A&H

Open Age Handball on the goal-line

T

The Don

New Member
As part of a match report for a game I attended on Saturday, I wrote the following, on another site:
"There should have been an equaliser when a Longwell defender was adjudged to have handled a goal-bound effort on the line by the post. Despite protests directed at the Assistant on that side, a penalty was awarded and the unfortunate player was sent off. Personally, from where I was sitting, I didn’t see any movement of the hand towards the ball, his hand/arm was by his side. The Officials saw differently.

The subsequent penalty kick hit a post and rebounded across the goal to be cleared.

For some time now, I have advocated a yellow card (for unsporting conduct) and the award of a Penalty Goal rather than a Red Card and the jeopardy of missing a Penalty. A player then wouldn’t be able to ‘take one for the team’ (by a deliberate handling act) if they are unable to deny a legitimate goal-bound effort from adding to their opponent’s score. Just my opinion."

i wonder what the feeling is among the qualified officials. I am only a spectator.
 
The Referee Store
There's two things to unpick here in my opinion, firstly, penalty goals. Whilst in rugby, we've seen the concept of a Penalty Try work, it is subjective, and a Penalty Goal relies on a much smaller area in which a goal can be scored, and often decisions such as fouls/handballs that prevent on obvious goal scoring opportunity have the chance to be missed, if an attacker were to have a howler (we've seen it happen plenty of times). Therefore, if you award a penalty goal, defenders/players a likely to hit you with 'ref he could've missed it!', and hence relies on a gamble from the ref, which can be risky. Asa result, I personally believe if it wouldn't fit in football, except for some *clear cut* handballs such as Luis Suarez VS Ghana.

Secondly, by changing the sanction as well as adding a penalty goal, would rely on a match official deciding whether a penalty goal should be awarded, then showing a Yellow Card for hat would be Unsporting Behaviour, instead of a red card for Denial of a Goal Scoring Opportunity. This means it creates an extra interpretation and situation for the officials to be aware of, and decide upon.

I just believe it's currently too subjective for football (every chance that some other refs will totally disagree here, and will likely say plenty of fouls can be subjective), but I just think it isn't something that would fit into the way football is officiated.
 
Last edited:
A goal can only be awarded when the ball wholly crosses the goal line between the posts and below the bar.
Penalty goals are not for me.
 
I don’t see it happening any time soon. It’s always been fundamental that the ball has to cross to score. And asking refs to decide with certainty that the ball would have gone in is an unenviable task, particularly in games that don’t have VAR (which is the overwhelming percentage of games played throughout the world).
 
Thanks for your responses. While I know that the present Law says that the ball must cross the line for a goal to be awarded, could an exemption be written in (as in the case of the Offside Law where players are exempt if they receive the ball direct from a goal-kick, throw-in or dropped ball) “except when a Penalty Goal is awarded by the Referee”?

My point was that the Referee had decided that the ball would have crossed the line (had it not been intercepted by the hand/arm) that is why he sent the player off.

Similar to the phrase, “Denying and obvious goal scoring opportunity”, the Law could read, “Denying an obvious goal”. The Referee has to decide what is “obvious” in both cases.
 
I'm going to take your suggestion further...

In the last 16 or 8 of the 2018 world cup, Denmark v Croatia. 118th minute, Croatia player rounds the keeper right infront of goal, appx 12 yards out and ball under control, about to roll the ball into an empty net then gets fouled (I'd argue intentionally taken out rather than genuine attempt but that's irrelevant to the topic!). He's about to score. Does he get a penalty goal? If not, why not?
 
My scenario refers to the ball which was obviously going to cross the line but prevented from doing so by a hand/arm. Nothing to do with a foul on a player.
The term I used was "obvious goal" not "obvious goal-scoring opportunity".
 
The Don said:
My scenario refers to the ball which was obviously going to cross the line but prevented from doing so by a hand/arm. Nothing to do with a foul on a player.
The term I used was "obvious goal" not "obvious goal-scoring opportunity".
Click to expand...

I could easily argue the above scenario prevents an obvious goal
 
The Don said:
As part of a match report for a game I attended on Saturday, I wrote the following, on another site:
"There should have been an equaliser when a Longwell defender was adjudged to have handled a goal-bound effort on the line by the post. Despite protests directed at the Assistant on that side, a penalty was awarded and the unfortunate player was sent off. Personally, from where I was sitting, I didn’t see any movement of the hand towards the ball, his hand/arm was by his side. The Officials saw differently.

The subsequent penalty kick hit a post and rebounded across the goal to be cleared.

