DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 39444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: November 4, 2021, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Watcher link=topic=3013.msg39442#msg39442
date=1636020251]
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=3013.msg39436#msg39436
date=1636014277]
> I believe that a caution for the "handball scenario" is
appropriate here.
>
> Whilst the attempt was unsuccessful because - according to the
AR - the ball had already entered the goal, the offending player
clearly did not know that. If he had, there would have been no
attempt to handle it.
>
> The offending players intentions are clear: To illegally
prevent the ball from entering the goal. If he had been
successful he would have received a red card. As he was not
successful he should receive a yellow card. His (in)competence
in breaking the Laws of the game should not really save him from
sanction.
>
--- End Quote ---
I can't agree with this. A yellow card in this scenario would
be the same as a yellow card for a handball on the line as the
referee whistles for a free kick to the defending team for a
foul. The ball is dead. There is no case to answer.
[/quote]
I was not aware that the ball being out of play (dead) negated
the ability for a referee to punish unsporting behaviour?
Attempting, but failing, to prevent the ball going into the goal
is pretty unsporting in my book (which is where his name would
have ended up :)).
I note Nemesis' comment about there not being an offence at all
and agree that - had that been the case - no card of any colour
would have been necessary. The referee on the day, however, saw
an offence. I do not think the Assistant Referee advised that
no offence had taken place. He intervened to provide advice on
the sanction and restart of play - given his ruling that the
ball was out of (as opposed to in) play when the offence took
place.
It is an academic argument in any case as the player
subsequently and correctly saw red for a poor challenge.
[/quote]
C1 Unsporting behaviour (other) is always an option in any
circumstance. I have used it myself for players acting in
unexpectedly idiotic ways which don't fall into any of the
defined categories. In this instance I don't see that a yellow
card would enhance match control so, as it is at least arguable
that it is not mandatory in this instance, I wouldn't be
producing one. Indeed it could be argued that match control is
not enhanced by cautioning a player who has been unsuccessful
with an attempted goal line handball before it crosses the line,
but that is currently mandatory.
#Post#: 39446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: aaa
Date: November 4, 2021, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I like common sense approach as this Referee had done for the
handball incident but may I remind you that at lower level of
football in England, you will be required to applied the law of
the game correctly when being observed. Some Observers could
easily penalised him missing a caution.
Extract from Law 12.3 (Fouls and Misconduct)
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be
cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
* attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury
or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
* changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without
the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
* commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
* handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising
attack
* commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a
promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick
for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
* denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by
an offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee
awards a penalty kick
* handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or
not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to
prevent a goal
* makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
* plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being
given permission to leave
* shows a lack of respect for the game
* initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed
(including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with
the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not
the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper
is cautioned if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick
* verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
#Post#: 39447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Whistleblower
Date: November 4, 2021, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Goodness me, " shows a lack of respect for the game" is pretty
much catch-all and could be interpreted in just about any way
which a referee wished.
#Post#: 39449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: November 4, 2021, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Whistleblower link ---
>
> Goodness me, " shows a lack of respect for the game" is pretty
much catch-all and could be interpreted in just about any way
which a referee wished.
>
--- End Quote ---
Indeed, and perhaps a more diplomatic phrase than the one I used
a few posts previously: players acting in unexpectedly idiotic
ways which don't fall into any of the defined categories.
#Post#: 39461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: RefObserver
Date: November 4, 2021, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: aaa link ---
>
> I like common sense approach as this Referee had done for the
handball incident but may I remind you that at lower level of
football in England, you will be required to applied the law of
the game correctly when being observed. Some Observers could
easily penalised him missing a caution.
>
> Extract from Law 12.3 (Fouls and Misconduct)
>
> Cautions for unsporting behaviour
>
> There are different circumstances when a player must be
cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
>
> * attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or
pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
>
> * changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without
the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
>
> * commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
>
> * handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising
attack
>
> * commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a
promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick
for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
>
> * denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an
offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee
awards a penalty kick
>
> * handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or
not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to
prevent a goal
>
> * makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
>
> * plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being
given permission to leave
>
> * shows a lack of respect for the game
>
> * initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed
(including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with
the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not
the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper
is cautioned if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick
>
> * verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
>
--- End Quote ---
* handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or
not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to
prevent a goal
To me handles the ball infers that a handling offence occurs but
a goal is scored.
As others have said, no handling offence happens as the ball is
not in play. Therefore - in my opinion any development by an
observer for not cautioning would be incorrect in law.
#Post#: 39469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: November 4, 2021, 5:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=aaa link=to[attach=1]pic=3013.msg39446#msg39446
date=1636038895]
> I like common sense approach as this Referee had done for the
handball incident but may I remind you that at lower level of
football in England, you will be required to applied the law of
the game correctly when being observed. Some Observers could
easily penalised him missing a caution.
>
> Extract from Law 12.3 (Fouls and Misconduct)
>
> Cautions for unsporting behaviour
>
> There are different circumstances when a player must be
cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
>
> * attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or
pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
>
> * changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without
the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
>
> * commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
>
> * handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising
attack
>
> * commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a
promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick
for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
>
> * denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an
offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee
awards a penalty kick
>
> * handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or
not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to
prevent a goal
>
> * makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
>
> * plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being
given permission to leave
>
> * shows a lack of respect for the game
>
> * initiates a deliberate trick for the ball to be passed
(including from a free kick or goal kick) to the goalkeeper with
the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not
the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands; the goalkeeper
is cautioned if responsible for initiating the deliberate trick
>
> * verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart
>
--- End Quote ---
* handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or
not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to
prevent a goal
To me handles the ball infers that a handling offence occurs but
a goal is scored.
