Question Number: 30773

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/17/2016

RE: Rec Adult

russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

This question is related to DOGSO and subsequent penalty kick infringement.

Am watching the Hull v Arsenal match right now, and two questions regarding the red cards issued, and the penalty.

The commentary team asked if the red card justified? While the shot was goal bound, and the defenders hand clearly strikes the ball, the keeper looked to be positioned in a way that could very well have saved the shot. We will never know of course, however, this is the basis of the question.
The hand striking the ball does deny us opportunity to find to if the keeper was able to make the save, so I would think the red is the right call.

Secondly, while the penalty kick was taken, the red carded player (Livermore) was still on the pitch as he was still walking off. The penalty kick did not enter the goal. Should the kick have been retaken as there was an infringement by the defending team " having an illegal player on the field.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
I watched this and it was the correct decision of a penalty and a red card for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Yes we do not know what would have happened had the player not handled it yet it was an opportunity to score that was denied.
In respect of the penalty kick that was just poor mechanics by the referee. It had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the kicks or subsequent play. For me it is trifling and common sense says ignore it.
Now having said all this there was an incident in a League of Irealnd game where a similar scenario happened between St Patricks Athlectic and Longford Town. See 85th minute of this video in the attached article.
http://www.the42.ie/st-pats-longford-3-3-2769367-May2016/
The 4th official there was less lenient and it resulted in a retake.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
the best advice is not to shoot yourself in the remaining foot while cramming your other foot into the mouth. The laws allow for a deliberate save only if it was legal. To deliberately handle the ball preventing a opportunity to score, not just a sure goal' is a sending off offence if you believe that the ball COULD have entered the goal. If you felt the ball flight was headed wide or over and not going to score that is different than another player (keeper) might be able to also intercept. We are judging opportunity not certainty. Finish the sending off THEN get on with the P.K.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Russell,
Bear in mind that it's an obvious goal or obvious goalscoring opportunity.
There's an argument that if the ball looks like it's easy for the keeper to stop, then it's not a red card. Some referees disagree with that.
If you do follow that logic, I would argue that you'd want to err towards wanting to be really, really sure that it was a very easy ball for the keeper. This was a close-range shot which was headed to the keeper's side. While there may be a fair chance the keeper could have stopped it, there's a fair chance he wouldn't have either. So that satisfies OGSO for me.

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

See Question: 30776