offside or penalty
- Thread starter pankaye
- Start date
There should really be little to disagree about here. Blue 20 is clearly in an offside position when the initial ball is lobbed at the goal (He has only one opponent ahead of him as he is nearer the goal line than both the keeper and the other defender). However being in an offside position is not an offence as he does not in any way enter active play (his being there does not in any way prevent the defender playing the ball on the line). The ball is handled on the goal line, a clear DOGSO -H : red card and penalty. It would have been possible to play advantage and allow the goal (and lower the defender's red card to a yellow) except that it is number 20 who, after the handling, reaches the ball first, thus entering active play as Gaining an Advantage. Now this does depend on exactly how old the clip is: the Laws now say that receiving the ball from a deliberate save does not reset offside. If this predates that Law change then one could argue that he has received the ball from a deliberate play by a defender and allow the goal, downgrading the card to a yellow for USB. For me, it has to be Red card and penalty.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
surely must be as you say pen and send off.... the offside doesnt come into play until he's taken the shot, by which time DOGSOH has already become the offence
Old Laws, has to be penalty and dismissal for DOGSO-H. You can't give the advantage because the player in offside position now commits the offence as the handling (in the old Laws) was deemed a "save".
New Laws, as @bester points out, that handling now becomes a deliberate play... which allows the player who was previously in offside position to play that ball... delayed whistle/advantage... goal and caution.
New Laws, as @bester points out, that handling now becomes a deliberate play... which allows the player who was previously in offside position to play that ball... delayed whistle/advantage... goal and caution.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
hmm , i think @bester was trying to point out that it would have been a save had he not used his hands? or am i reading it wrong?
not a save and therefore handball.... penalty and RC
This is an intriguing clip as it raises so many possibilities as to what the correct course of action should be.
Setting aside any arguments about offside it is important to differentiate between denying a goal by deliberate hand ball and denying a deliberate goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. In this case it is clearly the former for which I go with red card and penalty. Alternatively, should you allow advantage and the goal to stand? This raises the offside question again and also whether the defender should still be sent off.
All things considered I feel penalty + red card is technically correct.
Setting aside any arguments about offside it is important to differentiate between denying a goal by deliberate hand ball and denying a deliberate goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. In this case it is clearly the former for which I go with red card and penalty. Alternatively, should you allow advantage and the goal to stand? This raises the offside question again and also whether the defender should still be sent off.
All things considered I feel penalty + red card is technically correct.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
Can I assume though that we agree red card and IDFK for offside is not correct ?
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
Funny thing is if the defender keeps his hands down he would head that clear anyway!
Bester's post has actually made me re-appraise my answer: if a deliberate save can't be made with a hand (except for GK in PA) then this could still be considered a deliberate play, which allows us to reset offside and also allow no. 20 to score. Then we yellow card the defender. Simples.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Hmmm. Could you make a case that the actions of the Blue 20 impede the GK (best view is 40 seconds into the video) and therefore he's offside and active even before the handball takes place. It's a slight stretch but the goalkeeper seems to be initially impeded and then just gives up because he knows he can no longer get to the ball. So just simple offside and no cards (except probably for subsequent dissent!!)
If the defender hadn't handled, then yes, it becomes a deliberate save (thus offside). Since he handled, IFAB has stated that is now considered a "deliberate play"... so... no offside.
The officiating team deemed that wasn't sufficient for offside (I happen to agree), so let's agree to ignore that bit and deal with the goal line fun!
No surprises, whether the old or new law. Everyone here will be expecting penalty and red card. Go for caution and goal and you're getting grief from the attacking team that they should be playing against 10 men (especially if it is fairly early in the game), and if they miss the penalty that grief intensifies. Whereas DOGSO and penalty and no one is grumbling even if the penalty is missed, expect perhaps the defending team may may complain that the attacker should be offside (even though they would now be wrong).
The offside offence doesn't occur until the forward touches the ball, so after the DOGSO-H, so whilst you could technically play advantage I wouldn't personally be recommending it ...!!
The offside offence doesn't occur until the forward touches the ball, so after the DOGSO-H, so whilst you could technically play advantage I wouldn't personally be recommending it ...!!
Fair point trying to think of too many scenarios after a hard day at work ..!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think this is correct in the law. Blue 20 impedes the GK, becomes active, and the offside should be given.
However, if you want to ignore the offside then red and pen. The defender has to punished with the red here in the spirit of the game
Actually this thread has led to a very interesting question. It is our job as referees to make sure that we give the decision that most benefits the non-offending team. So which is actually the greater benefit? A red card against the opposition and a penalty, or a yellow card and a goal? Sure, if the penalty is scored they still get the added bonus of an extra man for the rest of the game, but if they miss it is not so good as having the goal in the bag. I suppose it depends an a host of other factors: how close the game is; how much time left; how good is the player who might get red carded. However, to me, since it is the whole purpose of the game, if I can find a way within the Laws to allow a goal....that's what I will always do...I would consider that the true "spirit of the game"...
I agree with this but only up to a point. In this scenario what most benefits the non offending team - goal + yellow card or penalty + red card? Their interpretation of the respective benefits may be different from that of the referee. Maybe he could ask them which option they prefer! More important that we get the correct decision.
However, the more I think about this clip the more complicated it becomes. The defender has clearly prevented the ball entering the goal by using his hands. That is a red card offence. Is that still the case even if though the goal is scored/awarded? Technically, within LOTG I would say "yes" but seems a bit harsh. Also, if the referee allows the "advantage" and the goal the offside issue comes into question again.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
i'd love to know what the AR said to him