A&H

VAR again

The Referee Store
Most of you seem to be conflating DOG-H with DOGSO-H.

Denying an obvious goal, this is not.

The considerations for the other half of the RC DOGSO-H offence are essentially similar to those for DOGSO-F. It's all about denying an obvious opportunity.

Once a shot is taken, that's the opportunity taken, and now there are two options if there's deliberate handling:
1) an obvious goal was denied (the Suarez)
2) a promising attack was stopped.

The first gets red (unless the ball still ends up in the goal). The second a caution.

In this case, the GK has a decent chance at stopping this shot. That's enough to make it not an obvious goal.
 
AlexF said:
Most of you seem to be conflating DOG-H with DOGSO-H.

Denying an obvious goal, this is not.

The considerations for the other half of the RC DOGSO-H offence are essentially similar to those for DOGSO-F. It's all about denying an obvious opportunity.

Once a shot is taken, that's the opportunity taken, and now there are two options if there's deliberate handling:
1) an obvious goal was denied (the Suarez)
2) a promising attack was stopped.

The first gets red (unless the ball still ends up in the goal). The second a caution.

In this case, the GK has a decent chance at stopping this shot. That's enough to make it not an obvious goal.
Click to expand...
I like what you're saying, but I can't find the bit in the book which differentiates between DOG-H and DOGSO-H!
Although DOGSO-H and DOGSO-F are indicated as independent red card offences, there's no guidance in the book to indicate any significant difference between them
 
The text...
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a lot of this (like MANY other things in the Laws) come down to teaching.

But "DOG-H" (denying an obvious goal to use the older terminology before the cleanup) doesn't quite require the same considerations (the 4 Ds) that the rest of DOGSO does.

Generally, there's no difference to DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H other than the fact that one involves deliberate handling being the specific offence committed.

In the classic teaching (and the example videos that you should've seen in your entry referee courses), denying a goal by handling is always shown as the shot and a player blocking the ball by deliberately handling it, and that block being the only thing stopping it from entering the goal (ie, Suarez in the 2010 World Cup).

To deny a goal, the ball must be traveling into the goal and it's obvious that it would've been a goal to everyone if the illegal intervention hadn't occurred.

Otherwise, it's just an opportunity.

We've ALL seen a time where a player has the ball on or near the opposing goal line and still manages to screw up scoring.
 
This is doing my head in....all this discussion over an error in law that penalises a non existent handball.....ffs
 
AlexF said:
Unfortunately, a lot of this (like MANY other things in the Laws) come down to teaching.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately, I doubt very much that the teaching is consistent between different countries
I reckon I'm on the same page as you anyway...
 
Mintyref said:
This is doing my head in....all this discussion over an error in law that penalises a non existent handball.....ffs
Click to expand...
Like it or not though, we (The British Isles) are the only nation(s) who would not give HB for this. Despite it being we who are correct in Law, the world over are doing something else
 
Big Cat said:
Like it or not though, we (The British Isles) are the only nation(s) who would not give HB for this. Despite it being we who are correct in Law, the world over are doing something else
Click to expand...
Correct and we all know what the answer is....
 
AlexF said:
Most of you seem to be conflating DOG-H with DOGSO-H.

Denying an obvious goal, this is not.

The considerations for the other half of the RC DOGSO-H offence are essentially similar to those for DOGSO-F. It's all about denying an obvious opportunity.

Once a shot is taken, that's the opportunity taken, and now there are two options if there's deliberate handling:
1) an obvious goal was denied (the Suarez)
2) a promising attack was stopped.

The first gets red (unless the ball still ends up in the goal). The second a caution.

In this case, the GK has a decent chance at stopping this shot. That's enough to make it not an obvious goal.
Click to expand...
Spot on for me. I have never seen and would never expect to see a red card for deliberate handball blocking a shot from the edge of the PA that isn't clearly entering the goal...

