Question Number: 32843

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/26/2018

RE: Adult

Ref of Syd, Nsw Aus asks...

Indirect FK awarded to attacking team inside opponents penalty box. It is taken and handled by defender on the goalline stops it going in. But its IDK so restart DF penalty and just YC? Correct?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

LOL No red card for DOGSO as you can not deny the goal that would not count but since the DH is the 2nd touch you could apply advantage, given the ball did not deflect & go in but stayed out of goal the DFK/PK for the deliberate handing is correct the USB yellow card correct also. Basically this foolish move cost him as he needed to get out of the way to allow the ball into the goal to be rewarded with a goal kick back out. So it seems this DH might be more accidental in nature ??? Something to think about? Mind you hard to just let a ball go into your goal, a lot of reactionary effort would be reluctant to allow it. That said we 100% sure this was a deliberate attempt to play the ball?
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Interesting one.
I'll point out, as a matter of course, that the handling must be deliberate. Completely accidental, unavoidable handling is not an offence, no matter the outcome.
Having said that, assuming it is deliberate handling, is it a caution?

The LOTG state that it's a caution to deliberately handle the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal.

Personally I think the LOTG are a bit ambiguous in this situation. On one hand, it was an attempt to prevent a goal - on the other, it was never going to be a goal. But I think it's the unsporting nature of the attempt that's the issue, so I think the LOTG are supporting a caution.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
First decision is that it is a penalty kick.
The second one is tricky in that a goal has not been denied as it was an IDFK. So it cannot be a red card. I am of the opinion that the referee has some discretion here on the caution in that a penalty has been awarded.
The Law was amended in 2016 to state that a player *stopping a promising attack* in the penalty area is not cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball. That means that the principle of an award of a penalty kick a caution is not compulsory. Having said that handling is viewed negatively in all situations as it is not an attempt to play the ball legally.
My sense is that the player has acted stupidly or maybe he saw a touch which no one else saw?
As I said it cannot be a red card and there is discretion on the yellow card. I would opine that a card is *expected* as without the IDFK it is a certain red so a yellow will be the *best* decision in the circumstances. I cannot see how what would normally be a red card offence not result in any card sanction.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

If, and only if, this was a case of deliberate handling, the referee must award a penalty kick. As to a caution, I agree with my colleagues that a caution is not only the expected, but the correct decision - although the Laws are perhaps not quite totally clear on this.

In 2006, there was a FIFA Q&A item that dealt with the directly analogous situation of what decision a referee should give if a player handles deliberately to stop the ball going into the net from a throw-in. The answer given was:

''A penalty kick would be awarded. The referee would normally caution the player for unsporting behaviour. The player does not prevent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity since a goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in.''

Although various parts of the law have changed since, I can't see any subsequent amendment that would invalidate this response, so I think the player should still be cautioned for this act of unsporting behaviour..

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

See Question: 32849

See Question: 32857