Question Number: 19903

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/8/2008

RE: Rec Under 15

Luigi Semenzato of Oakland, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 19749

Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity by handling is punished with a red card, and the restart is a penalty kick. My question is: if the player who commits the DOGSO could have stopped the ball with his body, head, or legs, then it is not a DOGSO, correct? I am talking about the case of an inexperienced player who instinctively grabs the ball with her hands when she could have deflected it with her leg or her body. Perhaps she would not have succeeded, but the Opportunity is no longer Obvious, correct? This would leave the DOGSO to cases in which it would be obviously impossible to reach the ball without using one's hands.

Also, I am posting this with reference to 19749 to ask another question. Is it possible that we referees train ourselves a bit too much to never admitting mistakes? I am talking about Chris's suggestion that he was verbally abused in question 19739. I find it obvious that he was (the exact words are 'you're being dense') and it saddens me that there are a lot of explanations why this is OK, and no apology (that I have seen). The Laws of the Game are complex and sometimes may appear ambiguous or contradictory. I didn't think his question was dense. Given that we demand high standards of behavior of players, coaches, and spectators, shouldn't it be one of our goals to uphold the same standards among ourselves?

Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

DOGSO by handling is punished with the sending off, and the restart will depend on where the handling took place. Example: goalkeeper comes out of his area, and catches the ball in his hands to prevent a goal. He is guilty of DOGSOH and will be sent off, but the offense occurred outside of the penalty area, so the only possible restart is a direct free kick from where the handling occurred.

If the denial of the goal was done in a legal manner - played by the defender without a Law 12 offense - then there is no DOGSO - by any means.

Being dense means someone is not paying attention to information clearly and freely available. The question was about language which is very clearly in the Laws, if only it was read. The description was not meant to be demeaning or verbally abusive, but to point up the obvious - the answer he sought was very plainly in the very Law of which he only quoted a portion. And, his same question had already been asked and answered before he wrote again.

We do indeed have high standards, and it is frustrating to get questions from REFEREES that don't require interpretation or experience or anything other than simply reading the Laws. Asking that referee have read the Laws is a minimum standard not a high standard.

You are correct that the Laws can often seem or even be contradictory or ambiguous and that is why we exist - to try and help referees resolve those issues. We use humor, cajoling, honesty and sometimes the well placed kick in the rear to get our points across - just as would happen in the referee tent or in the assessor's circle.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

The foul of handles the ball deliberately is a DFK and only a PK if it occurs inside the offenders PA. If the referee holds the opinion that the goal was denied the ONLY possible decision is to send the culprit off. But I agree there is a factor of if the ball is caught by an deliberate but instinctive grab for a ball towards the centre mass of the body especially at the youth level we are almost questioning if the DFK foul SHOULD be called never mind the DOGSO. It is nearly an accidental event BUT if it was a deliberate action that as you state the player could have moved out of the way or used another body part but DID NOT DO SO! Now whether we relate this to a deer in the headlights syndrome or a brain cramp it is what it is if it was deliberate and did deny the goal, in a match of 11 versus 11 regulation soccer the player is sent off. If it was accidental then there is no DFK thus no DOGSO! While I judge each action on its merits I find it far from obvious and do not support your assumption
'This would leave the DOGSO to cases in which it would be obviously impossible to reach the ball without using one's hands.'

No one said it was ok to be deliberately derogatory what I responded to was perception and reality affect what we think and what we do.
My regrets are for the thousands nay millions who are inflicted with pain and needless suffering because the hearts and minds of those who CHOOSE to be evil for power and greed condemn the human race in the way of a universal galactic observer providing interstellar footnotes of an insignificant biological mistake likely to foster its own destruction.

Each panel member speaks for themselves there is NO party line to follow other than conscience and faith in our choices
We all do what we do and the reasons are many and varied. I do not choose to offer meaningless apologies or look for ways to belittle another. Yet at some point in time I likely have done both and felt it was ok. Standards and being accountable are glossy terms but substance and style over truth and fact is something we all deal with to some degree. If one chooses to be insulted because that was intended or only perceived one still feels bad. My point get over, it simply has no significance, pedestal worship has no relevance, we are all the same, it is a game, played mostly for fun and those on this panel mean only to share observations and commit to the truth as we know it.
IF I am to feel sorry for someone then it is for those who treat others with contempt and scorn and know not the choice to be more than they are is only a prayer away! While I think it noble to defend your colleague I think he is more than capable of seeking what he wants himself.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

There is no restart for the DOGSO. The restart is based on the manner of the DOGSO and where it is committed. Were the handling to occur outside the PA the restart is a DFK. I'm not sure I understand your question. It doesn't matter if the player in question could have stopped the ball with another part of her anatomy. All that matters is that the goal was denied by deliberately handling the ball and the player was not the keeper within her own penalty area.
As to Chris's question: no the question wasn't dense. I think we all were wondering why he didn't read the rest of law 13 that clearly gave the correct answer and we had to answer him twice when a simple reading of Law 13 should have shown him the answer. My understanding from his follow up was that he was receiving a lot of flack from his fellow referees that were ignoring the rest of Law 13. The perceived 'denseness' was the apparant ignoring of the rest of Law 13.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 19947