What would you do?
- Thread starter HullRef
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Not sure if Ive missed something major, but to me it seemed like a fairly obvious handball, red card, penalty situation...
frank_ref
Well-Known Member
What a gong show! Here's what happens:
Hertha Berlin player shoots. Nürnberg guy handballs on the line. Ramos (Berlin) puts it in the net but the goal is disallowed because he was offside when the original shot was taken.
Therefore: no goal, but should be penalty and red card for Petrak (Nürnberg) for DOGSO by hand.
Instead the referee gives the red card, then disallows the goal for offside, then takes back the red card, then restarts play with a Nürnberg free-kick for offside. It kinda looks like he books a Berlin player for protesting too, but not a hundred percent about that. The reason for not giving the penalty is presumably because the assistant referee thinks Ramos was impeding the goalkeeper and/or defender while offside.
To add insult to injury, Nürnberg scored again in added time to win 3-1.
What would I do? Well, there are two answers: with the benefit of hindsight I'd probably blow my whistle, go talk to the assistant, ascertain that the goal couldn't stand because of offside, but then award a penalty and give the Nürnberg player a red card, having told my assistant that I didn't think Ramos's position affected Petrak's handball. Then I'd explain it quickly to the Berlin captain so that he understood why the goal couldn't stand and get on with it.
Good refereeing, huh?
The second answer - what I'd actually do if I was there in real time, with no replay to help me out - is impossible to know. Hell, I may even do worse than this well-paid, highly experienced top level professional referee, wink wink. He makes an honest decision, based on what his assistant has told him, and you can't blame him for that. The two mistakes he does make, I think, are: a) not checking with his assistant before flashing the red card; and b) not explaining to Hertha Berlin - the captain or whoever - that the goal has been disallowed and why. There's a lot of confusion there, with players celebrating even as he awards the free-kick for offside. "He was offside. He was interfering with the defender. No goal." It wouldn't take long and I doubt they would have liked it - there's no way in my mind that Ramos did interfere with the handballing defender - but I think in such a situation they deserved an explanation.
Hertha Berlin player shoots. Nürnberg guy handballs on the line. Ramos (Berlin) puts it in the net but the goal is disallowed because he was offside when the original shot was taken.
Therefore: no goal, but should be penalty and red card for Petrak (Nürnberg) for DOGSO by hand.
Instead the referee gives the red card, then disallows the goal for offside, then takes back the red card, then restarts play with a Nürnberg free-kick for offside. It kinda looks like he books a Berlin player for protesting too, but not a hundred percent about that. The reason for not giving the penalty is presumably because the assistant referee thinks Ramos was impeding the goalkeeper and/or defender while offside.
To add insult to injury, Nürnberg scored again in added time to win 3-1.
What would I do? Well, there are two answers: with the benefit of hindsight I'd probably blow my whistle, go talk to the assistant, ascertain that the goal couldn't stand because of offside, but then award a penalty and give the Nürnberg player a red card, having told my assistant that I didn't think Ramos's position affected Petrak's handball. Then I'd explain it quickly to the Berlin captain so that he understood why the goal couldn't stand and get on with it.
Good refereeing, huh?
The second answer - what I'd actually do if I was there in real time, with no replay to help me out - is impossible to know. Hell, I may even do worse than this well-paid, highly experienced top level professional referee, wink wink. He makes an honest decision, based on what his assistant has told him, and you can't blame him for that. The two mistakes he does make, I think, are: a) not checking with his assistant before flashing the red card; and b) not explaining to Hertha Berlin - the captain or whoever - that the goal has been disallowed and why. There's a lot of confusion there, with players celebrating even as he awards the free-kick for offside. "He was offside. He was interfering with the defender. No goal." It wouldn't take long and I doubt they would have liked it - there's no way in my mind that Ramos did interfere with the handballing defender - but I think in such a situation they deserved an explanation.
Last edited:
The ref could get away with saying that he played an advantage for an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, however the scoring player was offside, so technically the handballing defender did not deny a goalscoring opportunity as the ball did go in the net - the offside was not the defenders fault. 
