Question...

[Just a Parent]

if, the ball doesn't go in, than maybe, depending on the age, skill level, etc., it is a penalty. most likely from what you described, that would be the end of it.

From USSF Directives 2009:

1. ReactionTime
   The less time a defender has to react, the less likely there has been a handling offense. For example, a ball struck from a close distance, or a very fast moving ball, or a ball coming in from a direction which is outside the defender’s view gives little or no time for the defender’s reaction to be “deliberate.” The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face. Distance is a factor in determining “reaction time.” The further the ball, the more reaction time a play may have.
   
   Given the foregoing, and taking the poster's additional information, would you still have awarded a penalty kick?
   
   

 

[baldref]

From USSF Directives 2009:

1. ReactionTime
   The less time a defender has to react, the less likely there has been a handling offense. For example, a ball struck from a close distance, or a very fast moving ball, or a ball coming in from a direction which is outside the defender’s view gives little or no time for the defender’s reaction to be “deliberate.” The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face. Distance is a factor in determining “reaction time.” The further the ball, the more reaction time a play may have.
   
   Given the foregoing, and taking the poster's additional information, would you still have awarded a penalty kick?
   

i guess you didn't understand what i wrote. i wrote "maybe", and "depending". i guess your trying to teach me, but "maybe" you should read what i said, and "depending" upon what i said, then you can correct me.
I fully understand the passage you've posted. thank you

 

[jsmaxwell]

Beating a dead and decomposed horse here, but definitely a handling offense in the case. If it were a quick, defensive reaction scenario that didn't pass the handling hurdle, then there would be no question. No offense & own goal. The kid could have ducked in plenty of time but appeared confused in the moment. I just didn't know if/how advantage should apply. The question was answered. Thanks.

The no header thing certainly has some unintended consequences. Seeing lots of kids confused about how to play high balls. Also seeing a lot more attempts to play those balls with feet. I'd expect more kid are getting kicked in the head across America. Has there been any advice to be more vigilant about dangerous play calls in these scenarios? I'd guess new kids coming into the system won't have this problem as much because they won't have already learned to use their head.

 

[espola]

From USSF Directives 2009:

1. ReactionTime
   The less time a defender has to react, the less likely there has been a handling offense. For example, a ball struck from a close distance, or a very fast moving ball, or a ball coming in from a direction which is outside the defender’s view gives little or no time for the defender’s reaction to be “deliberate.” The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face. Distance is a factor in determining “reaction time.” The further the ball, the more reaction time a play may have.
   
   Given the foregoing, and taking the poster's additional information, would you still have awarded a penalty kick?
   

From the original post --

Corner kick.
<...>
defender standing at the near post <...>​

 

[Just a Parent]

i guess you didn't understand what i wrote. i wrote "maybe", and "depending". i guess your trying to teach me, but "maybe" you should read what i said, and "depending" upon what i said, then you can correct me.
I fully understand the passage you've posted. thank you

I'm not trying anything. I'm asking you, if given the USSF directive you would award a penalty. I'm trying to understand what considerations go through people's minds when they make these types of calls. For me, it's easy and straight forward; the kid's action is reflective. No call.

 

[Just a Parent]

From the original post --

Corner kick.
<...>
defender standing at the near post <...>​

Right . . .

 

[baldref]

I'm not trying anything. I'm asking you, if given the USSF directive you would award a penalty. I'm trying to understand what considerations go through people's minds when they make these types of calls. For me, it's easy and straight forward; the kid's action is reflective. No call.

Ok
But I didn't see it, I don't know at what level of play these boys are, so I don't know if I call a penalty or not, if the ball doesn't go in the goal. Going just by what I read from the original poster, I tend to think not.
But I can't say the action is reflective unless I see it and have seen the level of play.
My tendency has always been to call handling very infrequently. I nearly always yell "play, play, play" when I see ball hit hand inadvertently to make every attempt to alert the players immediately I'm not calling that a foul

 

[Just a Parent]

Ok
But I didn't see it, I don't know at what level of play these boys are, so I don't know if I call a penalty or not, if the ball doesn't go in the goal. Going just by what I read from the original poster, I tend to think not.
But I can't say the action is reflective unless I see it and have seen the level of play.
My tendency has always been to call handling very infrequently. I nearly always yell "play, play, play" when I see ball hit hand inadvertently to make every attempt to alert the players immediately I'm not calling that a foul

Thank you.

