# Deliberate handball to prevent a goal - OK or Not?



## justneededaname (Apr 19, 2019)

In my son's game yesterday, a field player deliberately handled the ball to block a shot up and over the bar to prevent a goal. He was sent off with a red card. The goalie blocked the ensuing PK. 

After the game, my son asked me if what the player did was the right thing to do. I did not know the answer. 

He turned a certain goal into a possible goal (in the end, not a goal), but the team had to play down a man for the rest of the match. Which during that time they outscored the opponent 1-0 (although losing the match).

What does everyone think?


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

justneededaname said:


> In my son's game yesterday, a field player deliberately handled the ball to block a shot up and over the bar to prevent a goal. He was sent off with a red card. The goalie blocked the ensuing PK.
> 
> After the game, my son asked me if what the player did was the right thing to do. I did not know the answer.
> 
> ...


If he wants to play basketball, he can go to the gym.


----------



## Eagle33 (Apr 19, 2019)




----------



## electrichead72 (Apr 19, 2019)

I suppose it's a calculated risk, and late in the game being a man down may not matter.

Then you just have to hope that the keeper can stop the PK.

That being said, it is against the rules, thus the red card.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 19, 2019)

I wouldn't coach it or practice it.  But if it worked out, I'd be pretty happy.


----------



## twoclubpapa (Apr 19, 2019)

I think your answer to your son will reveal a lot about your worldview and what your expectations are for his behavior in the future.  An important parenting moment!


----------



## full90 (Apr 19, 2019)

This is much debated in our house but I think it's gamesmanship. It's a calculated risk with consequences. What about an intentional "professional" foul to stop a break away situation? Should a player not do that? Similarly with an intentional foul in basketball...would you not coach kids to foul late in the game to stop the clock? Or in football when you take a delay of game penalty on purpose...or in hockey to commit icing to clear your area...there are certain strategic plays you make to give your team a chance to win. Those plays have natural consequences within the framework of the rules. Now, if you are advocating cheating, or intentionally making plays outside the rules or in hopes not to be caught, then that's different to me.


----------



## justneededaname (Apr 19, 2019)

When first presented with the question, I was thinking about it like twoclubpapa. Is this a life skills parenting moment? But also, my son is an astute soccer player. He definitely understands the concept of a professional foul. I think the question he may have been asking was "Dad, was that a good choice of moment and infringement type for a professional foul or was it not."


----------



## socalkdg (Apr 19, 2019)

Learning to foul is something our U14 girls need to learn.  First they had to learn to be more physical.  Almost there.    Knocking someone off the ball to slow them down in transition even when it draws a whistle is the next step.  Or grabbing a shirt or arm.  Do you let a 2 on 1 developed or take the whistle 40 yards out.  Don’t see this as life lessons.  Similar to basketball you have fouls to give.


----------



## Eagle33 (Apr 19, 2019)

justneededaname said:


> When first presented with the question, I was thinking about it like twoclubpapa. Is this a life skills parenting moment? But also, my son is an astute soccer player. He definitely understands the concept of a professional foul. I think the question he may have been asking was "Dad, was that a good choice of moment and infringement type for a professional foul or was it not."


If your boy understands the concept of a professional foul, then he would know then stopping the ball from entering the goal is no different. Just like any other professional foul it gives your team an opportunity not to get scored on. Whether it's right or wrong, it's the other question. If it's a World Cup game with team advancement in jeopardy (as I posted above), I would say go for it. If it's a youth game - it's just doesn't make sense.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 19, 2019)

Is it any different than a hard foul inside the 18 on a breakaway?
It’s a foul.  There’s a penalty for that foul.  I don’t necessarily see this as a “life lesson” or “poor parenting”.


----------



## Playmaker38 (Apr 19, 2019)

Is the game the kid is playing in more important than his next game? Because you get the red, then you get the suspension. 

Also, would have to clarify on the rules because I thought that would come under denying a goal scoring opportunity, which I believe has been changed to a yellow since the PK restarts the advantage for the attacking team. On this I could be very very wrong though.


----------



## Eagle33 (Apr 19, 2019)

Playmaker38 said:


> Is the game the kid is playing in more important than his next game? Because you get the red, then you get the suspension.
> 
> Also, would have to clarify on the rules because I thought that would come under denying a goal scoring opportunity, which I believe has been changed to a yellow since the PK restarts the advantage for the attacking team. On this I could be very very wrong though.


Yes, you are very wrong.


----------



## coachrefparent (Apr 19, 2019)

Playmaker38 said:


> Is the game the kid is playing in more important than his next game? Because you get the red, then you get the suspension.
> 
> Also, would have to clarify on the rules because I thought that would come under denying a goal scoring opportunity, which I believe has been changed to a yellow since the PK restarts the advantage for the attacking team. On this I could be very very wrong though.


