Giving a ‘holding’ decision

[OldNavyRef]

@puddles15 my opinion is the game is gone. Do what is expected. Just give the goal. Both sides want it. It will likely have little impact who wins either way and you are saving a team from a fine and a suspension, for something you aren't a 100% sure on.

I do think if you are 100% and have 100% seen the ball didn't cross the line, then you have to make the right call.

But you didn't, so I think you did the fairest and most correct course of action (minus the yellow which you have acknowledged).

CARs can be good get out of jail cards, and you used yours correctly.

 

[GraemeS]

Each to their own, and in reality if a CAR from the defending team said the ball had crossed the line, was on the goal line, and there wasn't a potential ulterior motive for them to say so, I probably would go with it. Thinking it through more, I probably wouldn't have a lot of choice otherwise the other team would be using the "even their assistant said it went in" line.

By the way, no need for the attitude. If you actually go back and bother what I wrote I said "indicate such decisions", not "make such decisions", and there is a world of difference between the two.

I was responding in kind with the series of irrelevant and slippery slope arguments in the final paragraph - that's not typically seen as a good faith argument.

 

[RefereeX]

As @Runner-Ref says handball that is a failed attempt to stop a goal is a mandatory caution,.as per law 12.

Can I just come back to this?

I would presume that the law means if a handball occurs with a player trying to stop a goal i.e. player is on the goal line and parries the ball in to his net, it's a caution, however if the ball has already crossed the line when the player handles it then would it still be a caution? Personally I would expect it not to be because the ball is already in so the goal has already occurred, but not sure if that is clarified in law?

 

[JamesL]

Can I just come back to this?

I would presume that the law means if a handball occurs with a player trying to stop a goal i.e. player is on the goal line and parries the ball in to his net, it's a caution, however if the ball has already crossed the line when the player handles it then would it still be a caution? Personally I would expect it not to be because the ball is already in so the goal has already occurred, but not sure if that is clarified in law?

It's a valid point, I suppose.

If the ball is out of play then a handball offence can't have occurred.

However, the wording I feel supports a caution here.

Handles the ball (if a handball offence had to occur then it should say a handball offence) ... In an unsuccessful attempt to stop a goal.

2 criteria, handles and unsuccessful attempt to a goal. Tick both boxes and it's a mandatory caution imo, irrespective at what point the handling happens.

 

[Kes]

Can I just come back to this?

I would presume that the law means if a handball occurs with a player trying to stop a goal i.e. player is on the goal line and parries the ball in to his net, it's a caution, however if the ball has already crossed the line when the player handles it then would it still be a caution? Personally I would expect it not to be because the ball is already in so the goal has already occurred, but not sure if that is clarified in law?

It's still USB, irrespective of the outcome (IMO).

The player's intention was to prevent a goal by blatant cheating, successful in that endeavour or not.

 

[RefereeX]

It's a valid point, I suppose.

If the ball is out of play then a handball offence can't have occurred.

However, the wording I feel supports a caution here.

Handles the ball (if a handball offence had to occur then it should say a handball offence) ... In an unsuccessful attempt to stop a goal.

2 criteria, handles and unsuccessful attempt to a goal. Tick both boxes and it's a mandatory caution imo, irrespective at what point the handling happens.

Fair point, both boxes are ticked.

 

[socal lurker]

Can I just come back to this?

I would presume that the law means if a handball occurs with a player trying to stop a goal i.e. player is on the goal line and parries the ball in to his net, it's a caution, however if the ball has already crossed the line when the player handles it then would it still be a caution? Personally I would expect it not to be because the ball is already in so the goal has already occurred, but not sure if that is clarified in law?

I hadn’t really thought about this, but I think this is 100% correct. The player did not handle the ball, as the ball was already out of play. Just as it he tried to block it and misses the ball—no offense actually occurred and no caution is warranted. Attempting to handle the ball is not an offense.

 

[Canuflybobby]

As @Runner-Ref says handball that is a failed attempt to stop a goal is a mandatory caution,.as per law

 

[JamesL]

I hadn’t really thought about this, but I think this is 100% correct. The player did not handle the ball, as the ball was already out of play. Just as it he tried to block it and misses the ball—no offense actually occurred and no caution is warranted. Attempting to handle the ball is not an offense.

