you are the ref- first scenario

Discussion in 'Referee' started by bothways, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. bothways

    bothways Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009


  2. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
  3. bothways

    bothways Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    socal, great question-in this case, the object the keeper uses is an extension of his hand- and the hand touches the ball in the penalty area. It cannot be a dfk or a dogso. I hear ya. It is very sneaky. but that is how fifa treats it. he contravened the rules, but still used his hands!
    JimEWrld repped this.
  4. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    What if he had dropped the glove to the ground and then kicked it?
    sjquakes08 repped this.


  5. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    On 1. given the guidance from the USSF, and assuming this happened in the area, we are playing silent advantage. Then, since the ball comes off the floor, the expected advantage hasn't been realized and we give the penalty.

    Even given Hackett's answer of the attacker's foul negating his advantage, I don't see why this handling gets cautioned. He seems to say because it was deliberate, but all handling is deliberate. I usually reserve cautions for handling to situations where a player knocks down a cross or through ball. I don't think I would caution in this scenario.
    sjquakes08 and JimEWrld repped this.
  6. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    1. No advantage. PK. Red to keeper
    2. It's fine.
    3. Caution Keeper (USB) IDK for offense.
  7. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    My initial answers were this:

    1) Bring it back for DFK or PK and either dismiss the GK (DOGSO) or caution (USB-Tactical).
    2) Depends on the design, I may let him play, I may not.
    3) IFK at the 6. Caution for USB

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    My comments on Keith's answers:

    1) I can understand the handling call on the attacker if this occurred OUTSIDE the PA and I had already signaled for advantage. If it is inside the PA I am playing a quiet advantage and bringing it back for a PK. In no case would I show a caution for Deliberate Handling here.

    2) Ok. Once again, I'll use my discretion.

    3) Same answer.




    I'm not sure how we would handle that. I feel it would still be USB and not DOGSO for two reasons:
    1) There is no foul committed on the play so you can't have DOGSO-F
    2) There is no handling by the keeper in the box so you can't have DOGSO-H

    Restart still the same (IFK).

    Now if the glove hit a player, could we get the GK for VC?
  8. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Not so. DOGSO-F does not require a foul. It requires an offense punished by a FK. See ATR 12.37:

    Here, there is USB, which is misconduct, which result in a free kick (IFK) following the caution.
    We could worsdsmith DOGSO-F and ask if it denied an "opportunity" to an opponent moving towards the palyer's goal -- unless we throw out ATR 12.37, that doesn't work, as this is the same: USB used to stop the ball from entering the goal, which the ATR says is enough.
    This leaves us with bothway's issue about a GK not being called for DOGSO for using his hands. As Law 12 is written, that "benefit" applies to DOGSO-H, not DOGSO-F. TheI&G does not saying anything specific about DOGSO, but does elaborate about GK misconduct, saying "the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of an handling offnece incurring a direct free kick or any misconduct related to handling the ball." So bothway's point proves too much -- if the GK exemption for handling the ball applies, it can't be a caution either.
    Putting the pieces together, I end up with DOGSO-F and an IFK. I also think it is interesting in that we often bash the ATR for it's sometimes seemingly formula over Fingerspitzengefuhl approach to DOGSO, but IMO this is one that ATR gets right and Hacket in his apparently technical reading gets wrong: a hopeless cynical ploy well outside the bounds of the sport to prevent a goal is exactly why DOGSO exists. The ATR's recognition that USB satisfies the DOGSO offense is spot on with the SOTG.
    dadman, KCbus and jayhonk repped this.
  9. QuietCoach

    QuietCoach Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Location:
    Littleton, MA
    On 1: I'm fine with the DFK coming out, but the two yellows are a stretch. I take "clipped as he rounds the goalkeeper" to mean a garden variety careless foul. The reason it might be a caution is that any foul by a defender right in front of his net might be considered tactical. But it sounds like the 4 D's were met, so why not DOGSO-F? As to the handling, it sounds like the ball popped up so quickly the attacker couldn't get his hand out of the way fast enough to prevent being hit, and his only offense was using the unavoidable ball-to-hand contact to get a measure of control.