You are correct, that you are wrong. Here's the language:

Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a deliberate handball offence the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence
was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Apr 19, 2019)

It's a soccer decision and the life lesson (if any) here is to teach kids to make smart, informed (risk vs reward) decisions under pressure.

Let's say it's less than 5 minutes left in the final with scored tied, absolutely the right thing to do.

70 minute to go in any game, not the best decision.

I'm totally fine if it was my son that received the red card, but he needs to be able to explain the logic behind his decision.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

You got beat.  You don't have to make it worse by being an asshole about it.


----------



## Playmaker38 (Apr 19, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> You are correct, that you are wrong. Here's the language:
> 
> Sending-off offences
> A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
> ...



Appreciate the clarification. I had seen a player (last man) take down a player in the box this season and only receive a yellow. I was a little perplexed and the ref explained to me that the PK restarted the advantage. I did not ask questions beyond that


----------



## timbuck (Apr 19, 2019)

If a kid/man has a pass interference call to save a touchdown and then on the next play, the other team fumbles the ball -  Do we question the character of the defensive player?
Make the PK and nobody will be talking about the center back catching a ball on the goal line.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

timbuck said:


> If a kid/man has a pass interference call to save a touchdown and then on the next play, the other team fumbles the ball -  Do we question the character of the defensive player?
> Make the PK and nobody will be talking about the center back catching a ball on the goal line.


In gridiron football, if a foul is so grievous that the referee's judgement is that a touchdown would have been scored if not for the foul, they can award the touchdown.  See "palpably unfair act".


----------



## SoCal GK mom (Apr 19, 2019)

Slightly off topic, but I have a seen a player deliberately handle a ball and still fail to prevent the goal. (Goalkeeping is harder than it looks!) What is the ruling in this case? I think the goal was called off, a yellow card issued, and a penalty awarded. This seemed like the wrong call to me, but curious I'm what surfref and others think.

As to the OP's scenario, the player who committed the foul did so while knowing the consequences, and it sounds like it was the right choice. Fouling is part of the game- as long as no one is injured, I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

SoCal GK mom said:


> Slightly off topic, but I have a seen a player deliberately handle a ball and still fail to prevent the goal. (Goalkeeping is harder than it looks!) What is the ruling in this case? I think the goal was called off, a yellow card issued, and a penalty awarded. This seemed like the wrong call to me, but curious I'm what surfref and others think.
> 
> As to the OP's scenario, the player who committed the foul did so while knowing the consequences, and it sounds like it was the right choice. Fouling is part of the game- as long as no one is injured, I don't see a problem with it.


If your friend cheated when playing golf with you, would you continue to play with him?  How about tennis?  Poker?

There is more to sports than winning at all costs.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 19, 2019)

SoCal GK mom said:


> Slightly off topic, but I have a seen a player deliberately handle a ball and still fail to prevent the goal. (Goalkeeping is harder than it looks!) What is the ruling in this case? I think the goal was called off, a yellow card issued, and a penalty awarded. This seemed like the wrong call to me, but curious I'm what surfref and others think.


That's definitely the wrong ruling. The ref can "play on" even with a handball in the box. (Unless he blew the whistle before the ball went in.)


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Apr 19, 2019)

SoCal GK mom said:


> Slightly off topic, but I have a seen a player deliberately handle a ball and still fail to prevent the goal. (Goalkeeping is harder than it looks!) What is the ruling in this case? I think the goal was called off, a yellow card issued, and a penalty awarded. This seemed like the wrong call to me, but curious I'm what surfref and others think.
> 
> As to the OP's scenario, the player who committed the foul did so while knowing the consequences, and it sounds like it was the right choice. Fouling is part of the game- as long as no one is injured, I don't see a problem with it.






This exact scenario happened in the 2017 El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona.  Action is stopped when the foul occurred: no goal even though the ball went in, red card, then PK.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> If your friend cheated when playing golf with you, would you continue to play with him?  How about tennis?  Poker?
> 
> There is more to sports than winning at all costs.


In today's world, I am not surprised that someone would rate this posting "Dumb".


----------



## CaliKlines (Apr 19, 2019)

Messi>CR7 said:


> This exact scenario happened in the 2017 El Clasico between Real Madrid and Barcelona.  Action is stopped when the foul occurred: no goal even though the ball went in, red card, then PK.


Another example of the way the team from the capital cheats.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> In today's world, I am not surprised that someone would rate this posting "Dumb".


This is not golf, but even in golf, you can elect to take a penalty stroke.

