Agreed - something as ridiculous as a keeper clearance that hits his own defender in the back and is rebounding towards net, if stopped with illegal handling, is still DG-H.
Not so. If the illegal handling occurs outside of the box it can be DG-H, but a 'keeper cannot be sent off for DG-H if it occurs in his own penalty area.
A keeper cannot illegally handle the ball in his own penalty area... if you're going to get itchy about the language. I think most people who are saying the goalkeeper illegally handles the ball are implying it is outside the PA.
Wasn't necessarily talking about the keeper or necessarily talking about in the PA. That's why I bolded "Illegal". Illegal handling can be DG-H by the keeper outside of his box, by a field player either inside or outside of the box regardless of who played the ball, what position players were in, or what direction they were heading.
There are several ways a goalkeeper can illegally handle the ball in his own penalty area. They are all IFK offenses.
Getting back to the play in question, I can see it NOT being a DGF, they are so tight into the net at the point of the foul, that one can argue his direction was not at the net, but at the side of the net. I can also see it being a DGF for all the arguments made here. My gut would have said, no DGF, go PK and caution for tactical foul.
Those are not handling offenses. Handling is specifically a DFK infraction. Playing the ball with hands direct from a teammate's throw-in, releasing the ball into play and then playing it with hands again, and playing the ball with hands from a ball kicked deliberately to the goalkeeper from a teammate all involve handling the ball within the PA by a specific player, in addition to a special circumstance of play. Honestly, we're arguing semantics here. When somebody talks about a goalkeeper being sent off for DOGSO-H, they are specifically talking about a GK being guilty of a handling offense outside the PA. When somebody says a player (GK or otherwise) is guilty of handball, it's pretty obvious what they're talking about. I don't know of any referee who calls a backpass, a throw-in direct from a teammate, or a release and pick-up a "handball." It drives me nuts that people feel the need to "clarify" such things.
I think it is important to clarify these things. I agree that the word "handling" has a specific meaning when talking about the penal foul. But it is also used informally. Sometimes it is not clear how it is being used so the sepcific meaning needs to be clarified. For instance, if someone says that "handling" is only properly used to refer to the penal foul, someone could come back and ask why the term "illegal handling." Is it redundant or is it to distinguish it from "legal handling?" If "handling" is used strictly to refer to the penal foul then "illegal handling" is a strange phrase--it's like saying that not only are elephants large animals, they are also big. But used informally "illegal handling" makes sense because "handling" is used to refer to the act of putting hand to ball, which can be legal or illegal, depending on the situation. This is how I read it. Sometimes arguing semantics is being pissy, sometimes it is seeking clarity.
Intent has NOTHING to do with it. Yes I think he fouled him, he clipped his right heal to bring him down. Did he mean to? Beats me, I don't care. Second, if we follow the WIR and discuss whether it should be DGF, the question of whether he fouled or not is not up for discussion, assume he did.
Tell me, what else is there to look at for DG-H other than 1. Was the ball going in the net? 2. Was that stopped by illegal handling? What other factor is there for DG-H
And, I suppose, it only takes one week to see the effects of what USSF said in the last WiR. The video of Reis' late game foul that resulted in a penalty: http://web.mlsnet.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6629923 So, on what planet was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity not denied? At the moment of the foul by Reis, there is no defender back (note that, even if there was a defender back, it would still have been beyond the goalkeeper so there would only be one--not two). The ball is within playing distance. They are 12 yards from goal, almost exactly in the center of the field. I suppose it's the direction component? The ball was rolling slightly left of the post rather than directly at the goal? That's all I can think of. Regardless, it's absurd to say that an obvious goal-scoring opportunity wasn't denied. A certain goal? No. Maybe the defender could have tracked back and challenged as Kljestan went to put the ball in a gapingly open net from 5 yards away. But seriously, why isn't this a red? Note who the referee is. Salazar got publicly corrected for what most think was a reasonable DOGSO call a week ago. And now he holds his red card on what was an even more blatant DOGSO call. Cause and effect? I can't think of another reason. USSF has some good referees. They need to start leaving these decisions completely to the judgment of those referees. There are certainly benefits to the WiRs. But micromanaging the biggest judgment calls is not one of them.
In my opinion, an OGSO that was not a shot on goal could be denied by DG-H. This opinion is not shared by USSF. For example, had Reis been outside of the box and handled the ball as the ball and Lillingston were about to get by him, DG-H should be called.
Apparently the same planet this was a foul on Reis. Based on the 4-Ds, I have to assume Salazar decided that the distance requirement was not met. He probably decided he was not sure if Lillingston would have been able to reach the ball first, being that he had slowed down to beat Reis and the defender was flying in. It may have been an incorrect assessment, but it wasn't an absurd assessment. I suspect most referees place priority 1 on the PK call, and priority 2 on the DOGSO evaluation. If he waited any length of time to make the DOGSO decision, it would be easy to conclude that there was no OGSO.[/QUOTE]
A ball is rolling to an onside positioned attacker who would have an easy, undefended shot on goal. An opponent handles the ball to prevent the ball from reaching the attacker. It is not that complicated.
Take the Torres/Quaranta case. Remove the goalkeeper. Suppose, as Quaranta is trying to control the ball to prepare for his (easy) shot on goal, Torres dives to the ground and knocks the ball out of play with his hands, knowing that he cannot be sent off for DGH, as opposed to deliberately fouling Quaranta, in which case he would be sent off for DGF. Does that make any sense? A goal is obviously going to be scored, unless Torres commits a foul, in either case.
There was also a missed DOGSO (IMO) in the LA Galaxy/FC Dallas match. For some reason Berhalter wasn't sent off in the 6th minute. It probably would have been better for the Galaxy if he was because he was terrible.
I really don't want to re-hash this debate since we had it so recently, but... The Laws themselves make it very clear that it's a red card for denying a goal OR an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling. We got really into the weeds over this one a few months back, but, for some reason, USSF muddies the interpretation up. FIFA itself allows for a red for denying a goal-scoring opportunity and as recently as a few years ago even showed a diagram in the Laws that labeled such a play as a red card. And we see red cards all the time for goalkeepers that handle outside the area without stopping an actual shot on net. Again, the debate was recent so I don't think it's worth a replay on this thread, but this certainly isn't as clear as USSF would seem to make it. In fact, I think USSF has it totally wrong.