Question Number: 33327

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/8/2019

RE: Youth Adult

Jason of La Crosse, WI USA asks...

An attacking player takes a shot on goal and the ball is prevented from going into the goal by a defender (who isn't the keeper) who deliberately knocks it away with her hand.

Scenario 1: The ball deflects off the defenders hand back to player A who, after the referee plays the advantage, shoots again. The ball is saved by the keeper. Should the referee stop play, send off the defender (for DOGSO), and restart with an indirect kick for the attacking team, or can the referee award a penalty shot, even though advantage was played and a shot taken?

Scenario 2: The ball deflects off the defenders hand back to player A, the referee fails to play advantage, and blows his whistle just as player A kicks the ball into the goal. If the whistle sounds prior to the ball entering the goal, can the goal be awarded anyway? Let's say the ball was in the air as the whistle sounded to call for a penalty on the defender who deliberately handled the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jason
In Scenario 1 a *wait and see* by the referee sorts it rather than going immediately with advantage. If the goal is subsequently scored then the goal can be awarded and the player cautioned. The defender has denied a goal by handling which is a penalty kick and a red card for denying a goal. Allowing play to develop for a second or so will assist in making the best decision for the game.
This will be a bang bang sort of incident with both kicks happening close to each other. The focus will be in the handling with little complaint of a penalty kick and a red card. If they are not then there will be a furore of allowing play to continue with no goal where the ball has been stopped on the line. In some ways delaying the decisions may help the offender stay on the FOP and it may not.
In Scenario 2 the only possible decision is a penalty kick and a red card. This happened to me in a game a few seasons ago. I had no choice but to red card the defender and restart with a penalty kick which would you believe it was missed. I felt somewhat annoyed of a dismissal when a goal was actually scored and then the PK missed. The infamous Suarez handball v Ghana springs to mind had a goal been actually scored on a rebound and ruled out with a resultant PK missed.
Many years ago I had somewhat of a similar one and my whistle sounded after the ball was kicked and just before the ball crossed the line. The DOGSO foul was by the goalkeeper a second or so before that. My immediate reaction was one of disappointment that I had sounded the whistle a tad early. Anyway thinking on my feet and outside the law I told the defending captain that I was going to award the goal and only caution the goalkeeper which he accepted. It was also acceptable to the attacking team as they got the goal. I think they thought the whistle was to award the goal it was that close to the ball crosding the line? One player suggested that the whistle had sounded just before the ball crossed the line (he was correct) yet he was quickly told by his captain that it was sorted. Technically wrong in Law yet at grassroots with participation as a priority I felt the *best* decision was a goal and a caution. It is not recommended yet sometimes the 'best' decision can be greyish in nature.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Jason,
the deliberate handling DENIED a goal not an opportunity that might score! There was no keeper to stop that first one which means this 2nd opportunity is NOT as good is it first was? Show the red card, send off the defender, restart with a PK. It is not that advantage was played & realized JUST because a shot occurred. As we waited for an outcome where either the ball wound up in the back of the net or this defender was headed to the shower. This brand new opportunity was missed due to the keeper being NOW able to defend.

ONLY if the second opportunity to score was made into a USB activity or of such stupidity to not score. If it was totally the fault of the 2nd shooter where say the ball was sitting on the goal line and rather than kick it into the goal he danced with it, brought it up to his head and thought to juggle it as he crosses the goal line only to lose possession and have the keeper arrive to take it. Now we have an option to think seriously of not sending the defender off, only a caution, because the opportunity was not really denied just squandered.

I have had goofy situations where the defender denies the goal, it bounces back to the shooter who rather than shoot into the empty goal picks the ball up and walks over to the PK spot. In effect he has CREATED a crappy situation. If I apply advantage and claim his actions squandered the goal it does not lesson the fact the defender did in fact deny a goal! So if I allow play on as an advantage realized but squandered, then award a DFK out for the handling pick up just how far do you think we go before I lose match control?

In another case I had young player play keeper in the first half who was substituted out into the field at the start of the second as a central midfielder. Unfortunately the opposition had a great shot on goal right away. Our now outfield player jumps in front and clutches the ball to his chest in what I was sure was an instinctive reaction to him being the keeper a few minutes earlier. I looked at him, he at me, I could see the light flashing and the eyes widen at realizing this was an oops of major proportions. I tilted my head with a wry grin and was putting the whistle to my mouth when he tossed the ball over his shoulder into his own goal. Somewhat dumbfounded I being to laugh and shake my head . I awarded the goal and did not bother cautioning the player although technically I could have. But then what was the point given we all had such a laugh who could be mad.

It is true when we play advantage and it is actually realized we do not give a second bite of the apple but if the deliberate handling DENIES the goal only a goal equals the lost advantage ,unlike a promising attack & a might or maybe goal scenario that COULD occur we consider better than their FK restart

A foul out of the PA where an attack was brewing and continued after the foul intended to stop the attack, but did not where more dribbling maybe a cross occurs and the subsequent scoring opportunity that has occurred is easily better than the DFK that they would have had earlier and BECAUSE a true advantage has occurred we are never going back.

And what INDFK? If advantage was applied and realized & the shot is missed it becomes play on or goal kick or corner kick?

In the second instant once you blow the whistle you have stopped play and thus if the ball has not already completely crossed the goal line under the crossbar and between the posts there is NO goal! By the letter & spirit of the LOTG you show the red card for DOGSO, send off the defender, award a pk. If you can sell the goal as having occurred then caution the defender, show a yellow card restart kick off but do not expect high marks from the assessor even if those on the field are satisfied with the outcome because it is contrary to the LOTG.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Jason,
As ref Dawson says, when an actual goal has been denied (rather than just a goal scoring opportunity) then the only thing that restores that advantage is an actual goal. So in scenario 1 where the referee had allowed play to continue to see if the advantage would ensue and no advantage had ensued, the law says that the referee is allowed to go back and penalise the original offence. The law does not talk about advantage being 'played' and I think it is a misconception to think of it in those terms. It talks about the referee allowing play to continue if they think the offended-against team will benefit, to see if the anticipated advantage will 'ensue' - that is to say, actually occur. So long as the benefit to the team does not actually happen (and as mentioned, the only acceptable benefit here is a goal) the referee can still penalise the original offence (assuming this becomes clear within the 'few seconds' that the law specifies).

Even better in these situations, especially in the penalty area is as ref McHugh states, to adopt a 'wait and see' posture rather than actually indicating the advantage.

On scenario 2, things are much clearer - If the whistle has gone before the ball crosses the line, the referee cannot award the goal, the penalty must be awarded (and the player is sent off).