NFHS: no DOGSO for handling on the field of play?

I don't see why that would exclude handling. Handling is still a foul committed against an opponent. In fact, how could you commit a foul and it not be against an opponent (isn't that the definition of a foul rather than misconduct)?

 

See 12.8.2.d.1, which lists examples of 'serious foul play,' including "a player anywhere on the field (other than a goalkeeper within his/her own penalty area) who deliberately handles the ball preventing it from going into the goal..."

Yes, I know that's not 'serious foul play' under FIFA Law, but this isn't FIFA Laws of the Game.
Yes, I know that it probably should say "their own goal" instead of "the goal," to exclude a player who uses their hand to prevent a teammate's shot from going into the goal.

 

Law5, I hate to even raise this, but it just occurred to me and I can't help myself.

The rule was just changed so that now, unlike before, deliberate handling in a failed attempt to keep the goal from being scored is just a caution, not a sendoff disqualification (i.e., more or less like USSF). But — no change was made to the language of 12.8.2.d.2, DOGSO-F. It seems to me this rule still suffers from the same discrepancy as the old DOGSO-H rule, i.e., it doesn't require that the OGSO actually be successfully denied to require a red card.

So, consider a hypothetical case where, let's say a cautionable foul (but not otherwise SFP in its own right) is committed against an attacker in a DOGSO situation, and before the whistle blows, the ball nevertheless goes in the net. In USSF play, that's advantage, goal, maybe a caution, restart with kickoff. What's the result in NFHS play? Is it still a red card, even though the goal is good?

By the way, I think that's misquoted. I believe the old language was "to prevent it" and the new is "preventing it..." That's the wording change that takes us from the old red card even with goal to the new no red card if goal is scored.

 

12.8.2.d.1 is about DOGSO-H. 12.8.2.d.2 is about DOGSO-F. Only the first was changed. You are technically correct that a foul (cautionable or not) committed against an attacker where advantage is applied and a goal resorts still results in a "disqualification" (send off) for the fouler. All I can say is, submit a rule change proposal.

You are correct about the old language.

 

Thanks.

 

Are you really saying that DOGSO-F advantage calls that lead to goals should be accompanied by red cards? I mean practically speaking. In real games. Or is this just an academic exercise, parsing "typos" that need to be addressed in the next addition?

 

I'm not exactly in a position to tell you to ignore the rules, am I? That's what the rule says. I would expect, however, that you would use your best judgment about how you apply the rules in a particular game. I am fond of remembering the Charles Dickens' character, Mr. Beadle, saying "If the law says that, sir, then the law is an ass."

Now you may have a different assumption about what such a foul and goal would look like, but, IMHO, if a defender, say, trips an attacker, but the attacker does a summersault and recovers, to stick the ball in the back of the net, I'm thinking that I'm probably going to caution that defender for a tactical foul, even if the foul itself wasn't particularly reckless, but YHTBT.

 

'Twas answered in post 5.

 

I really tried to avoid commenting, but who are these people that they muck up the laws of the game so frequently?

 

Yes. It is specifically referenced in the rule changes for the year.

 

Well... there is a DOGSO-H foul, but only if it actually prevents a goal. A failed attempt, where a goal is immediately scored, no longer requires a red card. If the attempt to prevent the goal is indeed successful, we still show the red.

 

Yes... I'm not sure what you are getting at, its the same as USSF now. You give a yellow if the attempt to prevent the goal is unsuccessful.

 

Your last post made it sound like there was no DOGSO-H ever in high school. I was just clarifying, that a successful DOGSO-H is still a red, while an unsuccessful one is now a yellow, which is a change for NFHS this year.

 

Well, what about this? A midfielder under pressure passes back to his own GK but puts too much heat on the ball. A defender standing behind the GK stops the ball with his hands just as it is about to enter his own goal.

This defender has just denied a goal to the opposing team by deliberate handling. Does he get shown a red card, or does his handling get excused because the opponents never played the ball?

- QC

 

This ends up in the old argument of whether handling is a "foul against an opponent" or not. If it is, it's a red if it's not and if ITOOTR the ball was not heading into goal, it's not a red.

I can't tell you the right answer. I can tell you that I think the spirit of both the LOTG and the NFHS rules will have you show a red here and that's what I'll do if such a thing ever happens to me.

 

Presumably your scenario would work for a keeper outside the PA, too. Right?
So, it's not so completely far-fetched.

And, to annoy all of you with my FL bias, I will add that we FINE DOGSO-F and do not fine DOGSO-H (even though both are straight reds this year). So, it's not merely a distinction without a difference.

 

Complete digression:
Not sure why that distincition makes sense -- the cynical swat of a ball away from the goal line to deliberately prevent a goal does not generate a fine, but the honest but careless challenge against an attacker does? (If anything, sholdn' it go the other way round, since handling, by definition, is deliberate, whereas fouls need only be careless?)

 

In the laws of the game, there are two red-card offenses relating to denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity; taken directly from the LOTG, these are:

1. is DOGSO -F, and 2. is DOGSO-H. Note that the words "obvious goal scoring opportunity" appear in BOTH descriptions.

The ATR, in it's wisdom, has deemed that the LOTG are actually incorrect, and states that there are only two red-card offenses related to this:

Denial Of Goal Scoring Opportunity-Foul (DOGSO-F)
Denial Of a Goal-Handling (DOG-H)

To combat this for jayhonk's example (or a keeper handling the ball outside his penalty area to prevent an attacker from playing the ball), people have convolutedly argued that there is DOGSO-F(h), which it sortof is but sortof isn't. What is clear is that it is clearly denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball.

Now we have NHFS trying to interpret the ATR, and they come to the conclusion that DOGSO-F(h) doesn't make sense (a reasonable position, but one that is only needed due to the earlier mistake) so, still abiding by the ATR's decree that there is only DOG-H and not DOGSO-H, they don't want referees calling DOGSO-F(h).

In short, while this is NHFS being stupid, it is really the fault of the ATR which completely botches DOGSO-H for no apparent reason (the LOTG seem quite clear to me....)

 

I believe you are over-thinking it
Red cards in NFHS fall into 2 categories in FL:
1) report to the state
2) don't report to the state

That first category is the one that includes VC and coach ejections (in all sports).
Presumably, those are the core problems the state wants to deal with.

Until this year, the ONLY red we were able to remove from category 1 was DOGSO-H.
This year, we added 2YC. The rest get lumped into category 1 and people with spreadsheets start doing their thing.

 

Me overthink? Inconceiveable!

I suppose some things come in baby steps . . . but frankly, if I were a state administrator, if anything, I think I'd be more concerned about 2YC (repeat misconduct) than DOGSO . . . but wadda I know? (And 2YC is more likely, IMHO, to mask what should have been a straight red for SFP than is DOGSO.)

 

That's funny, the perspective of the Florida administrators seems pretty reasonable to me.

They're worried about people getting hurt and/or getting sued. Anyone thrown out of a game for fighting or violence is of concern, because somebody could get hurt.

They're not focused on cheating, and deliberate handling isn't going to hurt anyone. Neither will many of the cautionable offenses, like delaying restarts or entering without permission. In their eyes, the referee will keep things fair, as long as the kids don't start fighting.

- QC