A&H

Goalkeeper handball outside the box

Dino Ref

Dino Ref

Well-Known Member
GK comes running off his line and wins a 50/50 with the striker.

Ball sets up for the midfielder to shoot from about 25 yards.

GK is running backwards towards his line.

Midfielder hits it and completely ****s it and sends it flying towards the corner flag.

The GK who has no idea ends up "saving" it outside the box.

I blow and give a yellow. The manager was absolutely furious that I didn't send him off.

I've looked at the LOTG and I'm pretty sure I've got this right as he isn't denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Can anyone clarify?
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Reason for a yellow?
To me, just a plain vanilla hand ball the way you describe it.
 
JamieA said:
GK comes running off his line and wins a 50/50 with the striker.

Ball sets up for the midfielder to shoot from about 25 yards.

GK is running backwards towards his line.

Midfielder hits it and completely ****s it and sends it flying towards the corner flag.

The GK who has no idea ends up "saving" it outside the box.

I blow and give a yellow. The manager was absolutely furious that I didn't send him off.

I've looked at the LOTG and I'm pretty sure I've got this right as he isn't denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Can anyone clarify?
Click to expand...
You're right about the fact it's not DOGSO, if it's going towards the corner flag then there is no goal/opportunity. Unless you think an attacking player had a good chance of retrieving the shot and heading towards goal, it's not SPA either.

I do think at least a caution is expected in such a scenario though, it could easily be classed as unsporting behaviour. No caution would be correct in law but would risk match control imo.
 
I think you made the right decision. As others have said you risk your match control by not giving a yellow but you were correct not to give red as it wasn’t DOGSO
 
JamieA said:
Deliberate handball.
Click to expand...

Every handball that you penalise is deliberate, but I hope you don't caution for every handball?

The only thing you would caution for on a handball is stopping a promising attack. That hasn't happened here, and if anything it has done the opposite and created a promising attack as has turned a goal kick or throw in to an attacking free kick close to the penalty area.
 
JamieA said:
I'm pretty sure I've got this right as he isn't denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Click to expand...

You are right, just as the others are saying, it may not have warranted a caution at all.

Don't get disheartened by that in any case, it's just learning.
 
WalterPinkman said:
I think you made the right decision. As others have said you risk your match control by not giving a yellow but you were correct not to give red as it wasn’t DOGSO
Click to expand...
I don't see that it should necessarily be risking match control to not give a yellow. If it wasn't SPA or DOGSO then for me it wouldn't be the right decision to give either a yellow or a red. From the way I read the description, it's a free kick and nothing more.
 
What is it with all this match control crepe???

Never yet found that failing to give a card or even dishing out a card which in retrospect was a bit dodgy has ever caused me to lose match control............

Most often, so called loss of match control resulted from some stupid challenge from one side or the other...........

Needless to say, there are probably some games where I never had any match control whatsoever...................#life in the lower tiers #Division 9 derby game #****ref
 
RustyRef said:
Every handball that you penalise is deliberate, but I hope you don't caution for every handball?
Click to expand...
It's usually a handball offence when the hand or arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. That doesn't require deliberation by the player at all - why say that every handball penalised must have been deliberate when this is not true?
 
Nij said:
It's usually a handball offence when the hand or arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. That doesn't require deliberation by the player at all - why say that every handball penalised must have been deliberate when this is not true?
Click to expand...

Because that is what law says ...

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

Can't really be more clear than that. In making your body bigger you are deemed to have intentionally handled the ball.
 
RustyRef said:
Because that is what law says ...

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

Can't really be more clear than that. In making your body bigger you are deemed to have intentionally handled the ball.
Click to expand...
Been through this too many times now, deliberate is a separate offence to unnatural position. A player could smash it at someone from 2 yards and if their arm is in an unnatural position/above shoulder, it is still an offence (with a couple of exceptions). As confirmed by IFAB:
1580675519985.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
JamesL said:
On the flip side you could just as well lose match control by giving an incorrect caution so I'd aether lose control knowing I got the decision right than lose Control to find out it was because I got the decision wrong
Click to expand...
I've mentioned before about UEFA/continental referees being taught differently to here in England about USB, UEFA teaches to caution all 'cynical' fouls that have no intention of playing the ball (pulling/pushing/tripping), even without a promising attack. They say it is for 'lack of respect for the game' (A USB offence in law) - I'd say deliberately trying to prevent a goal by illegally handing is showing a lack of respect for the game.

However, we are not UEFA referees and in English grassroots football the 'correct' decision would probably be no sanction - this would leave you with one unhappy attacking team though, even if they are wrong:)
 
For me it doesn't sound like the keeper handling the ball stopped a promising attack, so I think the caution is incorrect.

And I don't understand the arguments for giving a caution solely for "match control". Players, coaches, and spectators (incorrectly) expect cautions for lots of imaginary offences, if we were to caution every time it's expected rather than when it is correct in law then most matches would be abandoned for a team going below 7 players.
 
JH said:
UEFA teaches to caution all 'cynical' fouls that have no intention of playing the ball (pulling/pushing/tripping), even without a promising attack. They say it is for 'lack of respect for the game'
Click to expand...

Hmm, I do this anyway, but I agree with the principle. I've always thought SPA was meant to cover careless fouls, that you wouldn't caution for, but now you can because SPA.

If a player is a doing a swipe/trip/pull whatever off the ball or he's completely beaten and is yanking them back that is one of the easiest cautions you can do IMO. It is surprising if that's not the norm in England?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top