Question Number: 14759

Character, Attitude and Control 1/29/2007

RE: 8 Adult

Bibi of Modesto, Ca US asks...

This question is a follow up to question 14738

Hey, I would like to thank all of you for the answers you provided. This was an argument I had with a couple of friends in a pick up game at the park. There was no referee, but the situation was as described in my previous posting and I just wanted to see how other refs would solve the issue.
By the way Contarino, I was taught at my 8 grade course the laws of the game, but you only have so much time to cover so many different aspects of the game, that one can only come in contact with in a real game. I felt that in that given situation the best scenario would have been to award a pk. and red card the player who deliberatelly handeled the ball.
Oh, and by the way, professional refs at much higher level than our grade 8 agree.
Also, I think you owe it to yourself to get reaquainted with the laws of the game, as they do evolve more often than every decade.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I'll let you in on a little secret young referee 08. In this Game playing advantage, for a goal, is ALWAYS better than the chance of a goal at a penalty kick. The professional refs you speak of are wrong if they say the referee denying a goal is better than advantage. AND Ref Contarino, Dr. Contarino is as familiar with the Laws of the Game as a great majority of referees in this world we live in. If he wasn't he would not be answering questions, especially those asked by those who refuse to believe what he says. In your entry level course there IS time to cover all the Laws, Procedures for Referees, Assistant Referees and Fourth Officials, take the test, grade the test, fill out the registration papers AND have a field session. For the referee instructor to unable to accomplish those things he must be spending a bunch of time on different subjects.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Bibi,
a referee is not incorrect law in whistling for a foul that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity and sending that player off restarting with a DFK or pk depending on the location of the foul. Yet a goal is a highly prized accomplishment and what every team strives for!
If we can accept that in the application of advantage that no goal or even a good attacking play might be lost through the players own devices. If we accept the misconduct associated with the original act of DOGSO is down graded and is not in keeping with the SFP it was previously associated with.

There are several schools of thought in application of advantage with reguards to DOGSO.
Some feel there is no benifit so do not do it.
Then there is a delayed whistle in which we are considering advantage but only if it looks like a GOAL will result rather than commit to advantage and see it missed
Some believe we delay signalling until an actual advantage materializes.
Others feel an imediate response by stating it and then holding the arm sweep as we await an outcome!

The recent liberlization of saying if an advantage is applied and the resulting attack fails or the follow up shot is missed we cannot send off nor go back to the foul only caution the perpetrator of the dogso foul has created far too much BS as to the misconduct aspect of DOGSO and why this formerly SFP concept is now being adjusted to a watered down version of misconduct!

A deliberate handling or foul which denies a goal is different than a foul which prevents a shot from occurring.

One is a sure goal stopped the other a possible good opportunity.

We can accept that if only an obvious opportunity is prevented if an advantage allows for another obvious opportunity in a follow up play even if the shot is missed through the player shooting wide or hitting the post we can consider the obvious opportunity was in fact not prevented.

We can stretch that to see even if the obvious opportunity falls to another player as team concept advantage is for the benifit of all but tell that to the first player fouled who lost the opportunity through a DOGSO foul and we are now not going back to the original foul and down grade the red card to a yellow for the USB of a caution show the yellow card for the attempt to deny an ovious scoring opportunity.

But the DOGSO requires a follow up OBVIOUS goal scoring opportunity to justify being denied the first one!

HOWEVER, if a foul of deliberate handling actually DENIES a GOAL not the opportunity of the shot as it has been taken, in my opinion only a GOAL scored will alleviate the red card misconduct of that act! Not just a chance to shoot again no matter how obvious it might be. Given the fact we cannot see DOGSO in a deliberate handing unless the ball was headed into the goal Is it not fair to assume we delay the whiste awaiting a goal rather than apply advantage where only a continuation of play can result in no free kick and only a caution?

I may be on shakey ground here but an astute referee will see each situation for what it is! While we could consider if there is a VC portion of a SFP tackle along with the dogso to send off a player we are not concerned so much with sending a player off as cheating out the victimized opposing team of their justified opportunity or of a goal
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Yes the Game and the LOTG have evolved over the years. But, there is nothing as advantageous as a goal. If you're saying there was not enough time in your 4 day Grade 8 course to go over advantage, you wasted your money. One of the first things I do when mentoring new referees, especially Grade 9's, is to go over advantage and drill into their heads NOT to quickly blow the whistle when shots are taken on goal but to wait a second or 2 before blowing it. Had you quickly blown your whistle, YOU would have been guilty of denying an obvious goal. I don't doubt there are some Grade 7's and above that would tell you that a DOGSO send-off and penalty kick would be better than advantage and a goal. But, to quote someone with far more experience than you or I, just because someone is a National Referee doesn't mean he's always correct. I quote below from Jim Allen who answers the questions on his official USSF Q&A site and the relevant question posed to FIFA and answered by IFBA on their Q&A site. These Q&A's at the FIFA site carry the full weight of FIFA and Jim's site carries the full weight of US Soccer. Read them and explain to me how ANY referee regardless of Grade could possibly think he is grounded in Law to disallow a goal scored before he blew his whistle in the situation you describe.

QUOTE
It is clear from the Laws of the Game and the IFAB's (the body that makes the Laws of the Game) Questions and Answers, that the correct procedure in this case is to allow the goal, caution the player for unsporting behavior, and restart with a kick-off. Why on earth would a referee take away any goal that had already been scored and award instead a penalty kick that might not score?


Q&A, Law 12, Q&A 22:
22. A player tries to prevent the ball entering the goal by deliberately handling it. The ball, however, enters the goal. What action does the referee take?
He awards the goal and cautions the player for unsporting behavior.

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

See Question: 14786