Email to IFAB pending.
For me, the player has still handled the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal. There is no mention that the handles has to be a handles offence.
If it does have to be an offence, then it's poor drafting, which of course will come as no surprise.

 

[Quarryref]

I had this last season.

YC felt spot on in the moment and was 100% as expected by all concerned.

I only realised there was a potential problem when I came to record it after the match. I went C1 UB in the end, rather than C1 HB. It felt like a bit of a cop out, but my argument (with myself) at the time was C1 HB could be considered factually incorrect, whereas C1 UB was at worst debateable.

Of course, no-one else gave a monkeys what caution code I used.

 

[Runner-Ref]

It's an interesting debate. I think I'd still go with caution.

As @JamesL says, the wording of law would seem to back it up.

handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal

But I guess you could look on the flip side and say the ball is no longer in play, so no handball offence has occured. Similar to the VC vs SFP discussion a few were having on another thread

 

[GraemeS]

"handles" =/= "handball".

It's possible to handle the ball without it being handball. I think we would often describe a goalkeeper as handling a ball in his penalty area, that doesn't mean it's a handball offence. And it's logical IMO to extend this to a ball that is out of play - ie it can be handled without actually being a handball offence. And handling in the act of unsuccessfully attempting to prevent a goal is specifically called out as an edge-case offence that should result in a caution.

 

[socal lurker]

"handles" =/= "handball".

It's possible to handle the ball without it being handball. I think we would often describe a goalkeeper as handling a ball in his penalty area, that doesn't mean it's a handball offence. And it's logical IMO to extend this to a ball that is out of play - ie it can be handled without actually being a handball offence. And handling in the act of unsuccessfully attempting to prevent a goal is specifically called out as an edge-case offence that should result in a caution.

Oh no! We’re going to caution GK for saves! Yeah, that’s silly, but I think it’s the same thing—it’s the offense of handling that is meant in the language.

There is nothing more unsporting about touching the ball after it crosses the goal line than trying hard to touch it to sopt it crossing and missing. It’s crystal clear that the latter is not a caution. Ithink it is also clear for the former. (I’d also question whether you can attempt to stop a goal that has already scored . . .)

 

[JamesL]

Oh no! We’re going to caution GK for saves! Yeah, that’s silly, but I think it’s the same thing—it’s the offense of handling that is meant in the language.

There is nothing more unsporting about touching the ball after it crosses the goal line than trying hard to touch it to sopt it crossing and missing. It’s crystal clear that the latter is not a caution. Ithink it is also clear for the former. (I’d also question whether you can attempt to stop a goal that has already scored . . .)

Of course you can...
We're talking about an action here. A behaviour. If the action the player did was committed with an obvious intention of an outcome, whether they were successful in that is largely irrelevant.

If a player slides along the ground trying to keep a ball in play but the ball goes out before they got there, they unsuccessfully attempted to keep the ball in play. Same principle here imo.

Handles = touches the ball with the hand/arm.
Was the handling done in the act of an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal? Y =
Caution.

 

[JamesL]

From IFAB:

"A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"

 

[OldNavyRef]

From IFAB:

"A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"

I'd love for you to do a post on all your emails to IFAB.

And all the responses.

 

[Quarryref]

From IFAB:

"A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"

Love the word usually.

For context, the player's action in the example I cited in my earlier post was closer to Gordon Banks in 1970 v Brazil than a careless placement of hand.

On that day football, at least those at the game, expected a YC!

 

[Josh the referee]

From IFAB:

"A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"

Suprised IFAB haven't blocked your email address yet for causing them too many issues

 

[puddles15]

Given there’s been so many posts, it allays my concern I may not have 100% nailed the original decision.

For what it’s worth, the player lent a hand down and across a bit (but deliberate) in more of a ‘oh FFS another goal’ rather than Suarez style. Given game was as good as gone and we’re not talking PL quality here, I’d feel bad for doing a caution (but probs should’ve regardless)

 

[Pwizardo]

From IFAB:

"A caution (YC) could be supported by a strict interpretation of Law 12 but, given that the goal has already been scored, the football expectation would usually be that a caution (YC) is not necessary"

So IFAB are basically saying you can do either and not be wrong - hope this helps?
Have they sent you a reply where they haven't said that yet?!