bester
RefChat Addict
A thrown object or hitting the ball with a held object is no longer a handling offence, presume that was what prompted the law 'clarification'.
Handball DOGSO and goalkeeper
- Thread starter Redref34
- Start date
A thrown object or hitting the ball with a held object is no longer a handling offence, presume that was what prompted the law 'clarification'.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
And I withdraw second touch—it couldn’t be a goal if a second touch violation was still possible, so second touch could only be DOGSO not DOG . . .
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I posed the question to the IFAB, of whether the 4 considerations apply when it comes to denying a goal by handball. Their reply says that they do not. See below.
bester
RefChat Addict
Question
"
There is shot on target which is saved by a defender by deliberate handling.
The goalkeeper has a slim chance (eg. 10%) of saving if not for the handling offence.
We can't be certain a goal is denied, but is it still a sending of offence as an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied?
Or does denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity not apply in this context?
"
Answer
"
As described the referee would almost certainly apply the spirit/expectation of the law and award the penalty kick and red card."
"
There is shot on target which is saved by a defender by deliberate handling.
The goalkeeper has a slim chance (eg. 10%) of saving if not for the handling offence.
We can't be certain a goal is denied, but is it still a sending of offence as an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied?
Or does denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity not apply in this context?
"
Answer
"
As described the referee would almost certainly apply the spirit/expectation of the law and award the penalty kick and red card."
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think 10% is an easy case. The challenge is where to draw the line.
While there is nothing official that would support it, when it’s in the grey zone of the GK being able to save, I’m absolutely going to be affected in my decision by how cynical the defender’s HB was.
While there is nothing official that would support it, when it’s in the grey zone of the GK being able to save, I’m absolutely going to be affected in my decision by how cynical the defender’s HB was.
Let me apply some context then.
Attacker has a close shot 10/15 yards out goalkeeper is well placed to make a save. Defender between attacker and goalkeeper (on six yard line) falls backwards to block shot in a goalkeeper like motion and ball hits his chest and then arm which is slightly out from his body. Ball is going towards goal. Ref gives penalty and red card.
Attacker has a close shot 10/15 yards out goalkeeper is well placed to make a save. Defender between attacker and goalkeeper (on six yard line) falls backwards to block shot in a goalkeeper like motion and ball hits his chest and then arm which is slightly out from his body. Ball is going towards goal. Ref gives penalty and red card.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That is a judgment call on how good of a chance the GK has to make the save. If the GK was probably going to make the save (which you seem to be implying), the red is unwarranted. The Rs opinion on that may well have been different than yours.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
We have to "over complicate" it because it's our job to aim to be correct in law. You're right that if a defensive handball offence occurs in the penalty area and the ball is heading towards goal then it's definitely a penalty. Whether or not it is a red card offence is absolutely dependent on the position of the GK and their likelihood of making a save.
An analogous situation would be one where the 'last man' cynically takes out the attacker ... it feels like a red card is always warranted but if, prior to the foul, the attacker has taken a heavy touch and the ball is going harmlessly through to the GK then it is absolutely not a red card.
