Question Number: 30219

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/25/2016

RE: Select Under 14

Brad of Plymouth, Michigan United States asks...

An interesting situation in a recent (Futsal) game:
Green goalkeeper blocked shot on goal from his right side and it deflected to the left. Goalkeeper realized that there was no backside defender and charged out to contest the oncoming white attacker. Green right-side defender (who is a reserve goalkeeper) saw this and moved to cover goal. Goalkeeper did not arrive at the ball in time and the white player shot (from 10-15 feet away) right at green defender's chest at the moment he arrived at that spot (this all happened in 1-2 seconds start to finish). Green defender had already pulled his arms to chest to avoid handling, and the ball his (flat) hands directly from the shot.

Intentional handling was called and a PK resulted. By the way, in this scenario I am not the referee, but am Green's coach. Here is where it gets odd--green defender was assessed a Yellow Card for USB for his 'intentional handling'. To be very clear, the green defender had his feet on (or within a few inches) of the goal line, planted squarely between posts. Had he not been at this location, this was unequivocally a goal.

I recognize that handling is ITOOTR (and that I was biased), and acknowledge it was obvious that the ball clearly hit his hands in its path. I think the referee was swayed by the obvious hit of the hand to make a call (even where one shouldn't exist), but I can live with it. But what I cannot reconcile is the Caution. I asked 'Why the caution?' and the referee stated that it was USB for the infraction--basically a tactical foul USB. I decided to keep my mouth shut (as a coach), because in my view (as a referee) once the referee has decided 'Intentional Handling' in this situation, there can only be a DOGSO-H being called. As this is one of my better field players, I chose to let him live with an incorrect YC rather than risk debating the referee into possibly assessing a RC.
So my question: can any referee come up with an explanation at this level of play (U-13 Select) for which this could be a YC, rather than either 'no-call' or DOGSO-F?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Brad
I believe that as described the player should have been sent off for denying an obvious goal by deliberately handling the ball. Perhaps the referee felt that as the ball would have hit the players chest if it had not hit the arms so that a goal was then not denied? That is always a very questionable point as then we get into the realms of what if. Would the player have attempted what he did if he could not use his hands? Should the player have attempted to avoid the ball with his arm? What would have happened if it hit the chest rather than an arm? Perhaps at underage he gave the player the benefit of the doubt based on protection? The Laws also tell us that if a goal is scored directly, despite an opponents handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.
I also suspect that as the offence was not red carded then the least that could be issued was a caution for USB. As you know USB covers a multitude of offences which in the case of handling can be to prevent an opponent gaining possession or developing an attack or commits a foul for the tactical purpose of interfering with or breaking up a promising attack.
In a game earlier in the season that I officiated on a player used his arm to deflect the ball away from the goal. It was questionable if the ball was destined for the goal or not as the player was at a post so I went with a caution. I was generous to the player as I could have dismissed him for a DOGSO H and there may not have been any complaints about it. If I was asked about the caution I would have said I was unsure if the ball was destined for the goal or not. It was certainly a deliberate action that merited a card.

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Brad.

First of all, the referee was incorrect by giving a caution. It should have been a disqualification (high school term for send off) as the call was for deliberate handling to prevent a goal. Secondly, your contention that it was not handling because the hands were on the chest. Having the hands on the chest is not a normal position for the hands. Thus, the hands were put there to stop the ball what the arms which would be considered handling. That is my opinion from what you described but, as always, I really would like to see the play from the angle of the referee. I hope that you have a successful coaching and officiating season.