Knowing and playing by the rules is fine, it’s not like they found a loophole in the rules by intentionally handling it... and if there was a loophole, then maybe the rules are incomplete and need updating.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> This is not golf, but even in golf, you can elect to take a penalty stroke.
> 
> Knowing and playing by the rules is fine, it’s not like they found a loophole in the rules by intentionally handling it... and if there was a loophole, then maybe the rules are incomplete and need updating.


A non-keeper stopping a ball headed into the goal with a hand is not "playing by the rules", which is the whole point.


----------



## full90 (Apr 19, 2019)

espola said:


> A non-keeper stopping a ball headed into the goal with a hand is not "playing by the rules", which is the whole point.


So should a basketball coach tell players to intentionally foul the other team? You’d call that cheating? If you make that choice or the choice to use your hands if you’re not the keeper there is a consequence. You are breaking a rule just like a foul to stop a breakaway. There’s a natural result of that and you have to make that determination in the moment. It’s part of the game. In high school basketball we were up 3 with seconds to go and I knowingly fouled a terrible free throw shooter (also my friend) on the other team with their team in the double bonus. Is that cheating? It was a smart play. My friend wasn’t mad or bitter. They understood completely the chess match going on in every game.


----------



## espola (Apr 19, 2019)

full90 said:


> So should a basketball coach tell players to intentionally foul the other team? You’d call that cheating? If you make that choice or the choice to use your hands if you’re not the keeper there is a consequence. You are breaking a rule just like a foul to stop a breakaway. There’s a natural result of that and you have to make that determination in the moment. It’s part of the game. In high school basketball we were up 3 with seconds to go and I knowingly fouled a terrible free throw shooter (also my friend) on the other team with their team in the double bonus. Is that cheating? It was a smart play. My friend wasn’t mad or bitter. They understood completely the chess match going on in every game.


The basketball parallel to the incident described would be goaltending, in which case the referee awards the 2 or 3 points.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 19, 2019)

I’ve coached beginner basketball players.  It’s hard to teach the rules with 1 practice per week.  We teach the basics and learn a bit on the fly during games. 
One of the early season halftime talking points “you’ve got 5 fouls each. Let’s use them.”


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 20, 2019)

espola said:


> A non-keeper stopping a ball headed into the goal with a hand is not "playing by the rules", which is the whole point.


Wrong, it actually is playing by the rules - the rules address the action and consequences perfectly, just like the penalty for kicking the ball out of bounds is a turnover. Breaking the rules would be not giving the player a red card and sending him off or allowing the team that kicked out of bounds to maintain possession.

Using your basketball example of goaltending, sometimes it’s better to just give them the clear 2-3pts just to send a message. It’s addressed by the rules and part of the game.

Don’t hate the playa, hate the game, my friend... =)


----------



## baldref (Apr 20, 2019)

espola said:


> In today's world, I am not surprised that someone would rate this posting "Dumb".


it's Pavlovian. everything you post is dumb.


----------



## espola (Apr 20, 2019)

baldref said:


> it's Pavlovian. everything you post is dumb.


Weren't we just discussing biased referees a couple of days ago?


----------



## espola (Apr 20, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Wrong, it actually is playing by the rules - the rules address the action and consequences perfectly, just like the penalty for kicking the ball out of bounds is a turnover. Breaking the rules would be not giving the player a red card and sending him off or allowing the team that kicked out of bounds to maintain possession.
> 
> Using your basketball example of goaltending, sometimes it’s better to just give them the clear 2-3pts just to send a message. It’s addressed by the rules and part of the game.
> 
> Don’t hate the playa, hate the game, my friend... =)


I have never heard breaking the rules described as "actually playing by the rules".

Your argument has no logic.


----------



## XBZ (Apr 20, 2019)

If I'm reading this correctly based on comments here, a player had the presence of mind and soccer IQ to make an assessment while the ball was in flight that...  1. he could save a goal using his hand to deflect a certain goal  2. which he knew would result in a red card and his team playing a man down 3. but it was late in the game so that skewed the decision process to it being a smart move, 4. That this decision gave a slight edge because the goalie might make the save, even though statistically less likely to make the save still better chances than a sure goal.  I can only imagine how excited  the team and sideline were when that goalie actually made the save.  Imagining the goalie and team celebrating that save puts a big smile on my face regardless of the dastardly premeditated decision that totally screwed over the other team.     fun stuff!!  

 Bravo young man I am impressed and wouldn't think to second guess that split second decision.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 20, 2019)

Only because I’ve heard it in sidelines plenty of times-   But, after the pk miss did some of the parents shout out “karma!!!!” ?


