the defenders really be gaining an advantage they didn't "deserve" in such a case?

I suppose an important piece to this particular puzzle is the question of whether the handling was the 2nd touch or whether is was subsequent to the 2nd touch. I'm not sure we know the answer to that question from the way the scenario was laid out for us.

I don't see how you could not allow the goal in such a case if the ball went into the net. But it also wouldn't be the biggest mistake a referee ever made either.

 

Glenn,

After reflection I would agree with your last point. In most cases we should allow the goal.

I would have to say that the stoppage and restart with a PK, even if the ball went into the net, is not necessarily wrong, but is not the best approach in most cases. If for example an IFK is taken and it deflects off a defender in the wall and continues past the keeper and into the net, we say good goal.

If the ball from an IFK deflected off the defender's arm, it is still a good goal. No foul occurred, the defender made the second touch.

Therefore, if the defender deliberately plays the ball, and a foul occurs, it could considered trifling while satisfying the second touch, good goal.

If the deliberate handling denies the goal, then award the PK. Simple foul no misconduct.

In each case, a slow whistle to observe the result. But, if you do blow a quick whistle, after observing the handling, and the ball has not yet passed into the goal, you probably will be able to sell the PK as well.

 

Sherman, I think in the case of deliberate handling to deny the goal. Send-off and restart with a PK.

 

Alberto,

The problem here is that if the defender deliberately handles an IFK from its initial touch, and it prevents the ball from passing over the goal line, between the uprights and under the crossbar, it has only prvented the ball from going out of play, it did not deny the goalscoring opportunity, because it never existed. Had he not touched it, it would not have been a goal, therefore he cannot be sent off for DOGSO.

It could, however, be DOGSO if the ball had already had its second touch, or if the kick were direct, but this is not the case if it is indirect.

I actually had a situation like this about a year ago when a defender deliberately handled a ball directly from a throw in by an opponent, which might have gone into the net, but even if it didn't would have been an easy tip-in for an attacker. Here, there was no send-off, but the player was cautioned for the tactical foul and the attackers were awarded a PK.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but is it not the truth that if any field player deliberately plays the ball with his hand, it is a yellow? If a player catches the ball in midflight is it not a card?

 

Nope, not the truth. A player who deliberately handles the ball is guilty of a foul. It is possible that he's also guilty of misconduct as well, but not necessarily.

 

This is not true, but it is understandable why so many misunderstand this aspect of the Laws. Deliberate handling is a foul, punishable by a direct free kick at the point where it occured. It is not, in itself misconduct and referees must judge fouls and misconduct each on their own merits.

For handling to be a foul at all, it must be deliberate. If it is accidental, irrespective of who is advantaged or disadvantaged, no foul had occurred.

This said, you can have both a foul and misconduct, such as a tripping foul and since it was done recklessly, a caution for unsporting behavior, or tripping to deny and obvious goal scoring opportunity, the player is sent-off. The same applies to the offense of handling.

If handling is done as a tactical foul, then it could be cautioned as misconduct. A tactical foul is one where a player deliberately commits a foul in the belief that the restart will be of greater advnatage or prefereable than allowing play to continue. For example, a defender facing a 3 on 1 break away deliberatedly and cynically jumps up and handles the ball so give his teammates time to come back, they should be cautioned for unsporting behavior.

The caution, however, is not for the handling but for the players cynical abuse of the Laws. The same applies to an attacker who deliberately tries to put the ball into the net through the offense of handling. This is considered unpsporting behavior and the attacker may be cautioned. But, again, the caution is a separate issue from the foul.

So the answer is no, even if a player catches the ball midflight, and spins it on his or her finger while spining cartwheels at midfield, this is not necessarily misconduct and you should keep your cards in your pocket.

 

Agreed. I see your logic.