Soccer Referee Resources
Ask a Question
Recent Questions

RSS FEED Subscribe Now!

Q&A Quick Search
The Field of Play
The Ball
The Players
The Players Equipment
The Referee
The Other Match Officials
The Duration of the Match
The Start and Restart of Play
The Ball In and Out of Play
Fouls and Misconduct
Free Kicks
Penalty kick
Throw In
Goal Kick
Corner Kick

Common Sense
Kicks - Penalty Mark
The Technical Area
The Fourth Official
Attitude and Control
League Specific
High School

Common Acronyms
Meet The Ref
Contact AskTheRef
Help Wanted
About AskTheRef
Panel Login

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?

Read other questions answered by Referee Richard Dawson

View Referee Richard Dawson profile

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.

Read other questions answered by Referee Jason Wright

View Referee Jason Wright profile

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

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.

Read other questions answered by Referee Joe McHugh

View Referee Joe McHugh profile

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..

Read other questions answered by Referee Peter Grove

View Referee Peter Grove profile

Ask a Follow Up Question to Q# 32843
Read other Q & A regarding Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

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

See Question: 32849

See Question: 32857

Soccer Referee Extras

Did you Ask the Ref? Find your answer here.

Enter Question Number

If you received a response regarding a submitted question enter your question number above to find the answer

Offside Question?

Offside Explained by Chuck Fleischer & Richard Dawson, Former & Current Editor of AskTheRef

This web site and the answers to these questions are not sanctioned by or affiliated with any governing body of soccer. The opinions expressed on this site should not be considered official interpretations of the Laws of the Game and are merely opinions of AskTheRef and our panel members. If you need an official ruling you should contact your state or local representative through your club or league. On AskTheRef your questions are answered by a panel of licensed referees. See Meet The Ref for details about our panel members.