For some time now, I have advocated a yellow card (for unsporting conduct) and the award of a Penalty Goal rather than a Red Card and the jeopardy of missing a Penalty. A player then wouldn’t be able to ‘take one for the team’ (by a deliberate handling act) if they are unable to deny a legitimate goal-bound effort from adding to their opponent’s score. Just my opinion."

i wonder what the feeling is among the qualified officials. I am only a spectator.
Click to expand...
For me when the ball is about to enter the goal and a player DELIBERATELY handles the ball i would be in favour of a goal awarded and a yellow card.

The award of a penalty is a much better chance for the guilty defending side not to concede a goal compared to what happened before. Fotball in an ideal world is about fairness. Why should "near-cetain" goals not be awarded.

As somebody else said though this would be another burden for the ref.

But for me the ball should literally be on it's way in - 6-12 inches or approximate frob being fully over the line.
 
What about the famous clip of a dog running across the goal line and stopping a shot that was otherwise going in? Or the ball boy/physio who hopped round the post to block a long shot on an empty net?

I think I like the idea in principal, but it's a whole extra level of complexity and subjectivity for something that maybe doesn't need fixing? Red card and penalty is a strong punishment, an occasional missed penalty doesn't negate that.
 
I believe the dog or ball boy scenarios are covered by the "outside agent" phrase resulting in a dropped ball, if I'm not mistaken.
 
es1 said:
I could easily argue the above scenario prevents an obvious goal
Click to expand...
The problem, as I see it, with your scenario is that several things could happen. The player could mis-control the ball; the player could stumble, the shot might hit the post or go wide. I am talking about an obvious goal, you are talking about an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

In the game I attended (as a neutral) the referee decided that an obvious goal was denied on the goal-line. The score was 2 - 3 and the penalty (which could have made it 3 - 3) struck the post and was cleared. The resulting 10-men held out for a victory.
 
The Don said:
I believe the dog or ball boy scenarios are covered by the "outside agent" phrase resulting in a dropped ball, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
It is. As is denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Graeme makes a very valid point, if a player stops an almost certain goal and we change to award it, why not if an outside agent stops one too?
Where do you draw the line.
The current law and punishment or expelled from game and serve a suspension is quite enough.
Throw in penalty goal challenges or ref rules goal preved incorrectly it's just a minefield we don't need
 
Egg chasing vs soccerball. Someone else can cook up the actual stats but.., I think goals are far more valuable in football than points in rugby, hence it is a lower bar to give a penalty try.

Compare also with - if there was no penalty try and instead you have a penalty under the posts there is a great chance for 3 points. If there is no penalty try and you have a penalty out wide it is very difficult to get points. So, the penalty try is a great equalizer. In the same same but different way the penalty kick is a great “equalizer” in footy - you only get one if the offence was close to goal and you have to be very lucky/daft to muff it!

Also, in footy, the penalty adds drama. It’s one of the mysterious magical things that makes footy unique. There’s always that jeopardy. And there’s no similar mechanism in rugby for a coathanger a yard out by the touchline.
 
The Don said:
I believe the dog or ball boy scenarios are covered by the "outside agent" phrase resulting in a dropped ball, if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
They are - but if I'm adding a "penalty goal" in to football, those are the type of incidents I'd be adding it for first.

A drop ball (even an old-school contested one, let alone the "direct to the GK" we would see now) is rubbish compensation for an outside agent stopping the ball rolling in compared to penalty & RC if an opponent does something illegal to stop it. For me, that's a more severe disconnect between goal and punishment and that's what I'd want to sort first.
 
Thanks for all your contributions. I was just interested in qualified Referees' opinions as to whether or not they agreed in principle. Details could be worked out later.
I just feel it's unfair to have a goal prevented by a handball. I will stick with my opinion that it should be a yellow card and a Penalty Goal.

Just off topic, I had a conversation many years ago about the scenario where a forward is fouled in the penalty area and has to receive on-field treatment thereby forcing him to leave the pitch under the rules. What happens if he is the designated Penalty taker? Someone told me recently that he doesn't have to leave the pitch now. Is this correct?
If this is the case then perhaps a rule change for the Penalty Goal might come into being in the future.

Thanks again for all your views and I will continue to discuss the matter at future games with referees and supporters.
 
Players no longer have to leave the pitch for treatment if the challenge results in a yellow or red card. But that's not an unlimited amount of time, they're still expected to be helped off the pitch if the treatment must continue beyond when the referee considers reasonable, which generally is roughly the time it takes to issue the card.
 
GraemeS said:
Players no longer have to leave the pitch for treatment if the challenge results in a yellow or red card. But that's not an unlimited amount of time, they're still expected to be helped off the pitch if the treatment must continue beyond when the referee considers reasonable, which generally is roughly the time it takes to issue the card.
Click to expand...
. . . unless they are the designated penalty taker, in which case they can stay on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top