    On 3: Well, it could be DOGSO-F. The F doesn't stand for Foul; it stands for Free kick. If you stop play for this and award a free kick, then you acknowledge that throwing the glove was an offense punishable by a free kick. The missing piece is that DOGSO-F requires an opponent moving toward the goal, and the scenario didn't mention an opponent. If there was an opponent chasing down that ball, and you stop play to award a free kick, it has to be DOGSO-F. The only Lawful alternative might be to wait for the next stoppage (as that opponent scores a goal or the ball rolls out for a corner kick) and caution the keeper's glove-throwing misconduct at that time.

    - QC
  10. bothways

    bothways Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    socal, great point about atr 12.37. that is something I will have to chew over. thank you for the well thought out respectful reply
    dadman repped this.
  11. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I don't know about this one. I don't think DOGSO-F always requires an opponent. See Socal Lurker's stated scenario above about hanging from the crossbar and using your body to stop a shot. This is clearly not going to fall into DOGSO-H so it would be the other. As there is no longer an opponent going to goal since it was a shot I think we can infer, at least in the US (senses the ATR vs LOTG argument coming), that an opponent is not always a requirement.
  12. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006

    I think we agree but read it differently.

    I think an opponent is required.
    Assuming the ball the keeper was attempting to field came from an opponents kick, the "an opponent" is still satisfied.
    If this was a passback, we'd have a different scenario.
  13. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I get your logic but disagree. Mainly on the red you emphasized. I read this as the GK cannot not be cautioned for Deliberate Handling (DH) inside the area (you can still award USB, just not for the handling). Further, if we take that statement absolutely literally, then the GK cannot receive ANY misconduct card when handling the ball inside the box. Since the glove is an extension of the hand, we are calling Handling on the GK which invokes your underlined clause. So this would lead to it not being DOGSO or USB, just an IFK. We all know that this can not be.

    If we take the highlighted to mean only DH, then we can punish the GK for USB. The question is can we punish for DOGSO-F. I still say no.

    DGF:

    "Denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offense punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick."

    Where is the opponent in this situation?

    Let me give an off-the wall example. Say you have the keeper punt the ball and it bounces off a defender. The keeper throws his glove to knock the ball out of the net. Would you still award DOGSO?
    QuietCoach repped this.
  14. QuietCoach

    QuietCoach Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Location:
    Littleton, MA
    Good point. This is a UK comic strip, so the USSF ATR doesn't apply, but let's ignore that and suppose it did.

    The I&G and the ATR can clarify the Laws, but when there is a direct contradiction, I'll go with the Laws. The sending-off offense in the exact wording of Law 12 from the 2012/2013 Laws of the Game is:

    denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

    I don't see any way to "interpret" or "apply" this Law in such a way as to eliminate the requirement for an opponent moving toward the goal. My reading of the ATR scenario with hanging from the crossbar is that the ball was shot toward the goal by an opponent who is probably not far behind.

    - QC
    JimEWrld repped this.
  15. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Your analysis is presumably how Hacket gets to only a caution. If you choose to ignore the ATR (or in Hacket's case are beyond its reach), you can read it that way. But the ATR 12.37 gives a clear example it says constitutes DOGSO-F that has exactly the same "problem" with applying DOGSO. I'm in the US, so I'm bound by the ATR, and the USB to keep the ball out of the goal suffices -- and I think that is clearly within the intent of the DOGSO vision, even if it is arguably outside the language.

    The pass-back or punt into the back of a defender are interesting. By SOTG it should still be red as it is a cynical, deliberate, unsporting denial of a goal to the other team which is why DOGSO exists, but the linguistic hurdle becomes larger as no opponent is involved.
  16. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    I believe the opponent, is the person that took the shot, but now we are getting murky water.

