Red card for stopping a goal with your hand but only a yellow for scoring one?

[Ref X]

The rules only allow for a yellow card to be awarded for the handball, but it seems faintly ludicrous that you get a red card for stopping a goal with your hand but only a yellow for scoring one. As for continuing that act, it is surely worthy of at least another yellow.

Quoting this article: Being a referee is hard enough without blatant cheating by players

I guess there are 2 discussion points here...

1. Does it make sense to punish purposefully stopping a goal with your hand a red and purposefully scoring a goal with your hand a yellow?
2. Does the acting after this play ("how are you disallowing that goal??") deserve a caution (similar to simulation)?

Full video of the incident here

https://twitter.com/x/status/1649888999383658496

 

[Kes]

Stopping a goal with your hand is a far worse misdemeanour. It can effect the outcome/result of the match.

Scoring one with your hand (that is going to be disallowed anyway) is of little consequence except to the player that does it.

(Have a think about it )

 

[socal lurker]

The caution is more appropriate, as the goal is also disallowed, whereas in DOGSO the goal is not awarded. And being a caution also makes it more likely the sanction will be given rather than a HB being deemed not a deliberate attempt to give the goal.

i don’t think it is remotely possible to give a caution for simulation for protesting after an offense. The appropriate caution, if any, would be for dissent.

And I’d sure support a league finding a player for that conduct as well following such a blatant offense.

 

[RustyRef]

I still think that at some point we will see penalty goals for handling on the goal line, or other offences that deny a certain goal.

 

[socal lurker]

I still think that at some point we will see penalty goals for handling on the goal line, or other offences that deny a certain goal.

No way. That is as unlikely to happen as putting "hand ball" or "penalty shootout" into the LOTG!

Seriously, while we have seen a number of departures from strong traditions, that still seems to me to be a bigger change than the Game is ready for. And it would put even more pressure on refs to make that determination.

 

[RustyRef]

No way. That is as unlikely to happen as putting "hand ball" or "penalty shootout" into the LOTG!

Seriously, while we have seen a number of departures from strong traditions, that still seems to me to be a bigger change than the Game is ready for. And it would put even more pressure on refs to make that determination.

I'm talking about the ones where it would 100% have been a goal, like the Suarez handling in the World Cup. That would put no pressure on referees whatsoever.

 

[socal lurker]

I'm talking about the ones where it would 100% have been a goal, like the Suarez handling in the World Cup. That would put no pressure on referees whatsoever.

I disagree. Sure, it's easy to say the Suarez one should result in a free goal. That one wouldn't put pressure on the ref. But any line has gray areas around it where one team is going to be adamant it should be a penalty goal and he other adamant it can't be. So while I'm sympathetic to the concept, I don't support actual adoption.

 

[Kent Ref]

I wish the referee had the power to award a goal for handball ON the line or VERY close to.

 

[one]

A good example of a grey area is say a shot coming from the corner of the PA and going in 1m below cross bar and 1m inside far post. The handball that stops it is on the 6yard line. 99.99% that it's going in but you don't have a good angle. Will you give it?

And if you give it does it change a red to a yellow? Almost certainly would with the way the law is now. Even on a 90% chance of goal everyone in the ground will be putting pressure on the referee to give the goal and Saying 100% going in. It would be a no brainer to give a goal for the referee and match control even knowing it's not 100%.

 

[Peter Grove]

No way. That is as unlikely to happen as putting "hand ball" or "penalty shootout" into the LOTG!

Seriously, while we have seen a number of departures from strong traditions, that still seems to me to be a bigger change than the Game is ready for. And it would put even more pressure on refs to make that determination.

I don't think it's by any means inevitable but I still think there's a possibility of this.

For one thing, the IFAB specifically said this was one of the changes to the handball law that they were considering, a couple of years ago when they announced they were reviewing the entire law on handling offences (among other potential changes).

IFAB considering introducing penalty goals as part of further changes to laws of football

And for another, it's not totally against tradition, as there is already precedent for this.

In 1882, Law 4 had the following provision:

When any player other than the goal-keeper wilfully stops a ball in the vicinity of his own goal by using his hands, when, in the opinion of the umpires or referee, the ball would have passed through the goal, a goal shall be scored to his opponents. [...]
N.B. — The umpires or referee must be of the opinion that the goal-keeper could not have stopped the ball before allowing a goal.

 

[GraemeS]

A good example of a grey area is say a shot coming from the corner of the PA and going in 1m below cross bar and 1m inside far post. The handball that stops it is on the 6yard line. 99.99% that it's going in but you don't have a good angle. Will you give it?

And if you give it does it change a red to a yellow? Almost certainly would with the way the law is now. Even on a 90% chance of goal everyone in the ground will be putting pressure on the referee to give the goal and Saying 100% going in. It would be a no brainer to give a goal for the referee and match control even knowing it's not 100%.

I think that example is pretty clearly on the "no penalty goal" side of the grey area. Your 99.999% is wildly overstating how certain a referee can possibly be about that situation.

 

[David F]

It’d be the same decision with less pressure on the referee - if you give PK + RC for denying a goal today, you give a penalty goal + YC under a revised law. If there are grey areas they’re the same ones that exist now.

 

[Dan56]

It’d be the same decision with less pressure on the referee - if you give PK + RC for denying a goal today, you give a penalty goal + YC under a revised law. If there are grey areas they’re the same ones that exist now.

The grey areas might be similar but the repercussions are vastly different. Imagine a "goal-line" handball in the last seconds of a vital game. Today we give a penalty, but that could be missed: it is still in the hands of the players to decide the match. But if we give a goal, and then blow the whistle straight after the kick off, then the players will feel that we, the referees. have decided the match. The stress and importance of such a decision is horrendous.

 

[David F]

The grey areas might be similar but the repercussions are vastly different. Imagine a "goal-line" handball in the last seconds of a vital game. Today we give a penalty, but that could be missed: it is still in the hands of the players to decide the match. But if we give a goal, and then blow the whistle straight after the kick off, then the players will feel that we, the referees. have decided the match. The stress and importance of such a decision is horrendous.

Fair enough, but in most situations a penalty (0.8 xG) plus a red card is a more game-changing decision. Referees also already give goals in plenty of other situations that decide games, so there’s nothing new there. And rugby referees already award penalty tries, generally in more complex situations than handballs on the line.

The key advantage is cutting out those situations where handball on the line is the best decision for the defender (Suarez v Ghana the obvious example). Ideally you set up laws in such a way to discourage offences.