GK Handball in the Middle of the Pitch

[Big Cat]

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs
This is the only reference in the book. Do enlighten me if I've missed something, as I don't pick the thing up as often as I oughta
A goal has not been denied. But the obvious opportunity of a goal... has been denied. Semantics on the meaning of the word opportunity
I'm guessing that somebody somewhere interpreted this sentence differently from me and that interpretation got disseminated via the secret teaching channels. Contrary to that privileged teaching, my view is that the incident is not explicitly referred to.

 

[socal lurker]

The exact same as the video BUT:

The ball was heading to an unmarked attacking player?

Possible DOGSO?

Yes. This would take us to analyzing for DOGSO instead of DOG. How likely is that player to get possession, where are defenders, etc. . . .

 

[Big Cat]

So you would guess on a red card? I agree his actions were wrong, but unless it was going in it can't be a red card.

Sort of... unofficially... off the record... yup, I reckon I might if I thought the guess was accurate
"Mr Observer, I had a great view, no doubt, Denying an Obvious Game Shattering Outcome"
Think about it, Inner City game. One common sense option in the spirit of the game, results in a 2 game ban and no problems. The other is an abandonment with lots of grief, all because of secret teachings and semantics

 

[JH]

The exact same as the video BUT:

The ball was heading to an unmarked attacking player?

Possible DOGSO?

Yes.

 

[JH]

Sort of... unofficially... off the record... yup, I reckon I might
"Mr Observer, I had a great view, no doubt, Denying an Obvious Game Shattering Outcome"
Think about it, Inner City game. One common sense option in the spirit of the game, results in a 2 game ban and no problems. The other is an abandonment with lots of grief, all because of secret teachings and semantics

Nothing secret about learning the laws of the game.

 

[Big Cat]

Nothing secret about learning the laws of the game.

Quote the Law then please. I'm hitting the sack, but will be happily proven explicitly wrong in the morning
BTW, If I could see that it was missing the goal, that would be different. I'd just have to hope I was aligned with all the oppo players

 

[one]

The exact same as the video BUT:

The ball was heading to an unmarked attacking player?

Possible DOGSO?

No. Offside

On the "denying the opposing team a goal", that is exactly what the laws say, no more no less. It doesn't say 100% sure or nothing else. Usually for red card, goals and penalties I exercise a higher degree of certainty, but for cases like this, I don't think that is necessary. It a matter of fairness and bringing balance back into the game after an offence. Its like cricket and LBW, if you are not playing a shot, you don't get the benefit of doubt.

Having said that I have no issue with a yellow card here either.

 

[RustyRef]

Quote the Law then please. I'm hitting the sack, but will be happily proven explicitly wrong in the morning
BTW, If I could see that it was missing the goal, that would be different. I'd just have to hope I was aligned with all the oppo players

The following must be considered:
• distance between the offence and the goal (Hell of a long way)
• general direction of the play (Going in the right direction)
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (No one has any idea)
• location and number of defenders (at least 3 defenders behind the shot, including one who legged it straight back to goal so would have been on the goal line)

Which means only one of the four considerations are met, so for me that would only become obvious if I was 100% certain the shot was going into the goal.

 

[Peter Grove]

Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs
This is the only reference in the book. Do enlighten me if I've missed something, as I don't pick the thing up as often as I oughta
A goal has not been denied. But the obvious opportunity of a goal... has been denied. Semantics on the meaning of the word opportunity
I'm guessing that somebody somewhere interpreted this sentence differently from me and that interpretation got disseminated via the secret teaching channels. Contrary to that privileged teaching, my view is that the incident is not explicitly referred to.

You've quoted the right part of the law but you don't quite seem to be seeing what it says.

As Howard Webb quite correctly points out, the law differentiates between two distinct and separate offences here: denying a goal by handling and denying a goal scoring opportunity by handling.

In denying a goal by handling, you have a shot that is heading into the goal and a player who blocks that shot with their hand. As Webb again states: "For a goalkeeper (or any player for that matter) to be sent off in those circumstances the referee has to know that a goal has been denied."

As he then goes on to say, that is completely different to the scenario of a goal scoring opportunity where, "the handball or foul has to deny the attacking player the opportunity to go on to score."

For the offence of denying a goal, we don't need a player moving towards the goal who, if the offence doesn't occur, will keep or gain control of the ball and subsequently have an obvious chance to score a goal - we just need a ball headed directly into the net.

For denial of a goal scoring opportunity, there are four considerations to be looked at, but for denying a goal, those considerations don't and can't apply. For instance, at the time the offence occurs there is no player who has or is likely to gain control of the ball, there is just a ball headed towards the net.

I hate to sound like a broken record but Webb once more sums this up in his text when he says, "Hence the reason the Law actually states "Denies a Goal OR Obvious Goalscoring Opportunity" to differentiate between the two."

 

[Peter Grove]

The following must be considered:
• distance between the offence and the goal (Hell of a long way)
• general direction of the play (Going in the right direction)
• likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (No one has any idea)
• location and number of defenders (at least 3 defenders behind the shot, including one who legged it straight back to goal so would have been on the goal line)

Which means only one of the four considerations are met, so for me that would only become obvious if I was 100% certain the shot was going into the goal.

Again, those are the considerations for denying a goal scoring opportunity. They don't apply to denying a goal. They can't, because the situation would fail every time on the third criterion - when the offence occurs no attacking player either has the ball or is going to gain control of it, the ball is just heading directly into the net.

 

[one]

Simply put one 'denies the ball' entering goal, the other denies a player getting the ball. OP is definitely not the latter. It is very highly likely the former.