    I think this scenario is different at it's core. This involves more handling (which we know is not red) and never involved an opponent at all. The scenario with the shot did at one point involve and opponent and then USB committed to prevent the goal.

    I guess my original post should have said I don't believe DOGSO-F requires an opponent, directly challenging for the ball at the time of the infraction. Hence connecting the shooter to being the opponent.
  17. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Found this from way back in the archives (2006). I bolded what I believe is the most important part. I also am starting to lean to the US vs The World interpretation on this. It is VERY long...:


  18. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    All credit to PVancouver (I know, Iknow, but he makes some decent points) for the quote. The point I am trying to highlight with the bold portion is that FIFA distinguishes between DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H by the presence of an opponent, while it appears the US does not.

    So as I said, I am starting to lean to the US vs. The World interpretation here.

    US - DOGSO-F because of the presence of misconduct by the keeper on a shot by an opponent. Only USB if a passback or etc.

    The World - Can't be DOGSO-H since it is the GK in his own box. Can't be DOGSO-F since their is no opponent involved. Must be USB for the GKs tactics.
  19. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Location:
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Country:
    United States
    First, once the keeper has taken his glove off, it's not an "extension of the hand". Any more than taking off your cleats would qualify as an "entension of the foot." If that logic worked, a player could put his shoe on his hand and run around smacking balls in the air with his hand/shoe. That's like calling a cap an extension of your hair, or that box of condoms in my dresser an extension of my... well, you get the idea.

    Also, in the first scenario, my call would be to award the free kick/penalty kick. My understanding is that if two offenses are committed in rapid succession, the first foul is the one that's supposed to be called. But it might vary depending on your vision of this play. If you're picturing a case where the player is clipped, then takes a couple more steps, and then cynically swats at the ball, you could call it trip-->>advantage-->>handling=dfk to defense + yellow card. If you're picturing a case where the attacker is clipped, then in the immediate aftermath of being put off his balance or the ball bouncing unexpectedly, he handles the ball, you could call it trip-->>handling=no advantage, punish first foul.

    In either case, I still think you could caution the attacker. It's a deliberate attempt to deceive and to score a goal with the hand, and it's unsporting behavior.
  20. Eastshire

    Eastshire Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    It's not an extension of his hand because it's his glove. It's an extension of his hand because it's a thrown item. When you throw an item, you are consider to have used your hand on any object that item hits.
    fairplayforlife repped this.
  21. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    See ATR 12.6

    The $64,000 question is whether it is "advantage not realized" or "advantage squandered." If the attacker did not actually have an advantage and could only get to the ball by handling, that sounds like the former, and would fit your analysis. This question, too, highlights a USSF instruction that may not be universal: avantage in the PA only is a goal scored. USSF analysis would lead to your result simply b/c no goal scored.
    sjquakes08 repped this.
  22. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    I'm telling you guys, the acronyms DOGSO-F and DOGSO-H create as much confusion as the use of the word "fat" as an attribute of food. People think the foul represented by the F acronym excludes all infringements involving the hand meeting the ball, just as people think fat makes you fat.
  23. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    almost as much confusion as "back pass" . . . .
  24. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2011
    Country:
    United States
    These are the reasons why the money set aside for Obama care should instead be invested in telekinetic communication research so the laws can be transmitted directly to our brains and we won't have to stumble over something as clumsy as the English language. :rolleyes:
  25. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    For those disagreeing with Hackett on #1 I'm guessing that it comes from the fact that Hackett uses a fairly literal interpretation of the LotG when answering and thus doesn't use ideas as "silent advantage" or "a goal is the only advantage". It wouldn't be the first time when "You are the Ref" is a bit stricter than normal usage.

    On #3 Hackett uses the old IFAB Q&A answers more or less verbatim (as usual when this question arises) and that has the problem of not being lax enough to fit with the current wording of the I&G nor is it strict enough to fit with what most people would consider fair.

Share This Page