----------



## espola (Apr 20, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Only because I’ve heard it in sidelines plenty of times-   But, after the pk miss did some of the parents shout out “karma!!!!” ?


I'm at a loss to understand how "karma" is the appropriate comment there.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 20, 2019)

It’s the same thing that would have been said if the pk had scored.  
It seems to be something that dads in camouflage cargo shorts like to shout out during youth soccer games. 

If yelled out during this particular moment, they probably think something happened earlier in the game was payback for the missed pk.


----------



## Frank (Apr 20, 2019)

timbuck said:


> It’s the same thing that would have been said if the pk had scored.
> It seems to be something that dads in camouflage cargo shorts like to shout out during youth soccer games.
> 
> If yelled out during this particular moment, they probably think something happened earlier in the game was payback for the missed pk.


The other classic is when a team doesn’t think a pk should have been awarded against them and the shooter doesn’t take it. “Ball doesn’t lie”. Always gives me a chuckle.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 20, 2019)

Frank said:


> The other classic is when a team doesn’t think a pk should have been awarded against them and the shooter doesn’t take it. “Ball doesn’t lie”. Always gives me a chuckle.


For sure.  If there is ever a pk in a game turn to your buddy and say “I bet you my mortgage and family that if they miss, someone will say “ball don’t lie”.  You’ll never lose.


----------



## baldref (Apr 22, 2019)

espola said:


> Weren't we just discussing biased referees a couple of days ago?


no one discusses things with you. they just laugh at you. myself included.


----------



## espola (Apr 22, 2019)

baldref said:


> no one discusses things with you. they just laugh at you. myself included.


Please continue.


----------



## toucan (Apr 22, 2019)

Basketball and golf analogies don't work for soccer, because the culture of those games is different.  

Basketball allots 6 fouls per player, and its culture is such that fouls are strategically used to deny obvious scoring opportunities, and to manage the clock.  

Golfing culture relies upon a players' honor to slavishly follow every rule and report every transgression.  

Soccer culture is equivocal.  Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is a send-off offense, and usually results in suspension for an additional game.  My own opinion is that this rule should be enforced at the youth level for any intentional foul, with discretion enforcement for the unintentional foul.  

Notwithstanding, even at the youth level, we all know coaches who teach the "professional foul," and we all hear parents on the sideline encouraging fouls (and worse).  We would do better to teach our children to win with honor; not gamesmanship.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 22, 2019)

espola said:


> A non-keeper stopping a ball headed into the goal with a hand is not "playing by the rules", which is the whole point.


But it's also not "cheating". They broke a rule and got penalized for it. It's the same as fouling someone intentionally to stop a counter attack.


----------



## twoclubpapa (Apr 22, 2019)

In soccer we have the "spirit of the game" which I believe encompasses good character and sportsmanship.  I believe deliberate fouls and misconduct are offenses against not only the LOTG but also the "spirit of the game" and reflect badly upon the character and sportsmanship of the player who commits the foul.  A significant part of our job as parents is to help our children develop into adults who exhibit good character and sportsmanship.  We should not celebrate deliberate fouls a player commits with the aim of depriving the opponents a chance of improving their possibility of winning the game.  How many of you would celebrate the deliberate foul which succeeds in stopping a promising attack or saves a goal but also produces a debilitating injury to an opponent?


----------



## timbuck (Apr 22, 2019)

Just make the PK and nobody will debate this.


----------



## OrangeCountyDad (Apr 22, 2019)

XBZ said:


> If I'm reading this correctly based on comments here, a player had the presence of mind and soccer IQ to make an assessment while the ball was in flight that...  1. he could save a goal using his hand to deflect a certain goal  2. which he knew would result in a red card and his team playing a man down 3. but it was late in the game so that skewed the decision process to it being a smart move, 4. That this decision gave a slight edge because the goalie might make the save, even though statistically less likely to make the save still better chances than a sure goal.  I can only imagine how excited  the team and sideline were when that goalie actually made the save.  Imagining the goalie and team celebrating that save puts a big smile on my face regardless of the dastardly premeditated decision that totally screwed over the other team.     fun stuff!!
> 
> Bravo young man I am impressed and wouldn't think to second guess that split second decision.


I'm not fan of Louis Suarez but...


----------



## Sokrplayer75 (Apr 22, 2019)

twoclubpapa said:


> In soccer we have the "spirit of the game" which I believe encompasses good character and sportsmanship.  I believe deliberate fouls and misconduct are offenses against not only the LOTG but also the "spirit of the game" and reflect badly upon the character and sportsmanship of the player who commits the foul.  A significant part of our job as parents is to help our children develop into adults who exhibit good character and sportsmanship.  We should not celebrate deliberate fouls a player commits with the aim of depriving the opponents a chance of improving their possibility of winning the game.  How many of you would celebrate the deliberate foul which succeeds in stopping a promising attack or saves a goal but also produces a debilitating injury to an opponent?


