The Ref Stop

Turkey v Northern Ireland

The Ref Stop
Must be, because otherwise that’s as clear a DOGSO by handling as I’ve seen in a while.
 
Three possibilities I can think of:
a) The referee saw the defender's handling as the arm making the body unnaturally bigger rather than deliberate, therefore caution not red,
b) The referee saw it as deliberate handball but saw the ball came off the attacker's arm, therefore no goal if the ball goes in so no red, or
c) The referee thought the ball was hitting the post and not going in, therefore no goal denied and no red.

a) would be a very poor judgement call IMO, and I'm not sure that b) would be correct in law. The camera angle behind the goal line does make me wonder whether the ball would have actually hit the post and come back out, but if I'm giving a penalty for a deliberate handball on the goal line, I would need to be 110% sure and perfectly in line with the trajectory of the ball to see that it wasn't going in for me to not give a red.

EDIT: the more I think about it, the more I think the caution is correct in law because of the ball coming off the attacker's arm (ignoring the possibility that the ball wasn't going in the goal). While it doesn't become an offence unless a goal is actually scored, the fact remains that no goal was denied because a goal cannot be scored directly after touching an attacker's arm.
 
Last edited:
ARF said:
Three possibilities I can think of:
a) The referee saw the defender's handling as the arm making the body unnaturally bigger rather than deliberate, therefore caution not red,
b) The referee saw it as deliberate handball but saw the ball came off the attacker's arm, therefore no goal if the ball goes in so no red, or
c) The referee thought the ball was hitting the post and not going in, therefore no goal denied and no red.

a) would be a very poor judgement call IMO, and I'm not sure that b) would be correct in law. The camera angle behind the goal line does make me wonder whether the ball would have actually hit the post and come back out, but if I'm giving a penalty for a deliberate handball on the goal line, I would need to be 110% sure and perfectly in line with the trajectory of the ball to see that it wasn't going in for me to not give a red.

EDIT: the more I think about it, the more I think the caution is correct in law because of the ball coming off the attacker's arm (ignoring the possibility that the ball wasn't going in the goal). While it doesn't become an offence unless a goal is actually scored, the fact remains that no goal was denied because a goal cannot be scored directly after touching an attacker's arm.
Click to expand...
Good analysis.
The correct decision was made for me. The reason is b) and it is correct in law. A goal would have only been denied only if had the ball gone in without the handball it would have counted as a goal.

The ball 'accidentally' came of the attacker's forearm just before it was 'deliberately' handled by the defender on its way to goal.

1000043203.jpg

Couple of things to add. Great composure from the referee and how she used the injury to give herself more thinking time.

Also technically, without the attaker accidental hanball this would not have been a DOGSO but a DOG.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ARF
I suspect it would've been given as a deliberate handball against the attacker in UEFA games with VAR.
Even though it shouldn't be

It would be heck of a spot to see the initial handling, did look like she had a clear view.
In real time it's also feasible she didn't think it was obvious it was going in.
 
I suspect she got to the right outcome via the wrong reasoning. Would be incredibly difficult to see the accidental handling by the attacker so I think she assumed it was hitting the post or going wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top