Question Number: 32857

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/29/2018

RE: Adult

Ref of Sydney, Nsw Aus asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32843

So saying it was deliberate and is the second touch.

Keith Hackett and Mark Hasley say different to your thoughts.

I'm thinking along your lines.


Keith Hacket Tweet
Tim - here is why it is a red card and penalty kick. If the ball deflects off the defender you are awarding a goal. Therefore the defender deliberately handling the ball has touched it and hence committed the Denial of an obvious goal!! Hence red card and PK
Mark Halsey Tweet.
It would only be a yellow card if when a player deliberately handles the ball, and a goal is still scored

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'it was deliberate and is the second touch.' If you're talking about the handling, it has to be assumed to be deliberate for any question of what decision should be given, to arise but it was not a second touch. A 'second touch' offence is where the free kick taker touches the ball again before another player has done so. In this example there is no 'second touch', just a touch by an opposing team player.

I firmly believe the two individuals you cite are wrong in their conclusions as to how this offence should be treated and the key to why they are wrong is there in Keith Hackett's own words. He says, ''if the defender denies an obvious goal by commuting an handling offence it is penalty kick and red card!'' (He obviously meant to say 'committing' not 'commuting'). But that's the thing - the defender did not deny an obvious goal as a goal cannot be scored from an IFK. It's exactly the same principle as in the FIFA Q&A answer I referenced in the earlier question and which says that if a defender handles a throw-in that was headed into the net, there would be no red card because ''The player does not prevent a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity since a goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in.''

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

My colleague sums up the question nicely!

You are indeed thinking correctly if you choose to think along our lines!


Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
As we said a goal CANNOT be scored directly from an indirect free kick so no goal has been denied. In certain circumstances a goal scoring opportunity could be denied if the handling say prevented an opponent from scoring a goal.
That though was not the scenario that was presented.
Only correct decision in Law is a penalty kick and a caution as nothing has been denied. Indeed one could argue more strongly for no card at all!
What I make of the answers from the two retired senior referees is that if the handling is unsuccessful from stopping the ball it results in a goal and a caution by playing advantage. That is fine. Their argument it would seem is that the successful handling has prevented the ball from going into the goal AFTER the handling so a goal has been denied.
That is a sort of reverse logic thinking as the handling has put the ball in play which then as the ball did not go into the goal AFTER the handling it is a goal denied.
The Laws of the Game does not use reverse logic or backwards reasoning. As Referee Grove already said in a previous FIFA Q&A it clearly stated that a goal cannot be scored from a throw in with the answer for deliberate handling stopping the ball entering the goal at a throw in was a penalty kick and a possible caution. The FIFA answer clearly stated ** The player does not prevent a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity since a goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in. **
The same can be said for an Indirect Free Kick.