Question Number: 20663

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 12/12/2008

RE: competive High School

Dave of Newington, CT US of A asks...

I had a situation that came up in a high school match in which a defender (not the keeper) reached out and caught the ball just outside the goal he was defending. Like a deer in the headlights he looked stuned when he realized what he had done an immediately dropped the ball. An alert opponent realized this was still a live ball, as I had not yet called a foul, and put the ball in the het. I awarded the goal an showed a yellow card for UB. Had the ball been cleared the card would have been a red with a send off & a PK awarded. My question is: What would the call be if the defender, realizeing what the consaquences would be if a goal didn't occur quickly, decided it was in his and his teams best interest to intentionaly score an own goal? Wouldn this eliminate the need for the red card & send off as well as the PK? Would this even elliminate the yellow as one could argue the overall behavior was not unsporting.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

An own goal is advantageous to the attacking team so the send off for DOGSO, assuming the referee felt it WAS a DOGSO -H moment, is rescinded, provided the referee can swallow the whistle long enough to see what happens. We must remember the criteria of the 4 Ds where we evaluate the circumstances does not apply to point 4 of the send offs for a DELIBERATE HANDLING incident. ? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) While the ball does not always have to be headed into directly into the goal there must be circumstances that WITHOUT the foul of deliberate handling, a scoring opportunity was TAKEN away.

As to whether you MUST caution and show a yellow card?
In the interest of the match needs it is not inconceivable we could simply restart with a kick off and have a laugh at the defender's expense.

A caution for breaking up attacking play could seem redundant here. The NEED to caution show a yellow card, one could ask is it required to affect the necessary change in behaviour? Whether a rash act and the sequence of restitution resolved this to everyone's satisfaction given a goal was scored? Not sure the defender's team mates would agree 100%, but seems fair to me. ;o)

I have this idea that one should get something for the match benefit in return for the card but then again sometimes USB is USB and requires a yellow card to reset the standard of fair play A for sure goal sure sets up a fair trade in my opinion
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

I don't see where a caution was required in any of the instances you mention, including the actual event. Possible, yes. Required? Not at all.

As for the defender who engineers an own goal to save his rear, that would work, if the referee decided to apply advantage (recommended). After all, the somewhat deliberate handling came first, so that is punishable with a PK. As for DOGSO, was the ball going into the goal? If not, there may not be a DOGSO, but simply a caution for USB in addition to the PK.

In a men's lower division game, a guy actually caught the ball in his hands, panicked when he realized what he had done, dropped it. I was holding the whistle waiting to see if an attacker would kick it in, but then the guy bent down, picked it up and handed it to me! Only PK I ever gave without having to blow the whistle! :-)

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

See Question: 20691