Agree and unfortunately you can add coaches to your list as the biggest influence on players committing flagrant fouls. I see it all the time in practice. Especially at the younger ages where agressive behavior equals wins out on the field.


----------



## outside! (Apr 22, 2019)

OrangeCountyDad said:


> I'm not fan of Louis Suarez but...


One of the many reasons I am not a fan of "Bitey".


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Apr 22, 2019)

outside! said:


> One of the many reasons I am not a fan of "Bitey".


Its been 5 years since he bite anyone.


----------



## espola (Apr 22, 2019)

focomoso said:


> But it's also not "cheating". They broke a rule and got penalized for it. It's the same as fouling someone intentionally to stop a counter attack.


It's cheating.

Say a neighbor kid breaks into your car, steals all the change in your ashtray, but gets caught because he didn't know you had a motion detector security camera.  After he spends two weeks in juvenile hall as punishment, is he no longer a criminal?


----------



## espola (Apr 22, 2019)

Sokrplayer75 said:


> Agree and unfortunately you can add coaches to your list as the biggest influence on players committing flagrant fouls. I see it all the time in practice. Especially at the younger ages where agressive behavior equals wins out on the field.


I went to club and school practices for about 15 years altogether.  I have never seen that.


----------



## outside! (Apr 22, 2019)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Its been 5 years since he bite anyone.


Good for him, still not a fan. He is a great player, with questionable ethics in my opinion.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 22, 2019)

espola said:


> It's cheating.
> 
> Say a neighbor kid breaks into your car, steals all the change in your ashtray, but gets caught because he didn't know you had a motion detector security camera.  After he spends two weeks in juvenile hall as punishment, is he no longer a criminal?


Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy for a number of reasons:
- were not talking about criminality here
- in this case, the neighbor knew you had a security cam, but did it anyway to prevent something worse from happening (meaning the player who handled the ball knew he was going to get caught, but decided that it was better than letting the goal in).
- the issue is "cheating"...

Is there a qualitative difference between a professional foul and handling to prevent a goal? Is one "cheating" and the other not?


----------



## espola (Apr 22, 2019)

focomoso said:


> Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy for a number of reasons:
> - were not talking about criminality here
> - in this case, the neighbor knew you had a security cam, but did it anyway to prevent something worse from happening (meaning the player who handled the ball knew he was going to get caught, but decided that it was better than letting the goal in).
> - the issue is "cheating"...
> ...


It's cheating.


----------



## OrangeCountyDad (Apr 23, 2019)

outside! said:


> One of the many reasons I am not a fan of "Bitey".


HIS TEETH ARE OFFSIDE
HIS TEETH ARE OFFSIIIIIIIIIIIDE
LUIS SUAREZ!
HIS TEETH ARE OFFSIDE


----------



## Surf Zombie (Apr 23, 2019)

Last year my DD’s team was playing PDA in a big tournament.  PDA is the top dog in her age group and a top 10 team nationally.  It was s huge game for our girls.  

My DD’s team was up 2-1 with 90 seconds to play. We had a throw in deep in our own third. One of the dad’s on our team was screaming at the kids to “kill the clock” and “boot the ball out of bounds.” It was really windy and any balls that went out of bounds were rolling 30 yards onto the next field.  Girl on our team made the throw in, PDA won the ball and then scored just as time expired to tie it up. Game ended 2-2 and it deprived our girls of a trip to the finals.  Lot of chatter when the game ended about the girls should have found a way to kill the clock and not really play the last 90 seconds, thus ensuring a trip to the finals. 

I’d rather they win or lose straight up. Kicking it out of bounds on purpose or the deliberate handball ya’ll are talking about is just lame, and if my kid was on the other end of that I’d feel they got cheated.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Apr 23, 2019)

Surf Zombie said:


> Last year my DD’s team was playing PDA in a big tournament.  PDA is the top dog in her age group and a top 10 team nationally.  It was s huge game for our girls.
> 
> My DD’s team was up 2-1 with 90 seconds to play. We had a throw in deep in our own third. One of the dad’s on our team was screaming at the kids to “kill the clock” and “boot the ball out of bounds.” It was really windy and any balls that went out of bounds were rolling 30 yards onto the next field.  Girl on our team made the throw in, PDA won the ball and then scored just as time expired to tie it up. Game ended 2-2 and it deprived our girls of a trip to the finals.  Lot of chatter when the game ended about the girls should have found a way to kill the clock and not really play the last 90 seconds, thus ensuring a trip to the finals.
> 
> I’d rather they win or lose straight up. Kicking it out of bounds on purpose or the deliberate handball ya’ll are talking about is just lame, and if my kid was on the other end of that I’d feel they got cheated.


