Question Number: 25234

Mechanics 7/19/2011

RE: Competitive/Premier Under 19

Referee Jack of Issaquah, WA USA asks...

This is more a question of mechanics and timing than rule interpretation. However, I would welcome your perspective.

I was an AR for a tournament game this past weekend among the top U-17 Boys teams in the Northwest. It was group play, and both teams were advancing to the semis.

The attacking and defending teams had several players in the penalty area and the ball was pinging around among the players. In the flurry of activity, an attacker hit a shot that a defender blocked just off the goal line with his extended arm( making himself bigger). The ball deflected directly off the defender's arm to an attacker who immediately kicked the ball in for goal.

The attacking players who were instinctively yelling handball immediately went silent 1 second later when their teammate kicked the ball into the net.

The CR looked at me, I looked at him, signaled goal and ran up the touchline for the kickoff.

I normally apply the wait and see approach as an AR for an offside infraction, but my question is should I have done the same for this handling offense?

If I would have immediately signaled handling(I had a better angle than the CR), the CR would have had to either overrule me, or we would have taken away a goal and forced a penalty kick. Is there guidance as to how long to wait for advantage to materialize from a handling offense? In this instance it was the next touch on the ball.

I was planning to signal handling and suggest the CR award a penalty kick had the attacking team not been able to play advantage.

We did not send off the player for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, because a goal was scored. If we would have called handling we would have awarded a penalty kick, his foul would have denied a obvious goal scoring opportunity(blocking a ball in flight)and we would have a send off offense for DOGSO by the offending defender.

Correct? or open to suggestions.

Signed...Are those 17 year old boys fast, or am I getting slower?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Referee Jack
We are all getting slower.
Anyway the referee should adopt the same wait and see approach on deliberate handling as on any other foul. The situation as described was handled very well. Is there an optimum time to wait?. The answer to that is no and each situation will dictate the referee's approach. Should the ball land to the foot of a defender who kicks the ball clear the whistle should sound immediately. Should the attacker control the ball and then pass the ball to a team mate in a goalscoring position again the referee should just delay ever so slightly to evaluate this. Clearly if the length of time exceeds 3 seconds it is unlikely that the referee can go back to the original foul.
Finally the award of the penalty. When it is stone wall penalty IMO the referee can delay over the award. When he does award he probably has less of a challenge to 'sell his decision'. On the more difficult call any delay will be seen as listening to the call or changing one's mind. On those the timing is critical and if there is no apparent goal scoring opportunity then it does help to make a clear certain decision close to where the offence took place. The referee is then seen to be in no doubt.
BTW in this goal the CR should certainly have a word with the player who handled the ball. The player may also be caution should the referee decides that its blatant nature required disciplinary action perhaps in line with other such handling offences in the game.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Advantage can be applied in the penalty area, but it must be a very good advantage. At least as good as a penalty kick. When the goal is scored, that's good.

USSF has advised us to not signal for advantage in the penalty area. Instead, wait a moment before blowing the whistle (or in the AR's case, before raising the flag) to see if the anticipated advantage materializes. If so, if a goal is scored or a good shot is taken within a couple seconds, then count it. If a player cannot get off a shot, then call the foul and go with the PK. It will simply look like the whistle was delayed for a second or two. And if a goal is scored, then no goal has been denied, so there is no send-off. You could consider a caution, but often a talking-to is sufficient: 'You know, if that hadn't gone in, you'd be seeing the red card now.'

Remember that a goal scored is not the only sign that advantage has accrued. The player may screw up his advantage all by himself, such as by shooting high or wide. If the player has a clear advantage and squanders it, that's his problem not yours.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The challenges for an assistant referee are more complex in this situation. But, your judgment was perfect.

The assistant referee should only call fouls that: (a) are not seen by the referee; and (b) which this referee would have called if she had seen them (i.e., using the referee's standard, not the AR's).

Outside the penalty area, it is often easy to determine IF the referee saw the foul and is allowing an advantage. A quick glance will reveal a big visual signal and shout of 'play on' or 'advantage' by the referee. Inside the penalty area, however, the referee makes no such signals. She uses Wait and See to determine if the ball immediately goes into goal. If so, she allows the goal. If not, she calls for the PK.

This means that the AR must take more time to determine the answer to the first question: did the referee see it? What is the referee's position - isshe close to play? Does she have a good angle? Or, has she been screened?

Although an assistant referee does not have the power to grant or revoke an advantage (a power reserved for the referee), the second factor gives the assistant the ability to watch what happens. If the referee saw it and would have allowed the advantage, then the answer to the second factor is No, the referee would NOT have called this foul. If the AR hesitates a second or two before raising the flag to see what develops, the decision becomes clear. Again, wait and see.

Because a goal was scored by the attacking team, you are correct that this is not a sendoff event. Whether or not a caution would be appropriate would depend on match circumstances. In my experience, a caution usually adds nothing when the result of the handling is a goal for the other team.

A good goal has been scored, and the referee is giving the AR a hard stare. Why? This often means that the referee isn't sure WHO handled the ball. Running up the line confirms that it was a defender, and not an attacker.

Finally, we talk a lot about a good pregame. But, this event identifies what can be as valuable to referees: a good postgame. Did you discuss the event among the referee team. Did you confirm what she saw or didn't, and why? What you saw and did, and why? How you could have helped her more? What did she could have done to be get clearer information from you? Did she look to the trail assistant? What did he see? A good post game improves the next match.

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

See Question: 25247