Question Number: 29055

Mechanics 12/16/2014

RE: Adult

Scott of Livermore, CA USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 29050

This is concerning the scenario where a defender handles a ball that was destined for a goal, and after the ball rebounds off his hand away from goal another attacker scores. Your reply was to play advantage, award the goal, and possibly caution the defender who handled the ball. The following link is to a well argued blog that disagrees with your position. The writer sees the deliberate handling as a separate offense requiring a red card since a goal was not scored 'directly', followed by the advantage and the subsequent goal. I'm interested in hearing your comments.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Scott
Any such interpretation is totally at odds with the Laws of the Game. If advantage has been applied and a goal has been scored then nothing has been denied. I can assure you that a player who has been sent off for denying an obvious goal, when that has not patently happened through the use of advantage, will result in a protest which will be upheld. Disciplinary panels make decisions that are expected by those in the game and a sending off here is not expected nor justified in law.
I'm disappointed that a site has chosen to put forward this erroneous argument and advice. I wish some would stop playing with words in the manner shown.
This is what USSF has to say on the matter
** In cases where a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied by handling or a foul, but the goal is scored as a result of an advantage being played, the referee must still caution the player for the original offense. This may be applied where the referee is satisfied that the advantage has ensued, where the goal is scored from the advantage after the original foul, no matter who scored it. If the foul was in fact a factor leading to the goal being scored (e.g., a defender handling the ball directly to another opponent who is thus able to score) the same principle will apply.**
I contend that while USSFs advice is a MUST caution (note NOT a sending off) my association and confederation gives greater latitude to referees on the matter of the caution as per the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees which states that ** the player cannot be sent off but he MAY still be cautioned** . A sending off is certainly not an option for a denial that has not been successful.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

It is not an issue that is open for debate. FIFA, NFHS, and NCAA all agree that a sendoff/disqualification is not appropriate when a goal is scored by a teammate following the advantage.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Several years ago it was indeed the USSF position that the first foul denied a goal (to the original attacker) and the advantage benefited the second attacker. That was not the opinion of several FA's in Europe. At some time IFAB put out an interpretation (not responding to USSF, just clarifying something) and that clarification caused USSF to change their position. Advantage applies to the team, not to an individual. So since a goal was scored, there was no goal denied.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Scott,
writers can write whatever they wish, it is utter nonsense to send off a player for handling the ball deliberately when an advantage or a wait and see delayed whistle, results in a goal as the UNFAIR action, the DENIAL is compensated by the GOAL. The referee must not WHISTLE play dead until after the ball is in the net otherwise the ONLY recourse is a send off and PK. If ANY argument was put forth it COULD be said that playing a man up for the rest of the match with a pk is also a very good advantage for the early whistle.

The DRAMATIC difference in a red card send off FOUL with VC or SFP is the MISCONDUCT is harmful to the SAFETY of the player no matter the result of a goal or not, whereas the ball merely has some finger prints on it! Be interested to know if the writer, as a referee, has ever done as he described? YOUR MATCH! YOUR DECISION! YOUR REPUTATION!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

Sorry Scott,
We are not without fault and can admit a mistake and correct as required but we will not knowingly promote incorrect assumptions! This is a critical incident to which a referee would be held to review as to their handling of the matter. We only offer our opinions ie comments on questions asked to the best of our knowledge and experience. The USSF has undergone some revisions with regards to advantage which now apply universally. We prefer to leave discussion for the discussion boards!
from our pitch to your pitch in the spirit of fair play and a very Merry Christmas