Let's say your kid is the QB of a football (American football) team.  His team is up by 3 points with the ball, and it's first down with 2 minutes left.  Do you want him to run 3 quick plays or run the clock down before each snap?

We're talking about playing a game here, so I have no problem if the opposition wants to apply gamesmanship.  I teach my kids to screw each other as much as they can when they play Monopoly.

I do agree with you that some of the tactics are lame.  To me Hack-a-Shaq is the lamest of them all and it made the games unwatchable.  Then again, I blame Shaq for not being able to make free throws.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 23, 2019)

espola said:


> It's cheating.


You keep saying that, but don't back up your assertion. Every definition of cheating in sports I can find uses the word "dishonestly": "to violate rules dishonestly" or "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". There was nothing dishonest about the player's action. He did it where everyone could see it. He just decided that it was a better outcome than letting the ball in.


----------



## espola (Apr 23, 2019)

focomoso said:


> You keep saying that, but don't back up your assertion. Every definition of cheating in sports I can find uses the word "dishonestly": "to violate rules dishonestly" or "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". There was nothing dishonest about the player's action. He did it where everyone could see it. He just decided that it was a better outcome than letting the ball in.


He cheated.


----------



## outside! (Apr 23, 2019)

Good gamesmanship is dribbling into the corner or trying to maintain possession by passing it around the back. The booting the ball or the deliberate handling referenced previously are more like poor sportsmanship.


----------



## electrichead72 (Apr 23, 2019)

Is it worse for the players to play that game or the coach that subs every time the ball goes out of play so that it runs the clock down?

Everyone knows he's doing it, but the ref never denies the sub.

I guess that can be gamesmanship, but he's an ass for doing it.


----------



## coachrefparent (Apr 23, 2019)

electrichead72 said:


> Is it worse for the players to play that game or the coach that subs every time the ball goes out of play so that it runs the clock down?
> 
> Everyone knows he's doing it, but the ref never denies the sub.
> 
> I guess that can be gamesmanship, but he's an ass for doing it.


Only if the referee lets him.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> It's cheating.


As they say, don’t hate the player, hate the game....

I see it as nothing more than using the rules to his advantage - the rules committee could’ve just as easily made the penalty for such an action a goal conceded just like goaltending in basketball... but they didn’t.

Whether you think he cheated or not, it was undoubtedly a smart play that gave his team a chance and paid off.

It’s funny, on this board, people are always talking about how soccer should be played, rip teams for playing the ball over the top, etc...  people have in their minds how a game is supposed to be played and get all bent out of shape when someone does something different or don’t play how they expect. But the reality is they just weren’t prepared for it. It’s called strategy. It’s called innovation. And many times it evolves the game and is what makes it interesting because it forces opponents to adjust accordingly. Those who lack the ability to adjust have nothing left but to whine and label their opponents as cheaters or jerks because they can’t accept the reality that they simply lost.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> It’s funny, on this board, people are always talking about how soccer should be played, rip teams for playing the ball over the top, etc...  people have in their minds how a game is supposed to be played and get all bent out of shape when someone does something different or don’t play how they expect. But the reality is they just weren’t prepared for it. It’s called strategy. It’s called innovation. And many times it evolves the game and is what makes it interesting because it forces opponents to adjust accordingly. Those who lack the ability to adjust have nothing left but to whine and label their opponents as cheaters or jerks because they can’t accept the reality that they simply lost.


This is exactly why our system is broken. Nowhere else in the world that I know of does winning a Ulittle club game mean anything. But here, we pretend that a tactic of booting the ball is somehow "innovation". This assumes that the reason that our kids play soccer is to win games when the reasons our kids play should be to get better. 

No one gets better by just booting the ball randomly forward every time they get it. They may win more games, which makes the parents and coaches happy, but the kids suffer.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Apr 24, 2019)

focomoso said:


> This is exactly why our system is broken. Nowhere else in the world that I know of does winning a Ulittle club game mean anything. But here, we pretend that a tactic of booting the ball is somehow "innovation". This assumes that the reason that our kids play soccer is to win games when the reasons our kids play should be to get better.
> 
> No one gets better by just booting the ball randomly forward every time they get it. They may win more games, which makes the parents and coaches happy, but the kids suffer.


