Question Number: 23635

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/7/2010

RE: u9 rec thru Adult comp Other

Brian Lewis of Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada asks...

This question is a follow up to question 23601

This situation refers to aU12 boys rec game and I would like your opinion of my assessment of the situation. The play was in the PA and an attacker kicked toward the net. A defender attempted to play the ball but wasn't successful and the ball deflected toward the keeper. The referee determined it was intentionally kicked back to the keeper and called for a free kick inside the PA. On the taking of the kick, a defender on the goal line between the the posts reflexively raised his hands to protect his upper body and face at which point the referee sent him off for DOGSO and called for a penalty kick which went in. From my vantage point, neither of these was valid at this level of play and coupled with the fact the the defending team was already down by 3 late in the second half, were unnecessary. The defending coach talked to the referee after the game at which time the referee told him that the ball would have hit him in the upper chest if he had kept his hands out of the way (that would have been my assessment as well). Based on that alone, I would not have called DOGSO as the rebound was playable and chest or arm, the ball would not have gotten through from the free kick anyway. Sorry for being so long-winded, just wanted to impart as much information as I could. I did not speak to the referee myself, but am considering sending a note on this to the RIC for the area. I am just hoping to get your thoughts, before proceeding.
Thanks

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

This sounds a bit harsh for this level and age of play. If the defender attempted to play the ball, but miskicked it, then it is NOT considered a deliberate kick to the keeper, and no call should have been made at all.

As for the second one, a reflexive action to protect the face, especially at this level, is not a deliberately handled ball - generally. Now, if he had slapped at the ball as he was protecting his face, we're kinda out of choices. But there was no need or call for a DOGSO here, IMHO - it was an IDFK we assume, since it was for the keeper handling a deliberate kick, so no goal was directly possible anyway. A penalty kick would have been quite enough punishment, if it was even a deliberately handled ball, which I doubt.

Please report this scenario to the local referee assignor and have them visit with the referee and/or send an assessor out to watch and visit. We can't fix what we don't know is wrong.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Lewis
Under 12s rec games should not be subject to the same Laws as adults and indeed these games should not be competitive but fun. So IMO very harsh decisions at this level particularly when its 3-0 with minutes to go. Your question does not give any indication of the age or experience of the referee. That would have a bearing on what to do in these situations. A young experienced referee needs encouragement and mentoring. It depend very much on the attitude of the assignor.
Taking the two incidents into an older competitive age category an IDFK should not be awarded on a deflection to the goalkeeper. The Law states that it should only be given on a deliberate kick by a team mate to the GK.
On handling it must be deliberate and a reflex protection reaction could be a reason not to penalise the offence. As you know it depends on the circumstances, the proximity of the kick, speed etc.
As regards denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity if a player deliberately handles the ball on the goal line with it bound for the goal and a penalty has been awarded it is still a dismissal even if it were likely to hit the player's body as the player's action has denied an obvious goal or goal scoring opportunity. In this case as it is stated it is an IDFK a goal cannot be scored directly from that so it cannot be a DOGSO.
I might suggest that perhaps you contact the organisers of these competitions and ask them to consider amending some of the Laws, field size, referee advice etc so that the referee has confidence in and is encouraged to be flexible in officiating these type of games with a lot more Law 18 applied.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

At U12, referees may not yet have enough experience to discriminate between a deliberate kick to the goalkeeper and a ball that goes there on a deflection/miskick.

Nor may the ref have enough experience to differentiate between deliberate handling and a reflexive, protective move. Although there are nuances to that:
-- The player may claim to only be protecting herself, but the referee will judge whether the ball could have been played some other way. Or if the position of the arms was extended so the player was not just preventing injury, but was also 'making herself bigger'.
-- If the player continues his arm motion after contacting the ball, directing it somewhere, it is no longer just protection but becomes deliberate handling.
-- At high levels of play, such as professional and international games, very little that the players do is an accident. In a game you see on TV, almost any ball-to-hand contact will be called as deliberate.

Followup: It was pointed out to us by our readers that another mistake was made here. If the ball was actually deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper, the resulting free kick would be indirect. Therefore any handling foul that occurred on that kick would not be denying a goal, because no goal can be scored off an indirect kick. It would still be a penalty kick - if the handling was deliberate - but not a send-off.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Can't be DOGSO as the free kick was indirect. Regardless of the fact that this isn't an example of a teammate deliberately kicking the ball to his keeper AND reflexively protecting oneself with his hands is not deliberately handling the ball. Wrong call all the way around.

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

The panel appreciates very much the comments from readers which pointed out an error - now fixed. A defender's deliberate kick to the keeper is only an IDFK, and the handling by the other defender could not have prevented a goal, so no DOGSO was possible. In fact, if the defender had handled the ball and it had gone IN the goal, a goal would have been scored, since the defender's touch would have completed the IDFK.

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

See Question: 23656

See Question: 23657