YCs for Handballs

[Max2]

Neil Armstrong would be proud of that one giant leap for makind.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

So did we all come to this conclusion: any handling in the penalty area must be a caution for USB? However, if it blocks an obvious goal, then it's red? Is this where we ended up? Thanks

If it's a DOGSO it's a red.
If it's a SPA it's a yellow.
If it's neither of those, no mandatory caution, so at the discretion of the referee.

 

[Ben448844]

Didn't Spaun introduce and then get rid off a mandatory yellow card for all handball offences not so long ago? Madness

 

[AlexF]

If it's a DOGSO it's a red.
If it's a SPA it's a yellow.
If it's neither of those, no mandatory caution, so at the discretion of the referee.

And a shot on or very near to the goal is SPA (unless it's clearly going in... in which case it's the DOG part of DOGSO).

 

[Wolf_Ref]

I think you are referring to an unsuccessful handball DOGSO (meaning a goal is scored after applying advantage). It is a bookable offence. It is also bookable if it stops a promising attack.

The latter is a bit tricky to apply if it is a goal bound shot and a goal is not scored due to the offence. In most cases the promising attack is at its conclusion and the offence doesn't actually stop the attack. So it's either a red or nothing by strict application of wording of the law. Expectations however is a yellow.

I love the unspecified behaviour code - as it gives referees a 'you're taking the p*ss' booking for 'those situations'.

I had one where the player couldn't be bothered to run for the ball and used his hand - it didn't stop a promising attack, but nobody complained because it was not in the spirit of the game, and went down as the C1 - US.

 

[one]

And a shot on or very near to the goal is SPA (unless it's clearly going in... in which case it's the DOG part of DOGSO).

That is an opinion and your take not mine or some other referee I know.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

And a shot on or very near to the goal is SPA (unless it's clearly going in... in which case it's the DOG part of DOGSO).

I agree, but I still see referees cautioning for every handling offence in the penalty area by the defending team (e. g. shot saved, full back marshalling ball towards touchline and handles deliberately)

 

[socal lurker]

I agree, but I still see referees cautioning for every handling offence in the penalty area by the defending team (e. g. shot saved, full back marshalling ball towards touchline and handles deliberately)

I think many of these are the ill-advised strategy of using the caution to "sell" the PK. On "lesser" handball offenses, the PK is more than enough punishment.

 

[Ben448844]

I think many of these are the ill-advised strategy of using the caution to "sell" the PK. On "lesser" handball offenses, the PK is more than enough punishment.

Agreed. Nobody was looking at the pen v San Marino and wondering if it was a yellow card. They were solely looking at whether the ball had hit the hand. Yellow card wasn't even a consideration and just prompted questions of why

 

[deusex]

The list of cautions also includes:

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

which would be relevant in this case. The attack is promising, the forward has unleashed a shot, and it's heading towards the goal. Caution.

That is not "stopping a promising attack."
No defender ever has handballed in the area to stop a promising attack.
That would make zero sense.
Refs simply use the caution to try and sell their decision. It's utterly illogically and a pet hate of mine.
A little trip in the box does not earn a caution. Most handballs would fall into this category

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That is not "stopping a promising attack."
No defender ever has handballed in the area to stop a promising attack.
That would make zero sense.
Refs simply use the caution to try and sell their decision. It's utterly illogically and a pet hate of mine.
A little trip in the box does not earn a caution. Most handballs would fall into this category

I quoted that part of Law 12 as the OP was getting mixed up with an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a shot entering their team's goal.
If a defender handles and the action stops or interferes with a promising attack - in this case a shot on goal - that's a caution.

 

[socal lurker]

That is not "stopping a promising attack."
No defender ever has handballed in the area to stop a promising attack.
That would make zero sense.
Refs simply use the caution to try and sell their decision. It's utterly illogically and a pet hate of mine.
A little trip in the box does not earn a caution. Most handballs would fall into this category

Law 12 used to say that SPAA was a foul for the purpose of stopping/interfering with a promising attack. That was dropped And now it is simply a foul that does stop/interfere with a promising attack.

 

[NOVARef]

So I'm pretty much back to square one of when is a handball in the box a YC. In this video (see around both 1:40 and 2:10), the narrator twice says that the handball would be a penalty and a YC for "blocking a goal bound shot." Blocking a goal bound shot is not a reason for a YC in the book. If this is a YC, what is the reason? Thank you.

 

[deusex]

I quoted that part of Law 12 as the OP was getting mixed up with an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a shot entering their team's goal.
If a defender handles and the action stops or interferes with a promising attack - in this case a shot on goal - that's a caution.

If you can show me the page that specifically says a handball offence on a shot on goal is a caution I'll concede defeat.
The caution had always been a punishment for a tactical handball. I'd handballing it OUTSIDE the box to prevent an attack.
No defender ever in the history of the game has tactically handballed in the area.
There is no logical reason to caution.
If you caution for this then I hope you caution for EVERY foul in the area.
Consistency please!

 

[one]

So I'm pretty much back to square one of when is a handball in the box a YC. In this video (see around both 1:40 and 2:10), the narrator twice says that the handball would be a penalty and a YC for "blocking a goal bound shot." Blocking a goal bound shot is not a reason for a YC in the book. If this is a YC, what is the reason? Thank you.

Had he said for stopping or interfering with a promising attack then I would say it's a subjective decision, it's his opinion and he is entitled to it but one I don't agree with.
But saying YC for blocking a goal bound shot is just making stuff up. It's not a matter of interpretation. There is no such thing. It's just simply wrong and the fact that it look like it is a educational video makes it worse.

 

[Dino Ref]

Anyone else watching the Inter v Napoli match?

Ref just gave a yellow for a handball.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

If you can show me the page that specifically says a handball offence on a shot on goal is a caution I'll concede defeat.
The caution had always been a punishment for a tactical handball. I'd handballing it OUTSIDE the box to prevent an attack.
No defender ever in the history of the game has tactically handballed in the area.
There is no logical reason to caution.
If you caution for this then I hope you caution for EVERY foul in the area.
Consistency please!

You are misquoting me. I quoted the part of law regarding interfering with or stopping a promising attack, which is cautionable, and gave the example of a shot on goal as doing just that, because it obviously does.
Your interpretation appears to be that it is a caution if outside the penalty area, but not if inside, for what you describe as a tactical handling offence. No wonder that newer referees are confused.
If you read my earlier post I made it clear that handling in the penalty area does not require a caution every time.