The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Soccer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 13, 2008, 07:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 74
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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 13, 2008, 02:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbioteach
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.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.

Last edited by CecilOne; Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 11:50am.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Sep 13, 2008, 09:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbioteach
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?
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."
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 14, 2008, 10:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 1,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbioteach
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?
___________________

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.
__________________
That's my whistle -- and I'm sticking to it!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 17, 2008, 03:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbioteach View Post
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?
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 01:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by DadofTwins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 18, 2008, 12:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by DadofTwins View Post
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?
The rule says "handles a ball to prevent". If it said "and prevents", the DOGSO would be negated by the goal.
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Sep 19, 2008, 06:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 1,955
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.
__________________
That's my whistle -- and I'm sticking to it!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 21, 2008, 01:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by refnrev View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 21, 2008, 01:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
The rule says "handles a ball to prevent". If it said "and prevents", the DOGSO would be negated by the goal.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 21, 2008, 12:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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".
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Sep 21, 2008, 06:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
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".
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 22, 2008, 11:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
my state office asked for clarification on this some years ago and received the interp which I have written above.
I wish you had said that sooner.
Did NFHS ever publish it anywhere?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Sep 22, 2008, 11:05pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne View Post
I wish you had said that sooner.
Did NFHS ever publish it anywhere?
Not to my knowledge.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hand Ball drh898 Soccer 14 Thu Feb 28, 2008 07:43pm
Hand part of the ball? u2_i2_9 Basketball 21 Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:26pm
Hand Ball in box penalty shot vs Goal awarded RebellionCoach Soccer 5 Thu Feb 17, 2005 09:02pm
off ball hand checking again Rbn3 Basketball 24 Mon Jul 14, 2003 04:17pm
When is the hand part of the ball? Honest Bill Basketball 13 Tue Jan 14, 2003 01:18pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1