I guess he could probably technically get away with that but I think he's made the best call possible in the heat of the moment. The offside player was clearly making an effort to get to the ball after the shot.
Berlin will feel hard done by though. Some referees would possibly say penalty RC. Some would say offside. Completely depends on how you view the striker moving towards the ball.
I guess he could probably technically get away with that but I think he's made the best call possible in the heat of the moment. The offside player was clearly making an effort to get to the ball after the shot.
Berlin will feel hard done by though. Some referees would possibly say penalty RC. Some would say offside. Completely depends on how you view the striker moving towards the ball.
frank_ref
Well-Known Member
The ref could get away with saying that he played an advantage for an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, however the scoring player was offside, so technically the handballing defender did not deny a goalscoring opportunity as the ball did go in the net - the offside was not the defender's fault.
I guess he could probably technically get away with that but I think he's made the best call possible in the heat of the moment. The offside player was clearly making an effort to get to the ball after the shot.
Hm. We need to clear things up a little here. If the handball is given technically play stops right there so it doesn't matter what happens afterwards.
Also, you can't really give advantage to a player in an offside position.
Finally, you should only play advantage in preference to awarding a penalty if you're almost certain someone is going to score. And, really, it's not advantage, it's just a delay on the whistle. You wait a second or two and if the ball goes in the net, all good. If not, peep and award the penalty.
I find it hard to imagine someone could say the striker was interfering with the handballing defender and influenced his infringement - but then, that's exactly what the assistant referee did in this case. And that's coming from someone who's probably harsher than most on judging "interfering with play" (see this thread for evidence of that
).
referee probabably just wanted the ground to swallow him up after that little lot. i'm with frank on this one, all the way
is it fair to say, frank, that if you'd messed up in a similar vein, you'd have had a quiet word with the Nurnburg captain and told him that, if they didn't gift a goal to hertha in the next five minutes, you'd start dishing out cards until they did
is it fair to say, frank, that if you'd messed up in a similar vein, you'd have had a quiet word with the Nurnburg captain and told him that, if they didn't gift a goal to hertha in the next five minutes, you'd start dishing out cards until they did
Here are my views:
1.) When the shot is taken, the player is in an offside position, as the ball gets closer to the goal the player then stops at about the goal area line and "waits" for the rebound (he is not offside yet)
2.) The defender then clears the original shot off the line with his hand (DOGSO).
3.) You can't possibly play advantage because the player who is on the goal area line would be offside from the rebound.
4.) You also can't say that the striker is interfering with the defender because he is in front of the defender and the ball is played over the top of his head and so therefore he hasn't made an attempt to play it, he is only waiting for the rebound. Because the defender has denied the original shot he should be sent off and a penalty awarded.
It is an interesting situation, at my RA meeting a level 5 or 6 referee said he would give offside if the ball went in the goal but give the penalty if it didn't go in??
Pick one or the other
1.) When the shot is taken, the player is in an offside position, as the ball gets closer to the goal the player then stops at about the goal area line and "waits" for the rebound (he is not offside yet)
2.) The defender then clears the original shot off the line with his hand (DOGSO).
3.) You can't possibly play advantage because the player who is on the goal area line would be offside from the rebound.
4.) You also can't say that the striker is interfering with the defender because he is in front of the defender and the ball is played over the top of his head and so therefore he hasn't made an attempt to play it, he is only waiting for the rebound. Because the defender has denied the original shot he should be sent off and a penalty awarded.
It is an interesting situation, at my RA meeting a level 5 or 6 referee said he would give offside if the ball went in the goal but give the penalty if it didn't go in??
Pick one or the other
frank_ref
Well-Known Member
referee probably just wanted the ground to swallow him up after that little lot. i'm with frank on this one, all the way
is it fair to say, frank, that if you'd messed up in a similar vein, you'd have had a quiet word with the Nurnburg captain and told him that, if they didn't gift a goal to hertha in the next five minutes, you'd start dishing out cards until they did
You know me too well.
The offside player did not interfere with the player who handled the ball, ergo there was no offside offence because the ball was out of play (the referee blew the whistle) before and came active (thus committing and offence).