Question Number: 16126

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/26/2007

RE: Adult

Tony of Canberra, Australia asks...

An attacker throws the ball into the defenders penalty area and a defender deliberatley handles the ball and it goes into the back of the net.

Now, do you play the advantage and award a goal or do you give a penalty?

The possible rationale for a penalty is that a goal can not be scored directly from a throw-in and would not have been scored but for the deliberate handball - so there can be no advantage applied, you should punish the infringement.

Seems crazy to do so and probably very hard to sell. What is correct in Law?

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

If I saw this happen in a match I would allow the goal.

First things first, there is no obvious goal scoring opportunity issue here as a goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in. If the defender had allowed the ball simply to go in the goal, the restart would have been a goal kick and not a kick-off due to a goal. If he had stopped the ball from going into the goal then the restart is a penalty kick. In either case, the defenders end up with an unwanted result that was completely avoidable, in fact the attackers did nothing to earn their good fortune except placing a long throw-in into the penalty area.

I would find my self hard pressed to issue a caution under these circumstances, though I would be sure to quietly remind the player that if he had done this in practically any other scenario he would likely be picking up a caution for deliberately handling the ball to prevent a goal, but failing to prevent it.

Now, I write all this not having seen the play you describe, there could be a cautionable offense here depending on a number of things that you have not addressed. So please don't take my answer to mean that misconduct has not been committed, I just fail to see how punishing the defender with a yellow card will do anything for game control as his actions have only hurt his team and heleped his opponents - that isn't truly unsporting as much as it is foolish.

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

If the defender had not handled the ball, but had touched it legally and it went in the goal, the goal would be scored. So now we are talking only about the manner of the defender's touch. He touched it, meaning the throw is no longer going directly into the goal, so a goal may be scored. The fact that his touch was illegal does not change the fact that it was a touch.

The wise referee will wait a second before blowing her whistle for the handling foul. She can then see that the ball is in the goal, apply advantage, and count the goal.

I agree with Ref Montanino's assessment that there can be no DOGSO as prior to the foul there was no goal-scoring opportunity. I'm also inclined to say a caution would not be necessary, unless the handling itself was terribly blatant (jumping and stretching his arms to hit the ball, or trying to bat the ball away from another attacker). I will remind him, of course, that except for his bonehead play there would have been no goal scored. That and the derision he deserves from his teammates are likely to be all the punishment he needs.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Tony,
my colleagues cover it well if a referee can refrain from blowing the whistle to wait and see the result it will be a goal. I also agree a caution is wasted here as no goal can be scored directly on a throw in at either end by either team. One restart is a goal kick and the other a corner kick. I have seen on reduced fields balls throw in towards the goal and the keeper feels he must take action and provide the touch required to make it a goal. It takes a well informed keeper to understand that a throw in has the same restrictions as an iNDFK two touches to make it a legal goal so let it go DIRECTLY in is a better idea then trying to prevent it unless it is easily catchable. Cheers