On a related note.  If you guys or your kids haven't seen it, pay the $3 per-game fee and watch Juventus vs Ajax (2nd leg of UCL) on BR Live.  The second half in particular was a spectacular display of how the game should be played.  Ajax's style was so exciting that a 10-year-old can easily watch the second half without losing interest.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

focomoso said:


> This is exactly why our system is broken. Nowhere else in the world that I know of does winning a Ulittle club game mean anything. But here, we pretend that a tactic of booting the ball is somehow "innovation". This assumes that the reason that our kids play soccer is to win games when the reasons our kids play should be to get better.
> 
> No one gets better by just booting the ball randomly forward every time they get it. They may win more games, which makes the parents and coaches happy, but the kids suffer.


Wrong. While I completely agree that teaching kids to just boot the ball is a disservice to the kids, just because they're playing the long the ball doesn't mean they don't know how to play possession or control the ball for that matter - you act as if they're mutually exclusive. I think it's perfectly ok to play the long ball if the other team is leaving it wide open - the kids should always be looking up and seeing the opportunities and your defense needs to be ready. It keeps other teams honest - otherwise you'll have the opposite problem - coaches that simply push all their players up to crowd the space, poke the ball away and then get an easy score.

At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter what the other team does, if you're getting beat because they're playing the long ball, it's because your defense isn't doing their job and/or they're playing too high - basically they suck. When you play good teams, booting the ball simply doesn't work because their defenders can bring the ball down, control it, take possession, and counter - I love it when teams boot it against us because they're just giving the ball to us.

In other words, stop crying about what the other team is doing. If you're prepared for it, it shouldn't matter.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

focomoso said:


> This is exactly why our system is broken. Nowhere else in the world that I know of does winning a Ulittle club game mean anything. But here, we pretend that a tactic of booting the ball is somehow "innovation". This assumes that the reason that our kids play soccer is to win games when the reasons our kids play should be to get better.
> 
> No one gets better by just booting the ball randomly forward every time they get it. They may win more games, which makes the parents and coaches happy, but the kids suffer.


Just to add...  if you're frustrated that you lost because the other team didn't play the way you liked... then, well... maybe winning matters more to you than you think.


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> As they say, don’t hate the player, hate the game....
> 
> I see it as nothing more than using the rules to his advantage - the rules committee could’ve just as easily made the penalty for such an action a goal conceded just like goaltending in basketball... but they didn’t.
> 
> ...


It's called cheating.


----------



## outside! (Apr 24, 2019)

There is a difference between winning with class and winning at all costs. Many people (and Suarez fans) don't know the difference.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> It's called cheating.


I don't think cheating means what you think it means... 

_cheat
/CHēt/
verb
gerund or present participle: *cheating*_

_1.
act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination._


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

outside! said:


> There is a difference between winning with class and winning at all costs. Many people (and Suarez fans) don't know the difference.


And they used to fight wars by walking into an open field facing each other before they realized that was just plain stupid... just sayin..


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

outside! said:


> There is a difference between winning with class and winning at all costs. Many people (and Suarez fans) don't know the difference.


how about winning with smarts?


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> I don't think cheating means what you think it means...
> 
> _cheat
> /CHēt/
> ...


While you have your dictionary open, look up "integrity".


----------



## outside! (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> And they used to fight wars by walking into an open field facing each other before they realized that was just plain stupid... just sayin..


We are talking about what we teach our children, most of whom will never play professionally. War as an analogy for sports is just plain stupid. War is not entertainment.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

toucan said:


> "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton."
> 
> Wellington was referring to Eton, a boys' school in England, where playing (and by extension, fighting) with honor is a primary principle.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but in that context, fighting with honor refers to their grit, relentless dedication to the cause, education, and preparation, not by abiding to some unwritten moral code of conduct. Nevertheless it's moot as most would agree *Wellington never actually said those words*, in fact Matthew Arnold in 1881 wrote:

"_The aged Barbarian [ie: a member of the English upper classes] will, upon this, mumble to us his story how the battle of Waterloo was won in the playing-fields of Eton. Alas! disasters have been prepared in those playing-fields as well as victories; disasters due to inadequate mental training - to want of application, knowledge, intelligence, lucidity."

https://oupacademic.tumblr.com/post/57740288322/misquotation-the-battle-of-waterloo-was-won-on_


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> While you have your dictionary open, look up "integrity".


LOL. Don't be mad bro. 

_Integrity: "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness."_

...and he was dishonest or immoral, how? 

You're really struggling with this whole english vocabulary thing, aren't ya?


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> LOL. Don't be mad bro.
> 
> _Integrity: "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness."_
> 
> ...


I am sorry to have to point out your ethical shortcomings.  Has no one ever done it to you before?


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

outside! said:


> We are talking about what we teach our children, most of whom will never play professionally. War as an analogy for sports is just plain stupid. War is not entertainment.


