Rudy Riou Red Card. Belgian Jupiler League
- Thread starter deusex
- Start date
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Certainly not from the referee's position. The AR should have had a much better view of it but you can't see on the video whether he indicated or not.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Hard to see from the video exactly when the keeper releases the ball.
From the normal TV diagonal view, he looks well out of the area, however side on, keeper handles the ball inside his box initially. Presumably the referee has taken advice from his assistant, either way would find it hard to justify DOGSO-H in these circumstances.
From the normal TV diagonal view, he looks well out of the area, however side on, keeper handles the ball inside his box initially. Presumably the referee has taken advice from his assistant, either way would find it hard to justify DOGSO-H in these circumstances.
I watched the clip 5-6 times... focusing on the side angle... I'll be honest. It's not obvious to me that he's still handling the ball once it's fully outside the penalty area line.
In addition to that, the original (handling) play on the ball is entirely legal, as it's inside the PA, and that removes the DOGSO... so if he is handling outside, caution at _absolute_ most, and likely not even that... as the initial (legal) handling is that which denies possession...
In addition to that, the original (handling) play on the ball is entirely legal, as it's inside the PA, and that removes the DOGSO... so if he is handling outside, caution at _absolute_ most, and likely not even that... as the initial (legal) handling is that which denies possession...
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Why do you presume that? There's no evidence either way and while I would hope that he did, from his body language I think it's just as likely that he didn't.
deusex
RefChat Addict
That's a very interesting point I hadn't thought of.
The handling that tales away the OGSO is indeed legal so I'd have to agree a caution is the most the keeper should receive
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Ref is miked up. I think it is quite fair to presume the AR gives an opinion here.
I do agree on the point though. If the handling in the box has changed the trajectory of the ball, then the handling offence outside the box... woah hang on:
"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored."
Well, this is arguable then. The whole act of the GK handling the ball can be seen as an unfiar intervention and can merit the RC...
I do agree on the point though. If the handling in the box has changed the trajectory of the ball, then the handling offence outside the box... woah hang on:
"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from
the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable
and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored."
Well, this is arguable then. The whole act of the GK handling the ball can be seen as an unfiar intervention and can merit the RC...
While I agree that I don't think he's definitely handled it outside in this case, let's say he has for argument's sake. If by using his hands to control the ball inside the area he was unable not to handle it outside the area, then that makes the first part of the action irrelevant IMO. Take the keeper out of the equation, and it's DOGSO.
I agree, if he handles entirely outside of the area, yes. And I also agree that if there's no GK there, there's definitely an OGSO.
But, if that handling begins inside the area (as this clearly does), then that's the handling that removes the OGSO. If it helps to see what I'm driving at, pretend that the ball hits the GK's chest (rather than his hands) inside the area, and then when he comes outside of the area, he then grabs the ball to hold onto it.
Now look at the position of the attacker by the time the GK gets to the edge of the penalty area -- he's beside (almost behind) the GK, passing into the area. The ball is clearly going in the other direction, away from goal. With those relative positions, there's no chance of the attacker getting control of that ball. There are no other attackers in frame at the time (though one does come in on the heels of one of the white defenders moments later).
But, if we can't agree here, we'll continue to disagree on this, and that's quite OK.
But, if that handling begins inside the area (as this clearly does), then that's the handling that removes the OGSO. If it helps to see what I'm driving at, pretend that the ball hits the GK's chest (rather than his hands) inside the area, and then when he comes outside of the area, he then grabs the ball to hold onto it.
Now look at the position of the attacker by the time the GK gets to the edge of the penalty area -- he's beside (almost behind) the GK, passing into the area. The ball is clearly going in the other direction, away from goal. With those relative positions, there's no chance of the attacker getting control of that ball. There are no other attackers in frame at the time (though one does come in on the heels of one of the white defenders moments later).
But, if we can't agree here, we'll continue to disagree on this, and that's quite OK.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Except that it's not at all clear that "he was unable not to handle [the ball] outside the area." In fact, it's not even totally clear that he did handle outside the area, so it seems evident to me that it was/is absolutely possible to separate the handling into a legal component which is what prevented the opponent from having a goalscoring opportunity and an illegal component which then, in terms of DOGSO, becomes the irrelevant part.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Very tough call
deusex
RefChat Addict
I think you're overthinking this.
The first (legal) part of the action stops the DOGSO.
At a certain frozen point in time the DOGSO has been prevented yet no offence has been committed.
If an offence is committed a nanosecond later how can we possibly RC?
Just to add to the hypotheticals that arise - even if the ball was in contact with his hands outside the penalty area, he was clearly making every attempt to release it before he crossed the line. As an offence of handling the ball has to be deliberate/intentional, assuming the initial handling was inside the area, is it an offence at all?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
From the side-on view it's clear that the handling occurs inside the PA. So even if it continues outside the PA, there can be no card - the attacker had already lost possession legally by that point.
The fact that it took the referee so long to blow the whistle suggests there was AR involvement. Maybe it's one of those cases where the AR just couldn't get back in time and felt that he had to make a decision rather than admit he wasn't sure? Who knows, but they clearly got it wrong.
The fact that it took the referee so long to blow the whistle suggests there was AR involvement. Maybe it's one of those cases where the AR just couldn't get back in time and felt that he had to make a decision rather than admit he wasn't sure? Who knows, but they clearly got it wrong.
Yes, because he is choosing to hold the ball. The fact that he failed to release it in time is purely his own fault - he chose to hold the ball as he was leaving the area, as opposed to simply punching it away.
Caution for what?