The Ref Stop

Indirect Free Kick Handled on Goal Line

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grug said:
So how is deliberately handling the ball anywhere else on the FOP any different? If a player deliberately handles the ball to control it because he thinks its going to help his team score a goal, is that showing a lack of respect?
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
The Ref Stop
"Unsporting Behaviour" is a cautionable offence. There are subsections of that in order to help referees identify common kinds of unsporting behaviour, but nowhere does it say that is an exhaustive list. If something a player does is unsporting in the opinion of the referee, the referee is entitled to show a card for it. End of.

It is deliberately open-ended, so that if a player came up with a completely new way of bending the spirit of the game, the referee can do something about it. I am of the opinion that the situation you're describing is covered specifically in the LOTG - but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it is or not! Because in my opinion it would be unsporting, I would caution for it and there is zero chance of it being overturned.
 
Grug said:
You said yes to cautioning a player deliberately handling the ball in order to control it. So...
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my point about attacker trying to score with his hand, by your logic, its not possible to score with hand so why caution, but as I'm sure you've seen its a caution every time it happens - are we all wrong?
 
PinnerPaul said:
You haven't answered my point about attacker trying to score with his hand, by your logic, its not possible to score with hand so why caution, but as I'm sure you've seen its a caution every time it happens - are we all wrong?
Click to expand...
The laws specifically say this is a caution, that's why it's a caution.
 
GraemeS said:
"Unsporting Behaviour" is a cautionable offence. There are subsections of that in order to help referees identify common kinds of unsporting behaviour, but nowhere does it say that is an exhaustive list. If something a player does is unsporting in the opinion of the referee, the referee is entitled to show a card for it. End of.

It is deliberately open-ended, so that if a player came up with a completely new way of bending the spirit of the game, the referee can do something about it. I am of the opinion that the situation you're describing is covered specifically in the LOTG - but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it is or not! Because in my opinion it would be unsporting, I would caution for it and there is zero chance of it being overturned.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The 'lack of respect for the game' is basically a get out for ANY scenario which the referee believes to be unsporting but isn't specifically covered under the LOTG.

You would find very few people arguing if you gave a yellow card in the scenario, and I would feel 100% comfortable justifying it to an observer under the lack of respect clause.
 
A player deliberately handling the ball to prevent it entering the goal is quite clearly unsporting behaviour to me, it's just that ordinarily for doing it you'd be dismissing for DOGSO, but you can't do that in this scenario.
 
This is being made WAY more complicated than it should be.

Player handles the ball on the line from an IDFK, is this DOGSO. To answer that you have to look at what would happen if he hadn't handled it, and the answer would be goal kick. So how can he have denied an OGSO, given that if he hadn't handled the ball if would have been a goal kick to HIS team? If anything he has helped create an OGSO, far from denying one.

In terms of cautioning or not, the laws are clear that a handling offence is not cautionable unless it prevents a promising attack. So in this scenario if he doesn't handle it the restart will be a goal kick, if he does handle it the restart will be a penalty. How on earth has that denies a promising attack, it has actually turned a goal kick for his team into a penalty for the opponents..!
 
RustyRef said:
This is being made WAY more complicated than it should be.

Player handles the ball on the line from an IDFK, is this DOGSO. To answer that you have to look at what would happen if he hadn't handled it, and the answer would be goal kick. So how can he have denied an OGSO, given that if he hadn't handled the ball if would have been a goal kick to HIS team? If anything he has helped create an OGSO, far from denying one.

In terms of cautioning or not, the laws are clear that a handling offence is not cautionable unless it prevents a promising attack. So in this scenario if he doesn't handle it the restart will be a goal kick, if he does handle it the restart will be a penalty. How on earth has that denies a promising attack, it has actually turned a goal kick for his team into a penalty for the opponents..!
Click to expand...

But If a defender handles the ball in this situation he actually (mistakenly) intended to DOGSO so a caution would be a reasonable sanction in my opinion.
 
