The Ref Stop

Penalty or play on?

R

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Had an incident a few weeks back that I'm over-thinking today for no reason other than to ask questions;

Here's the scenario;

Through ball played to a striker into the opposition box. Defender marking him is manhandling him (holding) all the way into the six yard box. No other defenders or covering defenders nearby, he is literally one on one with the keeper if not for the defender giving him a bear hug. Striker gets his shot off just as I am about to blow the whistle for the foul, and scores. Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

My question then is: If he got his shot away and missed or it was saved, would you penalise the holding offence and if so, what card would you be going for, if any?
 
The Ref Stop
Penalty, no card.

Although, there are other referees on here with more experience than me - let's see what they say...

Edit: My reasoning was it can't be DOGSO if the attacker has had a shot.
 
Last edited:
As I'm picturing it, yes, I would give the PK--hard to imagine that the attacker got off a shot better than a PK with a defender hanging on to him

I can't think of an argument why it wouldn't be a DOGSO send-off, as holding is not withing the scope of a DOGSO caution
 
I had a similar incident a few weeks back in which the attacker was impeded by the defender (some distance from the ball) such that the GK was able to collect before the attacker had chance to get to the ball. I waved it away
On reflection, I think it was a PK, but I wondered whether the possibility of a DOGSO-RC deterred me from awarding the PK because I effectively bottled the double whammy. Given that the defender was sufficiently impeded to justify a PK and that i was in doubt regarding DOGSO-RC, I should've cautioned for SPA instead. This was a mistake, but sometimes I try to understand the mental fly in the ointment that deflected me into a an error
 
Last edited:
RobOda said:
Had an incident a few weeks back that I'm over-thinking today for no reason other than to ask questions;

Here's the scenario;

Through ball played to a striker into the opposition box. Defender marking him is manhandling him (holding) all the way into the six yard box. No other defenders or covering defenders nearby, he is literally one on one with the keeper if not for the defender giving him a bear hug. Striker gets his shot off just as I am about to blow the whistle for the foul, and scores. Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

My question then is: If he got his shot away and missed or it was saved, would you penalise the holding offence and if so, what card would you be going for, if any?
Click to expand...
Penalty and I'd have to think long and hard about a red card......and not sure which way I'd go!
 
RobOda said:
Had an incident a few weeks back that I'm over-thinking today for no reason other than to ask questions;

Here's the scenario;

Through ball played to a striker into the opposition box. Defender marking him is manhandling him (holding) all the way into the six yard box. No other defenders or covering defenders nearby, he is literally one on one with the keeper if not for the defender giving him a bear hug. Striker gets his shot off just as I am about to blow the whistle for the foul, and scores. Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

My question then is: If he got his shot away and missed or it was saved, would you penalise the holding offence and if so, what card would you be going for, if any?
Click to expand...
Did the holding deny a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity, having considered the four factors in Law 12.3? For an attacker who manages to get a shot away despite being held, within the six-yard box, with only the keeper to beat? Textbook DOGSO-F.
As for card, the law seems clear enough.
"Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, ...) the offending player must be sent off".
So I don't see how you can sensibly show anything except the red card here.

You might barely swing this on paper as "interferes with or stops a promising attack" for a USB caution only, but think about the bar you've just set. How you could then justify a dismissal for DOGSO-F not against a player shooting point-blank, when you've already decided even that wasn't enough?
 
RobOda said:
Had an incident a few weeks back that I'm over-thinking today for no reason other than to ask questions;

Here's the scenario;

Through ball played to a striker into the opposition box. Defender marking him is manhandling him (holding) all the way into the six yard box. No other defenders or covering defenders nearby, he is literally one on one with the keeper if not for the defender giving him a bear hug. Striker gets his shot off just as I am about to blow the whistle for the foul, and scores. Crisis averted. Everyone's happy.

My question then is: If he got his shot away and missed or it was saved, would you penalise the holding offence and if so, what card would you be going for, if any?
Click to expand...
I think you have run yourself into a problem by being too slow on the whistle. From your description you have had enough time to blow for a pen. As you have described it, the miss can be 'blamed' on the defender/foul so for me this is a DOGSO-RC (without the defender it could have been a different outcome) and can easily be justified by Law 12. I can see why someone may not send off the defender to offset giving the striker two bites at the cherry. But that would be your own way of balancing fairness and not what the laws say.
 
The question for me is more fundamental - was the holding careless or reckless? If it was not bad enough to prevent the attacker getting off a shot I can see an argument that no foul was committed.

Of course, if the attacker has gotten off a shot in circumstances where he is obviously affected by the holding, that is a different story. This being the case the OGSO would also have been affected, read: denied. Then, as the offence is holding, RC is an easy decision.
 
Redster said:
The question for me is more fundamental - was the holding careless or reckless? If it was not bad enough to prevent the attacker getting off a shot I can see an argument that no foul was committed.

Of course, if the attacker has gotten off a shot in circumstances where he is obviously affected by the holding, that is a different story. This being the case the OGSO would also have been affected, read: denied. Then, as the offence is holding, RC is an easy decision.
Click to expand...
Holding does not need to be careless/reckless/EF. Holding an opponent is an offence every time.
 
one said:
I think you have run yourself into a problem by being too slow on the whistle.
Click to expand...

I sort of disagree on that bit, as given the distance of the opportunity I think it was justified to wait and see. But I do fully admit that if the shot had missed and I penalised it, I can imagine the disagreement coming my way for it. :p
 
Penalty and a sending off for DOGSO.

Holding isn't covered under the DOGSO cautions, and as the player missed the shot I would be inclined to say that they were denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
 
I think a red card for DOGSO is against the spirit of the law.
For DOGSO a GSO has to be denied.
Not interfered with, but actually prevented. Getting the shot away means a GSO still existed, despite being less of a chance than had the holding not occurred.

I think the OPs scenario fits more in line with...

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/
sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/
sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the
denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for
unsporting behaviour.
 
JamesL said:
I think a red card for DOGSO is against the spirit of the law.
For DOGSO a GSO has to be denied.
Not interfered with, but actually prevented. Getting the shot away means a GSO still existed, despite being less of a chance than had the holding not occurred.
Click to expand...
A GSO is not enough. It must be an obvious GSO. And that was denied - the player is now trying to shoot while being held, which is not an obvious opportunity to score a goal; it's barely an obvious opportunity to play the ball, and only then because we know that they managed to do so.
I think the OPs scenario fits more in line with...

If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/
sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/
sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except for the
denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player is cautioned for
unsporting behaviour.
Click to expand...
Playing advantage would be the wrong decision, so this shouldn't apply anyway.
But let's suppose it was DOGSO-F and advantage is played because they managed to shoot.
The player can only be cautioned for USB if the DOGSO-F offence was an attempt to play the ball and a PK was awarded.
Since holding is not an attempt to play the ball, this cannot apply, and the sanction must be a dismissal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top