 

[Big Cat]

You've quoted the right part of the law but you don't quite seem to be seeing what it says

To recap on my view of this;

a. I'm a firm believer in refereeing according to 'what football expects'
b. The OP is an extreme incident
c. The Law WRT the OP is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for a.
d. If I could see that the ball was missing the goal, I'm accepting that a caution is correct
e. WRT the OP, it's very likely the ball is going into the goal, so I'm selling it with portrayed certainty of a dismissal
f. The risk of my game ending in disaster has been firmly mitigated

What I always find curious about these situations, is that we all ignore Laws routinely, yet steadfastly defend other interpretations that will cause a bad experience for the referee and all the players and team officials involved

 

[JH]

To recap on my view of this;

a. I'm a firm believer in refereeing according to 'what football expects'
b. The OP is an extreme incident
c. The Law WRT the OP is sufficiently ambiguous to allow for a.
d. If I could see that the ball was missing the goal, I'm accepting that a caution is correct
e. WRT the OP, it's very likely the ball is going into the goal, so I'm selling it with portrayed certainty of a dismissal
f. The risk of my game ending in disaster has been firmly mitigated

What I always find curious about these situations, is that we all ignore Laws routinely, yet steadfastly defend other interpretations that will cause a bad experience for the referee and all the players and team officials involved

There's a difference between ignoring the 6-second rule and ignoring something with relation to a red card.

You admit that if you could see it was missing, you'd accept a caution was correct. All we are saying is that if we could see it WASN'T missing, we'd accept a dismissal would be correct.

You are guessing for a red card, we are guessing against a red card.

 

[Russell Jones]

There's a difference between ignoring the 6-second rule and ignoring something with relation to a red card.

You admit that if you could see it was missing, you'd accept a caution was correct. All we are saying is that if we could see it WASN'T missing, we'd accept a dismissal would be correct.

You are guessing for a red card, we are guessing against a red card.

I think you've summarised the debate perfectly!

On many occasions, I would be with the majority on here and would never advocate 'guessing' in favour of a red card in the normal run of things. However, in these type of cases, I'd (with an important reservation) support @Big Cat in his stance. Why? Because what the GK chose to do was exactly the kind of cynical play for which DOG / DOGSO was introduced. The spirit of the game together with the intent of this law tips the balance in favour of going Red unless you knew that the shot was missing the goal.

The reservation is that I'd need to be in a credible position to be able to claim knowledge of whether the ball was indeed goal bound. Regrettably, in the OP, the referee isn't (through no fault of his own).

So, overall, in the OP, I'd begrudgingly go yellow. However, in my future games, if I could credibly claim that I knew the shot was goal bound then I'd desire / choose to go red.

 

[JH]

I think you've summarised the debate perfectly!

On many occasions, I would be with the majority on here and would never advocate 'guessing' in favour of a red card in the normal run of things. However, in these type of cases, I'd (with an important reservation) support @Big Cat in his stance. Why? Because what the GK chose to do was exactly the kind of cynical play for which DOG / DOGSO was introduced. The spirit of the game together with the intent of this law tips the balance in favour of going Red unless you knew that the shot was missing the goal.

The reservation is that I'd need to be in a credible position to be able to claim knowledge of whether the ball was indeed goal bound. Regrettably, in the OP, the referee isn't (through no fault of his own).

So, overall, in the OP, I'd begrudgingly go yellow. However, in my future games, if I could credibly claim that I knew the shot was goal bound then I'd desire / choose to go red.

If you gave red, nobody would complain and it would probably be the more 'just' outcome. If we are strictly talking law, I believe it is a caution because law says 'denying a goal' not 'denying a probable goal'. I think this is just a situation where you could go either way and justify it.

 

[Justylove]

If you gave red, nobody would complain and it would probably be the more 'just' outcome. If we are strictly talking law, I believe it is a caution because law says 'denying a goal' not 'denying a probable goal'. I think this is just a situation where you could go either way and justify it.

I'd compare it to the DOGSO law prior to it being changed around players making an attempt to get the ball in the penalty area.

Prior to the change, a GK that fouled a striker through on goal, even though they've tried and just missed getting the ball would be sent off. As a referee I had it happen twice and on both occasions felt nothing but sympathy for the player I was sending off. Emotionally infer wrong to punish the player in this way, however at the time IN LAW it was the only outcome from the moment I gave a foul.

This is Exactly the same situation. What you want to do and what you actually should do in law are conflicted.
I can't see how strike from that distance, with the GK so far advanced up the pitch can be considered "Obvious" rather than "possible" in terms of whether it will enter the goal or not.

To try and sell a red card here by quoting "what football expects" is the wrong thing to do unless you had a suitable position to ascertain that it was actually going in.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Definitely a caution for me - the distance from the goal makes it unlikely that the ball would have entered the goal, and there were two defenders behind the goalkeeper and a third tracking back past him.

 

[Degnann]

Out of curiosity, for the people who say this is a caution. What are we cautioning this under?

 

[Justylove]

Out of curiosity, for the people who say this is a caution. What are we cautioning this under?

Unsporting behaviour. You could choose:

"handles the ball to interfere with a promising attack"
"shows a lack of respect for the game"

I'd probably go lack of respect for the game to be fair. It's a nice catch all and then you're not going to get into endless debate on here as to whether it was a "promising attack" or not.

 

[RustyRef]

There's a difference between ignoring the 6-second rule and ignoring something with relation to a red card.

You admit that if you could see it was missing, you'd accept a caution was correct. All we are saying is that if we could see it WASN'T missing, we'd accept a dismissal would be correct.

You are guessing for a red card, we are guessing against a red card.

And remember at that level it is on TV and there is every chance that they will pull out a camera angle showing it was going wide or use whizzy tech to show it wouldn't have reached the goal before defenders got there.

Whereas the same incident on Hackney Marshes you are more likely to get away with guessing on a red, and a guess is really all it could be in that scenario.