RefSix

Make a decision

Yampy

RefChat Addict
#1
During a red team attack, the ball strikes the arm of a blue defender which is close to his body and not in an unnatural position. You deny the call for a penalty and plays continues.
Immediately, same blue defender hoofs the ball upfield where, it is collected on the run by the speedy forward. Within seconds the forward is bearing down on goal with defenders beaten for pace and only the keeper to beat.
He shoots, he scores.
What is your decision?
 

Peach

New Member
#3
If you've denied the call for a penalty than it's a goal surely? Am I missing something?
I believe he is asking about the part where a handball is an offence if it starts a promising attack. In my opinion in this instance you couldn't foresee an immediate goal scoring opportunity and you definitely couldn't bring it back for a penalty. Goal all day.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#5
Man city scored a goal this season like this. I wasn't happy with it as the handler didn't gain possession after the hand ball (which the wording of the law requires). But apparently 'they' think it was within the spirit of the law to allow the goal.

In the OP case if you go according to the wording of the law, he handles, gains possession and created a goal scoring opportunity, so disallow the goal. But I won't be surprised if 'they' say it is within the spirit of the law to allow the goal again.

I know what the wording says you should do, but what did they mean to say. Who knows these days.

1567602265037.png
 

Yampy

RefChat Addict
#6
A goalscoring opportunity has been created hasn't it? And the law isn't clear on whether the opportunity should be for offender or one of his teammates.

Now consider an alternative outcome. 30 yards from goal the attacker is brought down by a reckless tackle from a desperate defender. Your decision?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#7
I know one thing, players and team officials are more confused and animate regarding HB than they were before, if that's at all possible
Safe refereeing worked better before IFAB tried to articulate it
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#8
You have to stick with your decision, you can't turn down the penalty and then change your mind because the player keeps possession and starts a promising attack.

And after you've waved away penalty appeals, if the attacker get brought down by a reckless challenge then it will be a caution and freekick to the blue team.

I think the wording of the question is a bit misleading, you say the referee waves away shouts for a penalty the game continues and then the same player boots the ball up the pitch.

In this instance I would have suggested the referee delays their whistle for a fraction of a second to see whether the blue player gained possession or started a promising attack.
 

Yampy

RefChat Addict
#9
if the attacker get brought down by a reckless challenge then it will be a caution and freekick to the blue team.
A caution for a reckless tackle by a trailing defender against a striker 1-on-1 with a GK 30 yards from home?

In this instance I would have suggested the referee delays their whistle for a fraction of a second to see whether the blue player gained possession or started a promising attack.
Sensible refereeing but it doesn't change the decision you ultimately have to make IMO

FWIW I'm inclined to agree with you but there's a nagging doubt if be wrong.
 
#10
Great question OP. Reminds that since the City incident this law remains seriously flawed.

They really must clarify the gains control/possession part.

Based on Laporte, any touch that’s an assist is valid do this should be bought back for a pen. But there’d be bedlam!
 

RefJef

RefChat Addict
#11
I have had something similar happen recently in a pre season game.

Not in the box, but think right back position roughly in line with box. Red attacker plays ball, hits hand of white defender - hand in natural position, ball has come from less than a metre, definetly not an “old school” I.e last season handball.

Calls of “hand ball” from red, waved away by me.

White gathers ball - still way, way back in his half, and these ain’t great players (hence they get a rubbish ref like me), no danger etc. White runs, say, ten yards with the ball, then lo and behold hits the best pass of the 90 minutes, white striker races onto ball, shoots ...

.... and boy am I happy to see the ball sail high, wide and ugly.

There was significant time from the handball to the shot, too long to delay a whistle, but undoubtedly the handball led to a promising attack, but this only became apparent in the final moments.

Am I going to go back and give the handball? Match control goes to rat $h1t as I scrub a goal for one team and give a very good attacking free kick to the other? Probably not, but I do think the promising attack directly came from the handball, but no way to tell it was going to lead to a promising attack until some time after the incident.
 
#12
In this instance I would have suggested the referee delays their whistle for a fraction of a second to see whether the blue player gained possession or started a promising attack.
Totally unrealistic to think the R should hold the whistle to see if there is a promising attack when the handling involves a player in his defensive PA.

99% of the time this provision is going to apply to a player in the attacking third, and likely in the PA. The far back scenario is certainly not what the SOTG is looking for. But it's poorly written in a variety of ways. It's almost certainly going to get re-written next year. When it doubt, I'm going to go back to what this change was really aimed at. So I'm simply not going back to a handling in the far PA (not that it's likely I'll ever see that scenario in which that defender then creates a promising attack anyway).
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#13
Totally unrealistic to think the R should hold the whistle to see if there is a promising attack when the handling involves a player in his defensive PA.

99% of the time this provision is going to apply to a player in the attacking third, and likely in the PA. The far back scenario is certainly not what the SOTG is looking for. But it's poorly written in a variety of ways. It's almost certainly going to get re-written next year. When it doubt, I'm going to go back to what this change was really aimed at. So I'm simply not going back to a handling in the far PA (not that it's likely I'll ever see that scenario in which that defender then creates a promising attack anyway).
Then either award the PK or don't, but you can't then pull it back for the penalty if the defending team break away and score.

The only way to determine whether a player gains possession or starts a promising attack from accidentally handling the ball is by waiting to see what happens.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#18
Totally unrealistic to think the R should hold the whistle to see if there is a promising attack when the handling involves a player in his defensive PA.
Not only unrealistic but also unnecessary. Promising attack is not a criterion for determining handball, goal scoring opportunity is. However the way the OP is written, the goal scoring opportunity is created almost immediately (the time it takes for the ball to travel in one kick). The law says "and then: creates a goal scoring opportunity"

To make the point, if the defender is fouled and you would have punished for DOGSO, the the kick up-field is the creation of GSO.
 

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
#19
Not only unrealistic but also unnecessary. Promising attack is not a criterion for determining handball, goal scoring opportunity is. However the way the OP is written, the goal scoring opportunity is created almost immediately (the time it takes for the ball to travel in one kick). The law says "and then: creates a goal scoring opportunity"

To make the point, if the defender is fouled and you would have punished for DOGSO, the the kick up-field is the creation of GSO.
So you need to wait to see what happens before making a decision on whether the defending player has committed a handball offence then, which is what I've been saying all along.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#20
So you need to wait to see what happens before making a decision on whether the defending player has committed a handball offence then
Yes. How else would you find out if the non-deliberate handball has created a GSO or has resulted in a goal.

What is in dispute/debate here is how long should you wait and how far can the distance be between the handball and where the GSO occurs or the goal is? Neither of which are addressed by LOTG or are very clear.
 
Top