Question Number: 32858

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/30/2018

RE: Rec Adult

Russell of Sydney, Australia asks...

Another follow-up on Ref of Syd question (DOGSO on an IDFK), as I am thinking of a variation on his original scenario.

What if the IDFK was taken from the top corner of the PA and angled towards the far post. Ball looks like it will be going into goal or possibly hitting the post at least, and there is an attacker moving in (from an onside position) to play the ball if need be.

There is definitely only a single touch up until now, when a defender reaches out (almost diving) to handle the ball to stop it getting to the attacker.

While we do not presume / assume* anything - it is very apparent that if not for the DH, the ball would all but certainly^ progress to a location that the attacker (with no other defender nearby) could play.

Would it still only be yellow, or, raised to red as the probability of a (second) touch from the attacker would be an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Would it stay as only yellow as the first thing that occurred was DH from a single touched IDFK, which proceeds a subsequent DOGSO, or, is it an example where the more serious infraction (DOGSO) is the ruling.

*BTW " I totally agree, we are not to 'presume' or 'read minds'or 'assume' anything, however, I respectively query (and acknowledge being I am being very pedantic here), but if we are allowed to play advantage - are we not kind of assuming/presuming something. Is there a bit of contradiction in the 'advantage' and 'presumption/assumption'.

^only the intervention from an outside agent could stop it getting to the attacker.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Russell,
This is a different scenario and the considerations are completely different. The referee here, only has to decide whether an obvious goal scoring opportunity has been denied to a player by a deliberate handling offence, or not.

If the referee referee thinks that, absent the handling offence, the ball was going to hit the post then I think it would be a very hard sell to give this as a DOGSO offence as there's no telling where the ball would go after that. For me, it would only be if the ball was clearly going to straight to the attacker in a position where they would have had an obvious goal scoring opportunity - and was only prevented from doing so by the illegal handling, that a DOGSO call should result.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Russell
The fact that the ball can be played by another player or that there is a possibility of a rebound to another player then that raises the possibility of denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity as distinct from a goal.
It certainly is stronger when it is to a location that it could be played by an opponent rather than the uncertain one of coming back off a post. Off the post has all sorts of uncertainty such as whether it would hit the post at all and then where would the ball go?
The offence then could easily be denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity not an obvious goal.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Russell,
the layers of possibilities. lol
Denying a goal or denying a goal scoring opportunity?

If a ball is going wide of the goal & it is deliberately handled then it does not deny a goal.

If the ball is on target to a wide open attacker with an opportunity to stick it into the back of the net then the attack is thwarted by a DOGSO H inside the PA thus PK and red card are certainly in play as it obviously denied the opportunity to try for goal

For the INDFK that is going straight into the goal & only a deliberate handling prevents it changes the goal kick restart to a PK restart. But maybe we did assume this was the only possible outcome?

Your version is the ball was on target to hit he goal post or crossbar and that ball could have rebounded in, hit the defender gone into goal or a free attacker takes another go given the ball would be live. However the opportunity to score then was never denied just enhanced by the handling given the ball could now deflect into the goal with no actual player participating.

If an INDFK occurs say 40 yards out and its headed into the penalty area and a defender handles the ball to prevent it getting to the head of a free non offside attacker it changes the question to one of not denying the goal but the opportunity. The restart be it a DFK for outside the PA or a PK inside the situation is now different than not letting the ball across the goal line.

Also note I mentioned the attacker was not offside because if he was, no DOGSO is possible because the attacker cannot participate & if the ball was to enter the goal by itself only a goal kick out.

The illegal handling actually resets the offside so if the ball did get to the head of the offside player it reset the restriction ALLOWING him to have a go. THAT is the advantage aspect, permitting play to continue as the handling is a 2nd touch if it did continue into the goal and as a deliberate action resets offside allowing further opportunity.
Cheers