A&H

Dutch Referee Blog - Week 5 Laws of the Game Quiz 2022-2023

Week 5 Laws of the Game Quiz 2022-2023. Video for question 1 The next quiz will be published next Tuesday. You can always practise previous quizzes on this overview page. And after submitting your answers, you can see the correct answers immediately. The video starts (automatically) at 2m34s. Quiz Laden…

Continue reading...
 
Click to expand...
The Referee Store
Regarding question 1, I was at an RA meeting last night where we had a Guest Speaker from FA CORE delivering a workshop on handball and we were told that we should not caution handball offences in this fashion which result in a penalty kick (I.e blocking a shot on goal - unless of course it is DOGSO which is a red)

I got the Q1 wrong as went with just a PK, having received the above advice. The result of the question says it should be a caution but no section of law quoted.

Which is correct?
 
CA1992 said:
Regarding question 1, I was at an RA meeting last night where we had a Guest Speaker from FA CORE delivering a workshop on handball and we were told that we should not caution handball offences in this fashion which result in a penalty kick (I.e blocking a shot on goal - unless of course it is DOGSO which is a red)

I got the Q1 wrong as went with just a PK, having received the above advice. The result of the question says it should be a caution but no section of law quoted.

Which is correct?
Click to expand...
FWIW I also answered just a PK, so I went and looked at the actual game to see what happened - no card.
 
There seems to be some debate on this. Law 12 doesn’t have a specific mandate on this. There is interpretation that if the the shot would have been on frame, the the handling stopped a promising attack and should be cautioned. Law 12 says:

• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball

So unless we convince ourselves that a HB blocking the shot is “an offense which was an attempt to play the ball,“ I think the school of thought that it is a caution is the better view.
 
CA1992 said:
Regarding question 1, I was at an RA meeting last night where we had a Guest Speaker from FA CORE delivering a workshop on handball and we were told that we should not caution handball offences in this fashion which result in a penalty kick (I.e blocking a shot on goal - unless of course it is DOGSO which is a red)

I got the Q1 wrong as went with just a PK, having received the above advice. The result of the question says it should be a caution but no section of law quoted.

Which is correct?
Click to expand...
My view is that this particular incident is definitely NOT a caution as actually the shot was clearly off target over the bar until it hit the defender and looped up. Had it been on target then (IMO) it becomes theoretically possible to be either no card, yellow card or a red card, depending on the whether the referee believes it denied an obvious goal, stopped a promising attack or was relatively harmless
 
Last edited:
socal lurker said:
There is interpretation that if the the shot would have been on frame, the the handling stopped a promising attack and should be cautioned. Law 12 says:
Click to expand...

This was previously my interpretation, which I debated at the meeting (of which I was the only one in the room who said I’d caution for the incident in question, where the shot was definitely hitting the target) but was told that as the result is a PK, then the promising attack wasn’t prevented (as the attacker receives a free shot on goal) therefore no caution can be issued.
 
CA1992 said:
This was previously my interpretation, which I debated at the meeting (of which I was the only one in the room who said I’d caution for the incident in question, where the shot was definitely hitting the target) but was told that as the result is a PK, then the promising attack wasn’t prevented (as the attacker receives a free shot on goal) therefore no caution can be issued.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could argue within the wording of the law that by committing a handball offence, we are suggesting that it is obviously an attempt to play the ball (as we do not award a PK for accidental handball) therefore there is scope within the law quoted above to justify a non caution but i would say that isn’t in the spirit of how the law is written, in that it’s written to cover attempted tackles?
 
CA1992 said:
This was previously my interpretation, which I debated at the meeting (of which I was the only one in the room who said I’d caution for the incident in question, where the shot was definitely hitting the target) but was told that as the result is a PK, then the promising attack wasn’t prevented (as the attacker receives a free shot on goal) therefore no caution can be issued.
Click to expand...
This part is just flat out wrong. Law 12 is pretty specific about when SPA isn’t cautioned in the PA, and it has nothing at all to do with the concept that the promising attack wasn’t prevented--it is grace intended for a careless but honest foul in trying to play defense in the PA.
CA1992 said:
I suppose you could argue within the wording of the law that by committing a handball offence, we are suggesting that it is obviously an attempt to play the ball (as we do not award a PK for accidental handball) therefore there is scope within the law quoted above to justify a non caution but i would say that isn’t in the spirit of how the law is written, in that it’s written to cover attempted tackles?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can call the handling itself an attempt to play the ball, as implicit there is an attempt to legally play the ball. (We can open Pandora’s box and start asking if a handling offense for making oneself bigger (rather than deliberate handling) could fit here on the theory that the player was trying to play the ball. But that really is Pandora’s box, as the underlying concept in biggering is that the player chose to make himself unnaturally bigger.)