RustyRef said:
In terms of cautioning or not, the laws are clear that a handling offence is not cautionable unless it prevents a promising attack.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with you on that Rusty - law just says that it's a direct free kick offence, and gives two examples of situations where a caution for handling is required for unsporting behaviour. It's not an exhaustive list, and it doesn't say anywhere that you do not caution for handling unless a player does X, Y or Z.
 
arbitre said:
I have it from the horse's mouth, Federation Francaise de Football (FFF), who state that it is a penalty and RED card offence for DOGSO!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but the FFF has no standing to issue interpretations of the LotG. As stated in FIFA circular No. 1224:
It has been noted that certain associations and confederations are unilaterally issuing their own instructions and recommendations to referees within their territories concerning the enforcement of the Laws of the Game, thus increasing the chances of differing interpretations around the world. We would like to reiterate that the International Football Association Board (or FIFA on its behalf) is the only body with the authority to issue such additional instructions concerning the Laws of the Game in order to ensure uniform application worldwide.
Click to expand...
(Edited to remove another section about the interpretation as I confused 2 different Q&A's).
 
Last edited:
arbitre said:
I have it from the horse's mouth, Federation Francaise de Football (FFF), who state that it is a penalty and RED card offence for DOGSO!!!!!!!

The head of the my county referee's committee, and some of his colleagues disagree!!!!! He (and they) states penalty and YELLOW card for USB. However some other members of the same committee agree with the FFF's opinion!

So, maybe there still is not a definite answer.
Click to expand...
I'd think maybe he hasn't understood the question. There's no possibility whatsoever of a goal here, so there's no goalscoring opportunity, obvious or otherwise. A red card is completely incorrect in law.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
Not sure I agree with you on that Rusty - law just says that it's a direct free kick offence, and gives two examples of situations where a caution for handling is required for unsporting behaviour. It's not an exhaustive list, and it doesn't say anywhere that you do not caution for handling unless a player does X, Y or Z.
Click to expand...

It does Alex, in the details on law changes on page 145. The old law used to state ...

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, e.g. if a player:
• handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession or developing an attack

This has changed to ...

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour, including if a player:
• commits a foul or handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack

It then goes on to state why this was changed, as follows ...

• ‘Preventing an opponent gaining possession’ is removed as a YC offence as it causes some referees to YC every handball.
• Handling is included as a YC offence when it ‘stops/interferes with a promising attack’ (as with other offences which have the same effect).

If an IDFK was going directly in then far from stopping a promising attack he has actually turned a goal kick into a penalty for the opponents. There is just no need or requirement to caution, and to send off would be so wrong in law you'd be looking at the game needing to be replayed.
 
So ... the law specifically cites two instances where handling must mean a YC, one of which is an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal (i.e. tried to commit DOGSO but failed). Now, true, the player thought he was trying to commit DOGSO (at least you think he was thinking that), but he didn't, because there was no OGSO. So there's no case for a mandatory YC for that. So the only question is whether it's worth a card for showing "lack of respect for the game".
Would you caution if the ball went in the goal after the handball? That's not an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal, it's an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal kick. Either way, successful or not, the punishment is technically the same - a penalty - but for one you'd allow the advantage of a goal scored.
It's useful to recall why laws are introduced, and "lack of respect" came in, if I recall, to penalise showboating or other provocative acts (e.g. aggressive attitude, inflammatory behaviour, or taunting). It wasn't intended to penalise idiocy.
 
Well, it was an attempt to prevent a goal, wasn't it? The player didn't realise there can be no goal - but he still attempted to prevent a goal. So, the caution does fit into that reasoning. I don't think 'goal is possible' is necessarily a prerequisite.
Maybe the fact that the law could be read either way enables us to simply do what we feel is best for the game and the nature of the offence - ie jumping and slapping the ball away, versus the normal, inattentive sort of DHB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top