Question Number: 25395

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/5/2011

RE: Competitive Under 17

Brian Butterworth of Bakersfield, Ca USA asks...

I was refereeing an U16 boys match. Very competitive. 0-0 late in the match red team has a breakaway with only the keeper to beat. The keeper comes out to challenge but gets beat by the attacker. This allowed a defender to catch the attacker. The attacker has a clear run at the goal. The defender in pursuit, out of desperation, slide tackles from behind and takes the legs out from the attacker sending him to the pitch. As the attacker is falling he clearly punches the ball (he was very upset) and it goes into the net. This happened about 10 yards from the goal line directly in front of the net. IMO the ball was headed into the net. I allowed the goal to stand and cautioned the defender. This did not sit well with the defending team. Of course I think they would have rather taken the chance with a PK( and a send off). They were all saying that he deliberately handled the ball when he punched it and therefore no goal allowed.
Here is where I am seeking you and your esteemed colleagues advice.
Clearly the defender was in desperation mode when he took out the attackers legs (he cheated). I told the coach that IMO the attacker did not deliberately handle the ball. That the ball hit his hand as he put his arm out to catch his fall. I will admit that I did take a "slippery slope" liberty with that call. I used the catch all "ITOOTR". The ball would have easily bounced into the net. I understand that as a referee I am supposed to make my call on what DID happen. Not what would have happened. But my thinking at the time was that the defender cheated out of desperation. Admittedly too, I was upset with the defenders action.
Secondly, I should have sent off the defender for SFP but I had already went the route of DOGSO. Or in this case No DOGSO. I wanted to say to the coach to consider himself lucky that he didnt lose a player as well but I did not. At the time my thinking was that since I had already said No DOGSO (but with a caution) I could not go back and say that I had changed my mind and I am now going to send off for SFP.
So what do you think? I am always looking to improve.
Thank you.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brian
Unfortunately the old maxim of 'two wrongs don't make a right' applies here. The correct decision was to award a penalty and dismiss the defender for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The handling reads to me that it was deliberate. If the handling was not deliberate then advantage can be played and the defender cautioned or sent off depending on the manner of the challenge ie reckless or using excessive force.
Now the reason that the player is dismissed is important due the disciplinary sanction that will be imposed by the League. If the defender endangered the safety of an opponent by using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play he must be sanctioned for serious foul play. Whereas a player that denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick he is dismissed for that offence. The disciplinary sanction with range for one game for a DOGSO to perhaps three or more games for serious foul play.
Finally you need to look at these decision in an impassive manner. Did the attacker deliberately handles the ball? Did the defender use excessive force? Did the foul meet all the conditions of a DOGSO. Those all must be factored into your decision and sequence of decision.
In my opinion the defender committed an offence that merited a dismissal. That is the choice that the defender made. Also if the attacker clearly handled the ball then, no matter what, advantage cannot be played and the original first offence must be called.
Had you awarded a penalty and dismissed the player you would have been 100% correct and there would not have been any need to go down a 'slippery slope' which allows the coach and others to perhaps impugn your integrity even though you made your decisions for helpful reasons. As you say the team may have been content with a dismissal and take its chances on the PK. The opponents also may have been content with a dismissal and a penalty. So be it as that is what the laws allow for.
The learning point is to agree in your own mind the correct law decisions here, their sequence and to ensure, when it happens again, that you in fact take the correct course of action in an impassive way. Only do favours for yourself and the good of the game.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

If the ball had gotten into the goal by a legal play, you would have been right to apply advantage and count it. Of course the defenders will want you to not count it and take their chances with the penalty kick. But what they want does not come into the equation. While the player would not be sent off for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity, he could be sent off for serious foul play based on the description of the foul.

If you really believed that the ball happened to bounce off the fouled player's arm and into the goal, then you could count it. But because you need to explain this excuse to us, it's apparent that's all it was, an excuse to award the goal. Sorry, but that's not how it goes. I seem to remember there was a play in the last World Cup where everyone was outraged by the player preventing the goal, but it could not be awarded as it was not scored.

So you should have sent off the player, and restarted with a PK. Perhaps justice would have prevailed and the team would have converted the kick, but we don't know. Or maybe the team would have scored in the waning moments of the game. You can't take matters into your own hands and invent an excuse for giving the goal. If that's harsh, I'm sorry. But you asked for our opinions.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

If you truly believed that the attacker's contact with the ball was inadvertent, then your call was correct in both the letter of the law and the spirit. It is not relevant that an inadvertent contact led to a goal. Inadvertent contact is not deliberate handling.

The problem, however, is that you knew it was deliberate. You write that the attacker deliberately punched the ball; but did so in anger. The letter of the law is plain - - revoke the advantage, PK and sendoff the defender.

What of the spirit of the law?

The infringement was not doubtful (everyone saw the punch), but, as you describe it, the infringement was trifling. You write that (a) the punch was not intended to control the ball; and (b) the ball would have entered the goal even without the handling. The infringement made no difference to the outcome of the play. The ball was going into the net.

The spirit of the law would support ignoring the infringement as trifling, and allowing play to continue.

This is high art. Every step off the letter of the law can either make you a brilliant referee or can lead to disaster. What will be your reputation from this day forward with these teams and your community? Are you a cheat? Are you a facilitator of a fun, safe and FAIR game? Had you followed the law, would the PK (with its 90 percent chance of scoring) and red card (with a team playing short, and the player suspended for the next match) reinforced better the notion that the defender's play was unacceptable? The wise referee knows the exact letter of the law, and then considers the circumstances of this match, and these players on this day. What is needed for the players and what is needed for the Game?

In my view, however, the option you chose - not deliberate - was untrue and everyone knew it. The players can tell a lie from a mile away, and once lost, the referee's credibility is very difficult to regain. Trifling was the better reason to let the results of the play stand. It is true. It is sellable. It is just.

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

See Question: 25450