My sense is that most of the powers that be agree with the quiz answer here: handling that blocks a shot on frame should be cautioned as SPA. But I don’t know if that is universal, as we dont see consistench on this, even at the professional level.
 
I have mentioned this before, Dutch Referee seems to be selling opinion or some guidelines as laws of the game. Sorry mate, I am not buying this time (or the one from a couple of weeks back). 😊

​

 
Russell Jones said:
My view is that this particular incident is definitely NOT a caution as actually the shot was clearly off target over the bar until it hit the defender and looped up. Had it been on target then (IMO) it becomes theoretically possible to be either no card, yellow card or a red card, depending on the whether the referee believes it denied an obvious goal, stopped a promising attack or was relatively harmless
Click to expand...
This is the one I put in the other thread "Managers LOTG" - it was clearly going over the bar, not relevant for the penalty (despite the City manager's opinion!) but surely its not a card?

What is the actual offence that warrants a yellow - USB, of course, but then what? "Other" presumably - like others can't agree this is a yellow.
 
socal lurker said:
There seems to be some debate on this. Law 12 doesn’t have a specific mandate on this. There is interpretation that if the the shot would have been on frame, the the handling stopped a promising attack and should be cautioned. Law 12 says:

• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball

So unless we convince ourselves that a HB blocking the shot is “an offense which was an attempt to play the ball,“ I think the school of thought that it is a caution is the better view.
Click to expand...
It wasn't on frame though - the angle of the shot meant it was going over the bar.
 
I also got this answer wrong and wondered why a YC would be given. I then read this for Law 12 "Cautions for USB"

  • handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack

I tried to find a definition for SPA like there is for DOGSO (ie the 4 considerations for DOGSO to come into affect) but couldn't find it - not in the glossary or anywhere else I looked in the LOTG. Is there a definition / clarification for SPA that I am missing?

Without an official clarification then all we are left with is the term "Promising Attack" and whether the handball "interfered" or "stopped" it.

So was the attack PROMISING in this situation or should the interpretation be more about if we decide the shot at goals was heading on target or not before the handball offence occurred (Which could be quite objective in some circumstances when viewing in real-time)?
 
rayb said:
I also got this answer wrong and wondered why a YC would be given. I then read this for Law 12 "Cautions for USB"

  • handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack

I tried to find a definition for SPA like there is for DOGSO (ie the 4 considerations for DOGSO to come into affect) but couldn't find it - not in the glossary or anywhere else I looked in the LOTG. Is there a definition / clarification for SPA that I am missing?

Without an official clarification then all we are left with is the term "Promising Attack" and whether the handball "interfered" or "stopped" it.

So was the attack PROMISING in this situation or should the interpretation be more about if we decide the shot at goals was heading on target or not before the handball offence occurred (Which could be quite objective in some circumstances when viewing in real-time)?
Click to expand...
I realise that the LOTG language can't always be taken literally, but in no sense, to a referee or non referee is a shot heading for the stands over the cross bar a " promising attack"
 
PinnerPaul said:
I realise that the LOTG language can't always be taken literally, but in no sense, to a referee or non referee is a shot heading for the stands over the cross bar a " promising attack"
Click to expand...
Neither is one heading for goal in a definitive sense.

A shot on target is either going to be saved or going in. If it's going in and you are reasonably sure then it's DOG and a red card. But there is no such thin as I am not sure if it is going in so I'd just give it yellow card.

If it is being saved then what happens to the ball is anyone's guess and you can't caution for SPA on a guess.

Edit: And I am not buying "football expects yellow here" either. Football expects decisions we referees make them expect. If enough referees do the wrong thing enough times then football expects that wrong decision all the time. The application of the 6 second clause is a perfect example.
 
Last edited:
one said:
Neither is one heading for goal in a definitive sense.

A shot on target is either going to be saved or going in. If it's going in and you are reasonably sure then it's DOG and a red card. But there is no such thin as I am not sure if it is going in so I'd just give it yellow card.

If it is being saved then what happens to the ball is anyone's guess and you can't caution for SPA on a guess.

Edit: And I am not buying "football expects yellow here" either. Football expects decisions we referees make them expect. If enough referees do the wrong thing enough times then football expects that wrong decision all the time. The application of the 6 second clause is a perfect example.
Click to expand...
I agree, was just using the premise others have used to justify a yellow here, I agree with you, as I said above, struggling to justify a yellow for handball such as this, on or off target.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
How about USB for unsporting behaviour - based in a blatant deliberate handball to attempt to block a shot on goal (whether the defender knew it was on target or whether it was on target). I think it's what football expects here. And I think this is not specifically covered in the LotG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top