 

[Toch]

I am sure the brainless no-heading rule will have other victims as time passes.

You are in favor of kids under 12 heading?

 

[espola]

You are in favor of kids under 12 heading?

I am in favor of all kids being taught proper heading technique so that they will reduce the chance of being injured.

 

[DWickham]

The 2009 Directives have been withdraw by US Soccer and are treated by USSF as obsolete.

As to the original post, this is a textbook case for the use of advantage and for awarding a goal. It benefits the victim of the foul to allow play to continue and score a goal. The referee doesn't give any signal for advantage inside the penalty area; she simply waits to see if a goal is scored immediately. When a goal is scored despite the handling, the player is not sent off or shown a red card because the conduct did not deny a goal scoring opportunity. The referee could caution the player for unsporting behavior and show a yellow card depending on the nature and temperature of the match. In most cases, however, the card adds nothing for the players or for the game and a wise referee may only warn the player how close to a red card that was.

If a goal is not scored immediately, then play is stopped and a penalty kick is awarded. The field player who denied a goal by deliberately handling the ball is sent off and shown the red card. While the laws of the game were recently changed to provide for a yellow card after certain fouls that deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity result in a penalty kick, deliberate handling of the ball is not one of these fouls. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball remains a sendoff offense even when a PK is awarded.

 

[baldref]

you fail to acknowledge that different ages and skill levels give different applications of "deliberately handling the ball". I believe that is more what this discussion was about. what, and when is "deliberate handling"? The advantage and goal was answered fairly early. counselor.

 

[DWickham]

The original post to which I responded stated "Defender throws up hands and deflects ball into the goal. (clear and obvious handling.)"

Of course, on the field, it is not always so clear and obvious that it was deliberate handling of the ball. IFAB now includes with the laws of the game factors for the referee to consider

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement

IMO, these address the question: why would a defender do that? When there is a good reason, the action is usually deliberate.

 

[Just a Parent]

The original post to which I responded stated "Defender throws up hands and deflects ball into the goal. (clear and obvious handling.)"

Of course, on the field, it is not always so clear and obvious that it was deliberate handling of the ball. IFAB now includes with the laws of the game factors for the referee to consider

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement

IMO, these address the question: why would a defender do that? When there is a good reason, the action is usually deliberate.

No, it's not. The action could be a reflex reaction. Second, referees had to always consider these factors.

 

[Just a Parent]

The 2009 Directives have been withdraw by US Soccer and are treated by USSF as obsolete.

As to the original post, this is a textbook case for the use of advantage and for awarding a goal. It benefits the victim of the foul to allow play to continue and score a goal. The referee doesn't give any signal for advantage inside the penalty area; she simply waits to see if a goal is scored immediately. When a goal is scored despite the handling, the player is not sent off or shown a red card because the conduct did not deny a goal scoring opportunity. The referee could caution the player for unsporting behavior and show a yellow card depending on the nature and temperature of the match. In most cases, however, the card adds nothing for the players or for the game and a wise referee may only warn the player how close to a red card that was.

If a goal is not scored immediately, then play is stopped and a penalty kick is awarded. The field player who denied a goal by deliberately handling the ball is sent off and shown the red card. While the laws of the game were recently changed to provide for a yellow card after certain fouls that deny an obvious goal scoring opportunity result in a penalty kick, deliberate handling of the ball is not one of these fouls. Denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball remains a sendoff offense even when a PK is awarded.

Based on the original description of the scenario, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that a foul was, in fact, committed.

 

[jsmaxwell]

Based on the original description of the scenario, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that a foul was, in fact, committed.

For the love of Christ, you are pedantic. Do you do this in real life? This is a hypothetical scenario that I posed. It was a handling foul. I was asking how advantage should be applied. There was no dogso. It was just a confused kid making a handling violation on a ball in the box. It went in goal. Advantage called. Goal scored. No cards. End of story. Please quit making stuff up.

 

[Just a Parent]

For the love of Christ, you are pedantic. Do you do this in real life? This is a hypothetical scenario that I posed. It was a handling foul. I was asking how advantage should be applied. There was no dogso. It was just a confused kid making a handling violation on a ball in the box. It went in goal. Advantage called. Goal scored. No cards. End of story. Please quit making stuff up.

What did I make up? I said based on your scenario it may or may not have been a foul and that there may not have been a handling violation and I posted my USSF sources to support my conclusions. Your question regarding advantage was answered. What more do you want?