A shot on target is spa. He didn't deny a goal by handling. The opportunity was already gone because he took the shot.
WHU vs NFO
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
A shot on target is spa. He didn't deny a goal by handling. The opportunity was already gone because he took the shot.
DOGSO-H doesn't usually have the GK directly behind the defender.
I've had Development Days in which the Trainers have told us there's no such thing as SPA-H. Semantics, but they wanted such things to be cautioned for 'lack of respect' or 'unspecified' I just see it as 'general unsporting behaviour' as opposed to SPA by definition
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In futsal, the law is clear, if the GK is in position, there's no DOGSO. But I don't believe that's the case in big football...
Or is the idea to equate this with a handball from a cross, which some guidance somewhere says now can "never" be a YC... so this is some kind of downgrade situation...?
Or is the idea to equate this with a handball from a cross, which some guidance somewhere says now can "never" be a YC... so this is some kind of downgrade situation...?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Cross post there - but yes - this is floating around... is that the logic here?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In the end, we don't want to give cards for the sake of it, we just want to be consistent, so it's an interesting case.
I thought that a deliberate handball 6 yards out, to stop an on-target shot - would be DOGSO-H - even if there were 7 players on the line...
I thought that a deliberate handball 6 yards out, to stop an on-target shot - would be DOGSO-H - even if there were 7 players on the line...
That's what we've been taught. It doesn't matter. All just semantics and caution codes. Anyway, sometimes it takes an incident to set case law or a precedent
In all of your years watching football why would you possibly think that's the case?
bester
RefChat Addict
As you know it's in the book as an offence. I've seen people argue that it doesn't apply when penalties are given as the opportunity is restored but that carve out doesn't apply SPA-H.
These development days try to be clever often with very little basis in law to support a creative approach to avoid showing cards.
You'll probably be told it's not delaying the restart because all free kicks around the area are on the whistle anyway.
I wouldn't agree with that. Maybe Futsal logic interfering with your judement
Upper body push/pull offences and Handball reds/cautions are never downgraded for playing an advantage etc. I just see this caution as common sense for an incident which is not explicitly dealt with in Law
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Two "game management" YCs for Forest at the end. First one, ref does not use his notebook, game continues quickly. Second one, uses notebook, play restarts behind his back had to stop play. Not good presentation with seconds to go.
Also looked like at least two offsides in build ups not flagged - we need a new name for this TV-wait-and-see-VAR - I find this is really hard to get used to. It does massively advantage attackers, which must be a good thing. But there are going to be a lot of goals in second phases after quite clear offsides. It's really awkward for the ARs when they know it's an offence but they are under orders not to flag. That's a weird situation for on-field officials to be in.
Also looked like at least two offsides in build ups not flagged - we need a new name for this TV-wait-and-see-VAR - I find this is really hard to get used to. It does massively advantage attackers, which must be a good thing. But there are going to be a lot of goals in second phases after quite clear offsides. It's really awkward for the ARs when they know it's an offence but they are under orders not to flag. That's a weird situation for on-field officials to be in.
An attacker receiving the ball with only the goalkeeper to beat should be interpreted as an obvious goalscoring opportunity, but a shot heading for goal with only the goalkeeper to beat should not be interpreted as an obvious goalscoring opportunity?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Back to the DOSGO, for anyone wanting to see the book:
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)
Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.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 (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).
A player, sent-off player, substitute or substituted player who enters the field of play without the required referee’s permission and interferes with play or an opponent and denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is guilty of a sending-off offence.
The following must be considered:
- distance between the offence and the goal
- general direction of the play
- likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball
- location and number of defenders
---
So, was it a goalscoring opportunity?
The crazy thing is, if it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity, what is the justification for a yellow card? I don't find anything in law that justifies a yellow, so how can that be right? If you don't think it's DOGSO-H, surely there is no card?
Because a handball that stops a shot on target that doesn't rise to the level of denying a goal is a consideration for stopping a promising attack.
deusex
RefChat Addict
An attacker one on one with the keeper would have, say, a 70% chance of scoring.
I'll be generous and say there was a 5% chance of the West Ham shot going in.
It was definitely a foul by Antonio, both hands out and a push in the chest, very obvious and surprised the officials missed it real time. Disallowed goal of offside was also spot on.
I don't think Rob Jones has much of a chance of seeing the handling by McKenna real time, it happens very quickly and not even all West Ham players were appealing. Without VAR he is definitely seeing red as there is no way real time you would have enough information to say that the keeper would save. But with VAR it was very obvious he would, so I'm happy with a caution. Law has been applied as if the keeper was clearly going to save he didn't prevent a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling.
I don't think Rob Jones has much of a chance of seeing the handling by McKenna real time, it happens very quickly and not even all West Ham players were appealing. Without VAR he is definitely seeing red as there is no way real time you would have enough information to say that the keeper would save. But with VAR it was very obvious he would, so I'm happy with a caution. Law has been applied as if the keeper was clearly going to save he didn't prevent a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by handling.
And since I already know what comments are coming, I'll make this post now.
The laws give absolutely no information on what stopping a promising attack is. It is one of those cautions that is entirely based on considerations from IFAB and other governing bodies. Among those considerations for SPA are number of defenders back, number of passing options, space for the attacker to go into, etc. Included in those considerations at every level of the professional game is a handball that stops a shot on goal is SPA.
Why is a straight leg studs exposed tackle into the shin SFP? What makes that specific tackle fall into "endangering the safety of an opponent"? Because the considerations put out by IFAB/FIFA/FA say it does. The laws say absolutely nothing about studs into the shin. It's the same reason a shot on goal handball is SPA. Because IFAB/FIFA says it is when they train refs.
The laws give absolutely no information on what stopping a promising attack is. It is one of those cautions that is entirely based on considerations from IFAB and other governing bodies. Among those considerations for SPA are number of defenders back, number of passing options, space for the attacker to go into, etc. Included in those considerations at every level of the professional game is a handball that stops a shot on goal is SPA.
Why is a straight leg studs exposed tackle into the shin SFP? What makes that specific tackle fall into "endangering the safety of an opponent"? Because the considerations put out by IFAB/FIFA/FA say it does. The laws say absolutely nothing about studs into the shin. It's the same reason a shot on goal handball is SPA. Because IFAB/FIFA says it is when they train refs.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I thought there was no such thing as SPA-H
based on previous posts
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Here's the section from FIFA's considerations document. I don't think it really helps in this case...
Breaking up a promising attack
| 21 | What is the distance between the offence and the goal? |
| 22 | Does the player have control of the ball? |
| 23 | Can the player gain control of the ball? |
| 24 | What is the direction of play? |
| 25 | How many defenders are involved in the situation? |
| 26 | Where are the defenders located? |
| 27 | How many attackers are involved in the situation? |
| 28 | Where are the attackers located? |
| 29 | How many options to pass the ball did the player have when he was fouled? |
| 30 | Does the challenge break up a promising attack? |