A&H

Handling on goalline

pankaye

pankaye

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Striker takes a very powerful shot from around the top of the D, towards the goal. Defender, who is on the goaline, instinctively palms the ball to protect himself from taking a strong hit on hs nether regions. If he hadnt handled the ball and simply stood still, the ball would have simply hit and not gone into goald anyway.

Whats your decision?

For context, U16 junior league game. His team were 2 goals down at this point.
 
The Referee Store
pankaye said:
Striker takes a very powerful shot from around the top of the D, towards the goal. Defender, who is on the goaline, instinctively palms the ball to protect himself from taking a strong hit on hs nether regions. If he hadnt handled the ball and simply stood still, the ball would have simply hit and not gone into goald anyway.

Whats your decision?

For context, U16 junior league game. His team were 2 goals down at this point.
Click to expand...
Placing his hands in front of his nads (knuckles outwards) is a perfectly natural thing to do in my opinion. If he does that and the action hasn't "made his body and bigger" to prevent the goal then I'd wave away appeals for both the penalty and DOGSO.

It's the "palming" the ball I've a problem with. That's not natural for me so it'd be penalty and red I'm afraid.
 
I'm a (was) keeper...it'd need to be much closer to make me consider a player protecting themselves a valid action imo
 
I don't think "instinctively" and the distance go together. Truly instinctive protection from close wouldn't be an offense. But that's far enough to make a choice, and the fact it was a choice is supported by the palms down push.

There is part of me that thinks this shouldn't be red, as the ball wasn't going in the net as it was going to hit him, but I don't think that is the expectation by the powers that be. I would be slow on the whistle to see if someone kicks it in, which makes the send off go away. (And if it were younger than 16s, I would probably cop out and not send off on the grounds that the balls was being blocked by the body anyway, so a goal wasn't denied. But still a PK.)
 
In the game I split the difference. I gave PK but no cards. Got no complaints from anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
pankaye said:
In the game I split the difference. I gave PK but no cards. Got no complaints from anyone.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It is not his hands that's stops the goal, but his body behind it. In fact, I would mark you down for not applying law correctly in any observation.
 
lincs22 said:
Agreed. It is not his hands that's stops the goal, but his body behind it. In fact, I would mark you down for not applying law correctly in any observation.
Click to expand...
At the age group yes.

At open age, that's still a dogso, for me, if you give the pen. Use of the hands helps determine where the ball ends up, whilst a certain goal might not be denied, that control of where the ball ends up certainly prevents an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

There are more than a number of ways handling can be avoided in the scenario. A shot from 20-25 yards out is not in instinctive reaction territory.
 
There has been discussions around this in the past if you care to dig it up. What if he catches a slow moving ball in front of his chest? If he didn't catch it it would have hit his chest.

The accepted practice for offences deciding DOGSO is that you take the player who committed the offence out of the picture and then decide the likelihood of a goal or GSO. For example for a foul if the offender is between goal and the attacker, you can't say if he didn't commit a foul he would have stopped the attacker.

If you decide it's handball it has to be denying a goal.
 
Palms the ball away - DOGSO.
If he had cupped his hands around his nether region to protect himself and made a genuine attempt to stop the ball with a legal part of his body but it deflected off the outside of his hands that were still cupped around his privates, I'd be inclined to call it a natural position.
 
one said:
There has been discussions around this in the past if you care to dig it up. What if he catches a slow moving ball in front of his chest? If he didn't catch it it would have hit his chest.

The accepted practice for offences deciding DOGSO is that you take the player who committed the offence out of the picture and then decide the likelihood of a goal or GSO. For example for a foul if the offender is between goal and the attacker, you can't say if he didn't commit a foul he would have stopped the attacker.

If you decide it's handball it has to be denying a goal.
Click to expand...
The considerations you discuss are for DOGSO not DOGH. So 'taking the player out of the picture' doesn't really apply in this case. Question for me is what would have happened if the offence hadn't been committed .. if it would have 100% hit the player's body then the offence (if there was one) hasn't denied a goal and it's likely to be guesswork whether it's denied an OGSO.
 
one said:
What I know on this is only through teachings unsupported by any official documentation. Do you have any documentation that corroborates this one way or other?
Click to expand...
I'm with "Tottingham" on this one.
The laws talk about DOGSO not DOG. 😉
 
one said:
What I know on this is only through teachings unsupported by any official documentation. Do you have any documentation that corroborates this one way or other?
Click to expand...
I've seen no documentation, official or otherwise, when it comes to DOGH. However the Considerations that are always taught and discussed (Defenders, Distance, Direction, Control) only make sense to me in the context of a potential DOGSO situation and seem largely irrelevant in the more straightforward (normally!) DOGH scenarios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top