You Are The Ref! - Again!

[PinnerPaul]

Sorry - another query from the infamous book.

Now I read that Mr Hackett is saying GKs MUST wear long sleeve shirts?????

Earlier query I raised was 'solved' by a recent change in law (Book is about 2 years old) - but not this one surely - just plain incorrect - yes?

Thanks!

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Sorry - another query from the infamous book.

Now I read that Mr Hackett is saying GKs MUST wear long sleeve shirts?????

Earlier query I raised was 'solved' by a recent change in law (Book is about 2 years old) - but not this one surely - just plain incorrect - yes?

Thanks!

GK's can wear short or long sleeves. Fabien Barthez regulaly wore short sleeves when playing in France and England (for Manchester Utd) in the early 2000's.

 

[one]

Or hlaf or three quarter sleeves for that matter. They can even have one sleeve short and the other long if they want

The only requirement of law 4 is that they (any sleeves) must be there. And it's the same for keepers or field players.

While we are at it, goal keepers don't have to wear gloves (contrary to some beliefs).

 

[JamesL]

Plain wrong. How did he get published....

 

[PinnerPaul]

Plain wrong. How did he get published....

I know! Not the only moment in the book by a long way.

There is another one (of many) worthy of discussion - not obviously wrong (I don't think!) but certainly questionable, concerning DOGSO by 'handball', will post that in a day or two's time for digestion!

 

[PinnerPaul]

GK's can wear short or long sleeves. Fabien Barthez regulaly wore short sleeves when playing in France and England (for Manchester Utd) in the early 2000's.

Thanks

 

[PinnerPaul]

Or hlaf or three quarter sleeves for that matter. They can even have one sleeve short and the other long if they want

The only requirement of law 4 is that they (any sleeves) must be there. And it's the same for keepers or field players.

While we are at it, goal keepers don't have to wear gloves (contrary to some beliefs).

On gloves, my son's team when he was playing U10s or similar, many moons ago now, on a bitterly cold January day were told they couldn't wear gloves as everyone was not wearing them & it gave them an unfair advantage - this from a qualified referee!

 

[PinnerPaul]

As promised!

Question: " A defender stops a goal bound shot by stretching his shirt out to block the ball. It drops at his feet and he clears it. What action do you take?"

Answer: " The shirt has become an extension of his hands, so that counts as deliberate handball on the line. However, his action has not prevented a certain goal as the ball would have hit his body anyway, so its a yellow card and a penalty"

Discuss

 

[es1]

there's zero chance i'm be giving a yellow if a player did this, or committed a similar deliberate handball offence infront of their body stopping a goal. red all day

 

[one]

there's zero chance i'm be giving a yellow if a player did this, or committed a similar deliberate handball offence infront of their body stopping a goal. red all day

No card then?

As promised!

Question: " A defender stops a goal bound shot by stretching his shirt out to block the ball. It drops at his feet and he clears it. What action do you take?"

Answer: " The shirt has become an extension of his hands, so that counts as deliberate handball on the line. However, his action has not prevented a certain goal as the ball would have hit his body anyway, so its a yellow card and a penalty"

Discuss

This has been discussed at least a couple of time here (long time ago) but not using a shirt, simply catching the ball in front of their chest on the line. The schools here, one the same as Mr Hackett, the others like me, the expectations is a red and that's what I'd do.

Another intersting similar question is, what would you do if the keeper uses his shirt (and hand) to catch/ trap the ball in the shirt Infront of goal?

 

[es1]

No card then?

you miss the last 3 words?!

 

[socal lurker]

Another intersting similar question is, what would you do if the keeper uses his shirt (and hand) to catch/ trap the ball in the shirt Infront of goal?

USB--caution (no DOGSO). IFK. (But that really is a unicorn we'll never see in a real game . . .)

This has been discussed at least a couple of time here (long time ago) but not using a shirt, simply catching the ball in front of their chest on the line. The schools here, one the same as Mr Hackett, the others like me, the expectations is a red and that's what I'd do.

I always question myself when I agree with Hackett, but I agree if the ball was clearly going to hit the player and not go into the goal, the handling is only USB--unless a rebound was going to be a OGSO in its own right.

 

[one]

I always question myself when I agree with Hackett, but I agree if the ball was clearly going to hit the player and not go into the goal, the handling is only USB--unless a rebound was going to be a OGSO in its own right.

