RefSix

Denying a goal by a handball offence

JH

RefChat Addict
Remember the mistaken identity when Gibbs was sent off in Chelsea vs Arsenal for Oxlade-Chamberlain denying a goal with his hand? That shot was going about a foot wide, yet I didn't see any controversy about it being a dismissal.

What is the consensus about situations such as this? Technically Oxlade-Chamberlain did not deny a goal and did not stop a promising attack, so technically should have recieved no sanction.

If you can tell that a shot is narrowly going wide and a defender saves it with their hand, are you dismissing them, or explaining to everyone that you knew it wasn't going in anyway?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Remember the mistaken identity when Gibbs was sent off in Chelsea vs Arsenal for Oxlade-Chamberlain denying a goal with his hand? That shot was going about a foot wide, yet I didn't see any controversy about it being a dismissal.

What is the consensus about situations such as this? Technically Oxlade-Chamberlain did not deny a goal and did not stop a promising attack, so technically should have recieved no sanction.

If you can tell that a shot is narrowly going wide and a defender saves it with their hand, are you dismissing them, or explaining to everyone that you knew it wasn't going in anyway?
Caution for unsuccessful DOGSO
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Remember the mistaken identity when Gibbs was sent off in Chelsea vs Arsenal for Oxlade-Chamberlain denying a goal with his hand? That shot was going about a foot wide, yet I didn't see any controversy about it being a dismissal.

What is the consensus about situations such as this? Technically Oxlade-Chamberlain did not deny a goal and did not stop a promising attack, so technically should have recieved no sanction.

If you can tell that a shot is narrowly going wide and a defender saves it with their hand, are you dismissing them, or explaining to everyone that you knew it wasn't going in anyway?
I think this is a spirit of the game issue, here. A scenario that is not exactly covered in law.
If the ball is going wide it cannot be a OGSO, in my opinion, so a red card is not appropriate.
I think we need to look at what the player was trying to achieve, and that was he was trying to prevent a goal being scored. I think this can easily be categorised as unsporting behaviour and a caution for HB.
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
Surely you apply the “into or very close to the goal” spirit..,

“Lads, in my opinion it was going in...” or not;)
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Slightly against the consensus so far from me. If the player makes a deliberate save (and I'm using "deliberate" in the English language sense rather than the LOTG sense!) because they think it's going in and they're saving a goal, I'm erring towards a red card in most cases.

There might be details that save them, but I'm starting with a red card and seeing if there are reasons to downgrade, rather than working my way up towards red. And if it's anywhere close to the goal, "maybe creeping wide" isn't enough to justify a downgrade alone.
 

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
OK, here's how I see it. The red card is for denying a goal. It's not for, "trying to deny what the player thought was going to be a goal but actually wasn't." So for me, if it didn't deny a goal it's not a red card.

Technically Oxlade-Chamberlain did not deny a goal and did not stop a promising attack, so technically should have received no sanction.
As far as I'm concerned, I think it's still well within the spirit of the law to caution for deliberately handling in an attempt to prevent a goal.
 
Last edited:

Martiju

Well-Known Member
Level 6 Referee
As far as I'm concerned, I think it's still well within the spirit of the law to caution for deliberately handling in an attempt to prevent a goal.
Anyway, if he deliberately handballed it, it HAS to be a booking!! Ref!? REF?! REF?!!

Sorry, channelling probably every single game when I've given a DFK for handball there...
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
To move the point on slightly. If this was to happen in the PL now and the ref gave a red card for DOGSO, would VAR look at it and if the ball was clearly not going to go into the goal overrule the original decision?
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
To move the point on slightly. If this was to happen in the PL now and the ref gave a red card for DOGSO, would VAR look at it and if the ball was clearly not going to go into the goal overrule the original decision?
To be pedantic, no, because the VAR doesn't overrule, the VAR provides information to the R to let the R change a decision as warranted. But to the real question, as all red cards are checked, I would expect that VAR would send down the information if the ball clearly was not going into the goal. (And would then trigger a major discussion of how clear clearly must be . . . )
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Isn't that a factual decision? Since when PL used 'clearly' for factual dexisions? Using current EPL VAR protocol, VAR would disallow the goal and the reason given would be, the ball was missing goal by an armpit hair.
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Isn't that a factual decision? Since when PL used 'clearly' for factual dexisions? Using current EPL VAR protocol, VAR would disallow the goal and the reason given would be, the ball was missing goal by an armpit hair.
But would that be an obvious error by the referee?

If the only way to determine this is for VAR to use multiple camera angles and freeze frame etc then I'd say that isn't an obvious error.

You'd also have to factor in the fact that VAR wouldn't be able to conclusively prove whether the ball was on target or not. They might be able to predict (guess) at the likely path of the ball but they wouldn't be able to say for definite.
 
Since when is VAR being used only for Obvious Errors? I know that is what is meant to happen but reality is somewhat different
 

Grayson

RefChat Addict
I was labouring under the misapprehension that the "clear and obvious error" referred to if a mistake was made that a KMI would arise (or not) from it (goal, penalty, red card - hence it was clearly and obviously an error), not that the offence itself had to be clearly and obviously a foul (or offside, whatever). Does that make sense? Apologies if that wasn't clear and obvious :D :D
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
But would that be an obvious error by the referee?

If the only way to determine this is for VAR to use multiple camera angles and freeze frame etc then I'd say that isn't an obvious error.

You'd also have to factor in the fact that VAR wouldn't be able to conclusively prove whether the ball was on target or not. They might be able to predict (guess) at the likely path of the ball but they wouldn't be able to say for definite.
Yep. That's my point. While they wouldn't be able to, they still would do it (as with the armpit).
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Yep. That's my point. While they wouldn't be able to, they still would do it (as with the armpit).
While I get the point you're trying to make about some of the absurdity involved in parts of VAR, unless they get software to track the future path of a moving object, that can't actually happen, as they have nothing to use to come up with the false precision we see with OS. But since DOG (as opposed to DOGSO) sends offs are so rare, we likely will never know.
 
Top