A&H

GK handball outside area

M

Monotone Whistle

Well-Known Member
I was being assessed yesterday for the first time this season on a Step7 game, was hoping for a nice easy ride but of course at that level that's never likely.

Had only one major incident of debate, which is always good to highlight to others in case it happens to you....the GK comes out to clear the ball outside of the penalty area and makes a mess of it. From about 35 yards out, to the left of the pitch, a player gets control of the ball and takes a shot, which the keeper handles from 10 yards away, so still outside his area.

I cautioned the goalkeeper for handling the ball outside his area. I was almost directly behind the incident and in my opinion the ball was going wide (well wide actually), and even if not there were 3 defenders in the penalty area who may have cleared the ball. Clearly all of the oppo are screaming for the dismissal, as were half the crowd, and I had some tough questions at half-time.

My assessor told me he would have dismissed for DOGSO-H based on the angle he had, but I was correct in law given the explanation I gave him after the game (phew). Another former referee was watching the game, and he also said red card, so I could easily have sold it.

I'm happy with my decision, I know what I saw and I wasn't prepared to send a player off on the lesser of two probabilities. The main thing for me was that I had a positive assessment (mark pending), and development points were positioning at goal kicks and attacking free kicks.

Discuss.
 
The Referee Store
I am tempted to say (without seeing it, of course) red DOGSO-h He denied the goal scoring opportunity (not a goal, slight difference) and it can be very difficult to gauge the outcome of a shot when the ball is in flight. :D

Everyone probably expected the keeper to be walking, even the keeper. I guess he was very lucky your positioning was spot on and you could see the likely outcome of his shot.

Any doubts at all in your mind that you bottled it? Lol that isn't meant to sound quite so brutal, you know what I mean though, that little thought in the back of the mind we all get after a big decision when you feel you may have taken the "path of least resistance" :D
 
Yes a little, but I'm also happy that the players and management, after my explanation after the game, accepted my point of view. And the assessor was happy enough, you know what its's like - his first question was about that and he waited for my reasoning before deciding if I was making the correct decision. He would have done it differently, but he at least told me I wasn't wrong in law given my explanation.

Tough one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
You did what you thought was correct, cannot fault that.

The real proof of the pudding I suppose is the question; If you had to relive that situation, would you do exactly the same again?
 
Monotone Whistle said:
Yes a little, but I'm also happy that the players and management, after my explanation after the game, accepted my point of view. And the assessor was happy enough, you know what its's like - his first question was about that and he waited for my reasoning before deciding if I was making the correct decision. He would have done it differently, but he at least told me I wasn't wrong in law given my explanation.

Tough one.
Click to expand...
SM said:
I am tempted to say (without seeing it, of course) red DOGSO-h He denied the goal scoring opportunity (not a goal, slight difference) and it can be very difficult to gauge the outcome of a shot when the ball is in flight. :D

Everyone probably expected the keeper to be walking, even the keeper. I guess he was very lucky your positioning was spot on and you could see the likely outcome of his shot.

Any doubts at all in your mind that you bottled it? Lol that isn't meant to sound quite so brutal, you know what I mean though, that little thought in the back of the mind we all get after a big decision when you feel you may have taken the "path of least resistance" :D
Click to expand...

If you can see that the ball clearly isn't going in, it can't be 'DOGh' and if it isn't going to a team mate it can't be 'DOGSOh' so it sounds like the call was spot on. You shouldn't send a player off because you can sell it! Apply the laws !
 
Meh.

You never know where he ball will land mate.

That said, I am sure you know better than the assessor at the game. :p
 
SM said:
Meh.

You never know where he ball will land mate.

That said, I am sure you know better than the assessor at the game. :p
Click to expand...

I think me and the assessor both said he got it right ! And yes you can tell if a ball will be going in the goal or not if it is (as he said in the OP) going well wide !
 
Last edited:
SM said:
That's not what the assessor said :)
Click to expand...

I Quote from OP
My assessor told me he would have dismissed for DOGSO-H based on the angle he had, but I was correct in law given the explanation I gave him after the game (phew). Another former referee was watching the game, and he also said red card, so I could easily have sold it.
 
SM said:
Keep up mate.
Click to expand...

My assessor told me he would have dismissed for DOGSO-H based on the angle he had, but I was correct in law given the explanation I gave him after the game (phew). Another former referee was watching the game, and he also said red card, so I could easily have sold it.
 
Not how I read it. How I read it is - he thinks you're wrong, but your law knowledge given your action is sound.

Not the same as being right. :)
 
The ball going in wasn't the only consideration of course, whether there were any other forwards/defenders able to get to the ball was also a consideration.

To answer the question, yes I would do the same again.

I guess the assessor point of view, as perhaps @Brian Hamilton or @lincs22 can testify, is whether the explanation I gave for my decision was correct in law, I had a credible view and I wasn't 'bottling' it (so to speak). It certainly wasn't as clear-cut as some, and hopefully I won't get marked down on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SM
Without being there none of us can give the "correct" answer but I commend you for making a decision. I don't think you bottled it - probably the easy decision would have been to send off the keeper. I see a creeping expectation in the game that any foul from a goalkeepr outside the box is somehow an immediate red card which is clearly not the case. If you are satisfied that the ball was not heading into the goal then the keeper's actions have not prevented a goal being scored and a red card is not meritted on this point. Consider it another way - if an outfield player handled the ball 25/35 yards from goal, with 3 defenders behind him it would be a hell of a call to send him off.

You then have to consider whether the attacking team had an obvious goalscoring opportunity had the keeper not handled the ball. You have decided "no" and without being there none of us can tell.
 
Monotone Whistle said:
I guess the assessor point of view, as perhaps @Brian Hamilton or @lincs22 can testify, is whether the explanation I gave for my decision was correct in law, I had a credible view and I wasn't 'bottling' it (so to speak). It certainly wasn't as clear-cut as some, and hopefully I won't get marked down on it.
Click to expand...

You have sort of answered your own question. The decision is "if in the opinion of the referee" a DOGSO-H has happened. You thought not, therefore the DOGSOH does not apply. Assessing is about angles and what the referee saw/did.
 
Monotone Whistle said:
The ball going in wasn't the only consideration of course, whether there were any other forwards/defenders able to get to the ball was also a consideration.

To answer the question, yes I would do the same again.

I guess the assessor point of view, as perhaps @Brian Hamilton or @lincs22 can testify, is whether the explanation I gave for my decision was correct in law, I had a credible view and I wasn't 'bottling' it (so to speak). It certainly wasn't as clear-cut as some, and hopefully I won't get marked down on it.
Click to expand...
The point of the post-match de-brief is to clarify issues and to discuss points which weren't clear from the assessor's position. This discussion must come to a conclusion with an agreed viewpoint. If your assessor listened to and agreed with your assessment of the situation (i.e. you could justify your actions in a way he could not dispute), then he will support your action in his report.
 
If a DOGSO consideration results in a discussion, such as this one.... it wasn't DOGSO. The key word is 'Obvious'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top