Hand Ball, goal scored, Red Card?
 

B1 on the goal line deliberately handles the ball to prevent the ball from going in the goal. Goal is scored despite hand ball. Score goal.
Disqualify B1. yellow and red in sep. hands. Correct?

Why both cards for a DQ?
Also, the sep. hands idea has been discarded.


Caveat: per Nevada's Q below, my comments are always about NFHS.

If you provide more info, we can provide a better answer.

1) HS game or USSF?
2) Did the ball bounce in after the handling without anyone else playing it or did another attacker come and kick it into the goal?

PS A "handball" is a small, rubber ball used in a game in which the players bat it against a wall. Soccer players are penalized for "handling."

___________________

The proper mechanic is both cards in the same hand at the same time where both can be seen being displayed at the same time. However, in your situtation this is not a soft red. This is a hard red. Red card only, DQ the player and no sub.

I didn't think you could have both.

If the play results in a goal, the "obvious goal-scoring opportunity" hasn't been denied. Thus, no card. (At least, no hard DOGS red. Perhaps at best a yellow for unsporting behavior.)

If the play prevents a goal, you have a hard red for DOGS, but no goal.

What am I missing?

This is a difference between NFHS and USSF.

Under NFHS rules a red card can still be given when a subsequent play of the ball results in a goal. USSF/FIFA has taken the position that only a caution is needed when a goal is scored.

The rule says "handles a ball to prevent". If it said "and prevents", the DOGSO would be negated by the goal.

The intent to stop the goal was obviously there so in HS rules it could still be red. I think you'll find mixed opinions, however, on whether to actually give the card or not.

Let's make sure that we don't misconvey the NFHS rule on this, and I'm not saying that you are, but rather that your post is just unclear.

For the record, NFHS 12.8.3 Sit E play ruling uses the words "whether or not a goal is subsequently scored." That means that ANOTHER play of the ball (likely by a teammate, but not necessarily) other than the one occuring by the fouled player at approximately the time of the foul results in the goal. However, if the ball is knocked into the goal by the offended player more or less directly (It could deflect in off another player or continue after the initial play and reach its intended destination despite an opponent's best efforts, including illegal attempts to prevent the goal such as handling), then disqualifying the offender for denying a goal scoring opportunity would be improper.

I believe that you are overthinking this one and attempting to give a meaning to the words which they do not convey. The intent of the player is not the issue, other than determining that the handling was in fact deliberate. The success of that intent is what matters.

If a field player purposely handles the ball in an attempt to prevent it from entering the goal, but the ball makes it in despite this action without any other play by an attacker, then a red card is not warranted under NFHS rules.

As the Rev said, there are mixed opinions.

However, Situation E merely says "subsequently", nothing about another player. Subsequently is about time. In either case, the ball continuing into the goal whether touched in the meantime or not is "subsequently".

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Nevadaref http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
I believe that you are overthinking this one and attempting to give a meaning to the words which they do not convey. The intent of the player is not the issue, other than determining that the handling was in fact deliberate. The success of that intent is what matters.

If a field player purposely handles the ball in an attempt to prevent it from entering the goal, but the ball makes it in despite this action without any other play by an attacker, then a red card is not warranted under NFHS rules.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You can believe whatever you wish and officiate however you want, but please know that my state office asked for clarification on this some years ago and received the interp which I have written above.

I'll agree that the NFHS rule is not well-worded. Have a nice day. :)

I wish you had said that sooner.
Did NFHS ever publish it anywhere?

Not to my knowledge. :(