As others have said, no handling offence happens as the ball is
not in play. Therefore - in my opinion any development by an
observer for not cautioning would be incorrect in law.
[/quote]
I think there's definitely a decent argument supporting your
interpretation.
If we take the 'handling the ball in an attempt to score a
goal', if a player handled the ball to try and score but was
given offside so play had stopped, would people expect a caution
then? Can you attempt to score or prevent a goal when play is
dead?
#Post#: 39479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 5, 2021, 1:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It depends on how you interpret the words "handles the ball".
In the literal sense, handling the ball is just that. It does
not have to be the offence of handball as defined elsewhere in
Law.
Morally, a player doing this is trying to benefit from breaking
the Laws of the game. The fact that he player was not competent
enough to achieve this outcome should not detract from the
player being sanctioned as per the Laws of the game.
Those who believe that - in Law - a caution is not correct might
want to consider the scenario where a a player attempts to punch
an opponent, but where the opponent manages to avoid the blow?
Is is not a red card because the player was unsuccessful in his
attempt at violent conduct?
#Post#: 39480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: RefObserver
Date: November 5, 2021, 2:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> It depends on how you interpret the words "handles the ball".
>
> In the literal sense, handling the ball is just that. It does
not have to be the offence of handball as defined elsewhere in
Law.
>
> Morally, a player doing this is trying to benefit from
breaking the Laws of the game. The fact that he player was not
competent enough to achieve this outcome should not detract from
the player being sanctioned as per the Laws of the game.
>
> Those who believe that - in Law - a caution is not correct
might want to consider the scenario where a a player attempts to
punch an opponent, but where the opponent manages to avoid the
blow? Is is not a red card because the player was unsuccessful
in his attempt at violent conduct?
>
--- End Quote ---
Morning Leggy - it is an interesting point and a great
discussion.
My response to your point would be this though.......
For a a penal offence - such as a foul or indeed handball, one
of the requirements is that the ball is in play.
That is why I interpret "handling the ball" as just that. An
offence committed while play is in progress.
That is absolutely not the case for someone to commit violent
conduct. As such I would argue they are entirely different
scenarios and the comparison is not appropriate.
#Post#: 39482--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Leggy
Date: November 5, 2021, 4:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=Leggy link=topic=3013.msg39479#msg39479
date=1636094896]
> It depends on how you interpret the words "handles the ball".
>
> In the literal sense, handling the ball is just that. It does
not have to be the offence of handball as defined elsewhere in
Law.
>
> Morally, a player doing this is trying to benefit from
breaking the Laws of the game. The fact that he player was not
competent enough to achieve this outcome should not detract from
the player being sanctioned as per the Laws of the game.
>
> Those who believe that - in Law - a caution is not correct
might want to consider the scenario where a a player attempts to
punch an opponent, but where the opponent manages to avoid the
blow? Is is not a red card because the player was unsuccessful
in his attempt at violent conduct?
>
--- End Quote ---
Morning Leggy - it is an interesting point and a great
discussion.
My response to your point would be this though.......
For a a penal offence - such as a foul or indeed handball, one
of the requirements is that the ball is in play.
That is why I interpret "handling the ball" as just that. An
offence committed while play is in progress.
That is absolutely not the case for someone to commit violent
conduct. As such I would argue they are entirely different
scenarios and the comparison is not appropriate.
[/quote]
A fair point. As the caution would be for Unsporting Behaviour,
does the ball need to be in play?
#Post#: 39487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Same Player red carded twice in the same match - Hungerford
v Maidstone
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: November 5, 2021, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Leggy link ---
>
> It depends on how you interpret the words "handles the ball".
>
> In the literal sense, handling the ball is just that. It does
not have to be the offence of handball as defined elsewhere in
Law.
>
> Morally, a player doing this is trying to benefit from
breaking the Laws of the game. The fact that he player was not
competent enough to achieve this outcome should not detract from
the player being sanctioned as per the Laws of the game.
>
> Those who believe that - in Law - a caution is not correct
might want to consider the scenario where a a player attempts to
punch an opponent, but where the opponent manages to avoid the
blow? Is is not a red card because the player was unsuccessful
in his attempt at violent conduct?
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure that's a reasonable comparison, as I believe the
LOTG are quite clear that a red card is still required in the
situation you describe, whereas there certainly seems to be a
grey area regarding this sort of handball incident.
We know that the ball hitting a player's hand/arm is not in
itself an offence automatically as other criteria needs to be
fulfilled - and IFAB also clarified that whilst an attacking
player accidentally handling the ball in the immediate build-up
to them scoring should lead to that goal being disallowed, no
caution was required. So I think it would be reasonable to
interpet handling the ball as meaning an offence had been
committed, which requires the ball to be in play.
To make a different comparison, the LOTG state that if a player
is cautioned for stopping a promising attack but VAR goes back
to for instance award a penalty for an earlier incident, the
yellow card should be rescinded. You could argue that morally
the player's intentions were still the same and they didn't know
that play was effectively dead, but the protocols are clear in
that situation.
To continue the VAR theme, if a player was sent off for handling
the ball on the line but the referee was alerted that there had
been an offside in the build-up, would you still advocate a
yellow card for the defender due to his intentions, even though
play was, with retrospect, effectively dead at that point?
It certainly raises some interesting questions and perhaps
another example where IFAB have not been completely explicit and
so different people have different interpretations. It would
perhaps be interesting to hear Rusty Ref's view on this.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page