That said, in no way is this handball deliberate.
  • 0.7 seconds to react
  • arm moving away from the ball, behind his body
  • arm originally by his side
Absolute nonsense. No wonder players that I ref go mental EVERY time the ball strikes an arm. I get sick and tired of saying "no, not deliberate".
 
one said:
While you are right about "clear and obvious error" concept, I have a feeling had VAR reviewed the foul leading up to the first goal there was a good chance he would have deemed it a clear and obvious error. The reason it was not reviewed was while it was in the lead up to the goal, it was not in the ‘Attacking Possession Phase (APP)’ so it can not be reviewed. Schalke got clear possession and control of the ball after the foul which puts the foul out of the reviewable window. There is over two pages explanation for it in the protocol but this is the gist of it.
Click to expand...
I hadn't realised (or hadn't remembered) that Schalke regained possession of the ball after the potential foul. In that case, it's another example of Peter Walton not being familiar with the VAR protocol and giving an incorrect analysis of the issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
AlexF said:
Most of you seem to be conflating DOG-H with DOGSO-H.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it - I was going to say that there's a distinct difference between denying a goal by handling and denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling. Denial of a goal scoring opportunity by handling covers situations where for instance, a goalkeeper comes out of their area and deliberately handles the ball to stop a player who would otherwise be clear through on goal, or where the ball is going to an unmarked player for a "tap-in" and a defender deliberately handles to stop the ball reaching them. Denying a goal by handling is where the player prevents the ball from entering the net directly - the classic example was the Luis Suarez incident in the 2010 World Cup where he stopped a certain goal by handling the ball on the goal line.

Although the Laws don't make this clear (another example of poor writing?) the normal four DOGSO considerations do not apply to denying a goal by handling - for instance the likelihood of a player keeping or gaining control of the ball is not an issue when the ball is going directly into the goal. The laws don't give any guidance as to what exactly should be considered in relation to denying a goal by handling but obviously the main (if not only) consideration has to be whether the ball would have entered the net, if not for the handling offence. So for instance, if the shot was clearly going wide when it was handled, a goal has not been denied. Where it gets more complicated is where the shot is headed goalwards but it is unclear whether it would have actually entered the goal.

An example that I think we have discussed before is where a player deliberately handles the ball in front of their body. If the referee judges that if the player had not handled, the ball would definitely have struck the player's body and therefore would not have entered the goal, should the player be sent off or not? I would say not, but I seem to remember that opinions were divided on this. So I think the question of whether the keeper would have saved the ball, is relevant. However, unless the keeper is directly behind the player who handles and extremely close to them, it's going to be difficult to be sure exactly what would have happened. I think in most cases I would be leaning towards giving the red card unless it is overwhelmingly obvious that the ball was definitely, 100%, going straight to the keeper.
 
socal lurker said:
UEFA site article on VAR usage in the game:

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/news/newsid=2593061.html
Click to expand...


Barely makes sense. States VAR cannot tell him the decision that should be taken, well, on the handball, if its a handball, it can only be a pk and if its not handball, its not!!!
"hi ref VAR man here, video link is down but there was a handball by City 5 (or whoever)"

Given the ref cant see it again, it can only be a pen so of course VAR is advising of the decision !!! In every way, bar saying "its a pen"

no mention of what sanction either, and whether the PIOP has anything to do with anything, they have basically summed up half a huge call, why not go further and say, the yc was correct because....or even, we feel it should have been a red because......
 
3 Pens to Hernandez & counting


Sorry....wrong window!
 
Last edited:
RobOda said:
They used VAR for the second one? Thought that was purely the referee's decision?
Click to expand...

Poorly written lead. Was called on the field and remained a PK after VAR review.

Ciley Myrus said:
Barely makes sense. States VAR cannot tell him the decision that should be taken, well, on the handball, if its a handball, it can only be a pk and if its not handball, its not!!!
"hi ref VAR man here, video link is down but there was a handball by City 5 (or whoever)"

Given the ref cant see it again, it can only be a pen so of course VAR is advising of the decision !!! In every way, bar saying "its a pen"

no mention of what sanction either, and whether the PIOP has anything to do with anything, they have basically summed up half a huge call, why not go further and say, the yc was correct because....or even, we feel it should have been a red because......
Click to expand...

I would imagine the concept is that the VAR had to describe the action so that the referee can decide that the action described constitutes handling. but I agree the article leaves more than a bit to be desired in what it explains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top