Question Number: 22430

League Specific 11/4/2009

RE: High School

Dave of Johnstown, PA USA asks...

In a high school game, a ball was sent into the goal area headed high and towards the top of the goal. A red defender jump and grabbed the cross bar and pulled himself up (like doing a pull-up) and headed the ball away. The goal was not especially stable and wobbled a bit. The ball landed and white had 2 chances at the ball. The referee appeared to play an advantage by allowing the play to continue. However, just a moment or two later the ball was kicked out by white. A PK was awarded to white. White scored on the PK.

I'm curious what the law is that covers this penalty (goal interference?) Should the referee have shut down the play sooner and awarded the PK immediately rather than allowing play to continue (albeit perhaps just another 3-4 seconds)

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Dave
Unfortunately the referee made an error in law here.
The player was guilty of unsporting behaviour and the referee was correct to allow advantage in this case. As it did not materialise within 2/3 seconds he stops play, cautions the player and restarts with an indirect free kick on the 6 yard line opposite from where the player did his pull up act.
It cannot be a penalty.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The defender was guilty of misconduct (unsporting conduct). The referee properly waited to see if a goal could be scored immediately, and then stopped play. Because the action was misconduct and not a direct free kick foul, however, the restart should have been an indirect free kick because play was stopped for misconduct. It should not have been a penalty kick. Hopefully, the referee also cautioned and showed the yellow card to the defender.

This situtation also requires a consideration of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO). Under high school rules, however, a disqualification for DOGSO must involve a foul, and thus, a red card is not an option. A different result might occur under TLOG, where DOGSO includes offenses punishable by a free kick, including misconduct; the referee would have to consider whether to sendoff the defender if the misconduct denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Such an action of heading the ball (legal) holding onto the crossbar (illegal) creates a conundrum of the laws.

I consider the grasping of the crossbar to be an EXTENSION of the hands and if the crossbar was pulled down where the ball hit the crossbar I would apply point 4 of the DOGSO send off offences and award a DFK thus PK for handles the ball deliberately.

However because the ball was headed away not handled we judge the action of the (height assist) as USB MISCONDUCT action not covered in law 12 so it is an INDFK from the point of the infraction subject here to law 13 special circumstances in the goal area! This is bookable as USB caution show the yellow card!

I see no justification here for a PK as it is not one of the 10 penal violations to head the ball away while hanging on the crossbar.

The DOGSO for point 5 of the send offs is possible as this misconduct is punishable by a free kick.

I see nothing wrong with application of advantage to await an outcome and then awarding an indfk! If the advantage does not materialize, as a goal here is likely the only real advantage I see as reasonable we are indfk status!

Given the USA high schools has soft reds and maintain only fouls can incur DOGSO I would think the referee has erred in applying their standards to this situation! It is why the laws uniformity is always questioned when changes or deletions are made arbitrarily!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Actually, there's no justification for a penalty kick at all. What direct free kick foul did the player hanging off the crossbar commit? None. What he did was misconduct which can only result in an indirect free kick.

DOGSO in US High School must involve a foul so no send off here either