My reasoning is different. For a foul DOGSO the thought process taught is that you take the fouling player (not just the foul) out of the equation and then you test the four criteria. For example failing the control criteria because if he didn't foul the attacker he would have got to the ball first is not correct. A similar process applies for DOGSO handball. I don't see why you shouldn't apply the same for a denying a goal situation.

 

[socal lurker]

Because the handling didn't "deny a goal," which is what the Law prohibits. I don't think the analogy to teachings about how to apply the 4 criteria to determine the obviousness of an opportunity has anything to do with determining whether a goal was denied. I would err on the side of the attacking team, but if the ball is clearly not going into the goal in the absence of the handling, I don't think DOG is proper. (I also think this would be a great question for the FAQs in the LOTG app. . . .)

 

[one]

Your are missing the point. Yes the goal is not denied in the absence of handling but is denied in the absence of the player who commited the handling.

The same way as when the opportunity is not denied in the absence of a foul but is denied in the absence of the player who committed the foul.

I am not saying you are incorrect. Just saying it's not as clear cut and a send off is not incorrect either.

 

[socal lurker]

Um, no, I'm not missing your point, I just disagree with it. But I also agree it could be more clear--hence why I think it would be a good FAQ for the app. I'm kinda surprised that we've had DOG in the LOTG for so long with (as far as I'm aware) no clear guidance on this particular case.

 

[GraemeS]

Your are missing the point. Yes the goal is not denied in the absence of handling but is denied in the absence of the player who commited the handling.

The same way as when the opportunity is not denied in the absence of a foul but is denied in the absence of the player who committed the foul.

I am not saying you are incorrect. Just saying it's not as clear cut and a send off is not incorrect either.

As you correctly point out in your previous post - we're taught to ignore the fouling player for standard DOGSO, but I don't agree that you can automatically apply the same logic to handball.

For a standard DOGSO then yes, trying to determine what might have happened if the attacker didn't have to evade a defender is a reasonable tool to use in your decision making process. But when it comes to handball, nothing about the placement of the defender's body, legs etc is in any way an offence - so it's wrong to act as if they aren't there. Imagine the payer without arms if that helps you judge, but I think if it clearly was not going in for some other reason - including that player's body being in the way - you're entitled to go with just yellow.

Having said all that, it's a poorly worded question - on first reading I imagined the player stretching out the side of their shirt to create a "wing" between the body and arm, and I would definitely be sending off for that !

 

[JamesL]

I think we need to remind ourselves that the law for handball dogso is the same as for other offences.
We aren't looking for just DoG we are still looking for the SO as well. Imo You can't just assume that if the player was behind the ball no goal would occur as the handling offence changes the whole scenario such as where the ball would have rebounded too be that into the goal or to the feet of another attacker. It may not be the case but the opportunity for it to is taken away. Thus a scoring opportunity is denied.
I think the spirit of the law here and what football expects is that any handling on the goal line where the ball is heading into the goal is a red card offence.

 

[GraemeS]

I think we need to remind ourselves that the law for handball dogso is the same as for other offences.
We aren't looking for just DoG we are still looking for the SO as well. Imo You can't just assume that if the player was behind the ball no goal would occur as the handling offence changes the whole scenario such as where the ball would have rebounded too be that into the goal or to the feet of another attacker. It may not be the case but the opportunity for it to is taken away. Thus a scoring opportunity is denied.
I think the spirit of the law here and what football expects is that any handling on the goal line where the ball is heading into the goal is a red card offence.

But I think you've perfectly described a distinctly non-obvious GSO! Yes the ball being loose in the PA is always going to be dangerous - but saying it "might" have rebounded into the goal or it "might" have fallen to the feet of a striker is a distinctly lower % chance of a goal than the original act of blocking a goalbound shot with a hand (or extension of the hand).

We're talking here about a shot that would naturally have hit a player's chest and rebounded to somewhere else in the area (which would not have automatically qualified as an OGSO) instead being controlled by a stretched shirt so that it can be cleared. It's a clear offence and it's been done to reduce the chances of a goal being scored. But at no point in the first scenario was a goal obviously going to result - where no OGSO exists, how is it possible to D?

 

[es1]

are people playing develis advocate here with the specific wording in the laws or do you genuinely believe it should be a yellow??