Sports is a great vehicle to teach our kids about life and frankly, I prefer to teach my children to think intelligently and that there isn't just one way to solve a problem.


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Sports is a great vehicle to teach our kids about life and frankly, I prefer to teach my children to think intelligently and that there isn't just one way to solve a problem.


You teach your children that it is ok to break the  rules as long as you are doing  it to win?


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> I am sorry to have to point out your ethical shortcomings.  Has no one ever done it to you before?


and I too am sorry to point out your intellectual shortcomings... have you ever actually looked up what these words you're using mean?


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> and I too am sorry to point out your intellectual shortcomings... have you ever actually looked up what these words you're using mean?


It appears you have nothing of substance to add.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 24, 2019)

Anyone seen that dead horse around?  Or have we beaten it beyond recognition at this point?


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> It appears you have nothing of substance to add.


LOL. actually, throughout this thread, all you've done is name call and made false accusations - you think that's substance? 

How about answer some of my questions - how was he cheating - being dishonest, immoral, etc... ?


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Anyone seen that dead horse around?  Or have we beaten it beyond recognition at this point?


No dead horses yet, although I've been going back and forth with a jackass that I'm pretty sure doesn't have too much left... =)


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> LOL. actually, throughout this thread, all you've done is name call and made false accusations - you think that's substance?
> 
> How about answer some of my questions - how was he cheating - being dishonest, immoral, etc... ?


He was breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage.  Isn't that what you have been arguing all along?


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but in that context, fighting with honor refers to their grit, relentless dedication to the cause, education, and preparation, not by abiding to some unwritten moral code of conduct. Nevertheless it's moot as most would agree *Wellington never actually said those words*, in fact Matthew Arnold in 1881 wrote:
> 
> "_The aged Barbarian [ie: a member of the English upper classes] will, upon this, mumble to us his story how the battle of Waterloo was won in the playing-fields of Eton. Alas! disasters have been prepared in those playing-fields as well as victories; disasters due to inadequate mental training - to want of application, knowledge, intelligence, lucidity."
> 
> https://oupacademic.tumblr.com/post/57740288322/misquotation-the-battle-of-waterloo-was-won-on_


Wellington actually said, while at Eton ten years after Waterloo watching a cricket match, "The battle of Waterloo was won here."


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> He was breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage.  Isn't that what you have been arguing all along?


Wrong. He was using the rules towards his teams advantage, everything he did was by the book - addressed by the rules. The rules state - if you deliberately handle the ball on a goal scoring opportunity, the penalty is a send off and free direct kick or a PK. Those are the rules. He played by them. The penalty for kicking a ball out of bounds is either a goal kick, a corner, or a throw in. Defenders kick the ball out of bounds to prevent goals all the time. A handball outside the box is a direct free kick, inside, it's a pk, nobody would call him a cheater if it happened outside the box at midfield, no one would question his integrity if he had intentionally fouled a player about to score. It's a transaction, a part of the game, nothing more, nothing less.  There is no moral value associated with this. 

If you have a problem with this play, then you have a problem with the rules, not the player.... back to square one - don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## baldref (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> and I too am sorry to point out your intellectual shortcomings... have you ever actually looked up what these words you're using mean?


it's comical how he thinks he knows what he's talking about, but everyone just laughs at his BS..... but to his credit he is 135 years old, so.... you know....


----------



## focomoso (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Wrong. While I completely agree that teaching kids to just boot the ball is a disservice to the kids, just because they're playing the long the ball doesn't mean they don't know how to play possession or control the ball for that matter - you act as if they're mutually exclusive. I think it's perfectly ok to play the long ball if the other team is leaving it wide open - the kids should always be looking up and seeing the opportunities and your defense needs to be ready. It keeps other teams honest - otherwise you'll have the opposite problem - coaches that simply push all their players up to crowd the space, poke the ball away and then get an easy score.
> 
> At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter what the other team does, if you're getting beat because they're playing the long ball, it's because your defense isn't doing their job and/or they're playing too high - basically they suck. When you play good teams, booting the ball simply doesn't work because their defenders can bring the ball down, control it, take possession, and counter - I love it when teams boot it against us because they're just giving the ball to us.
> 
> In other words, stop crying about what the other team is doing. If you're prepared for it, it shouldn't matter.


The point has flown by. I'm not frustrated at loosing. I'm frustrated at bad coaching. I'm not complaining about the opportunistic long ball. The teams I'm talking about don't "look up and see opportunities", they boot the ball without looking up all the time, no matter what.



> I love it when teams boot it against us because they're just giving the ball to us.


So you get a win against a bad team. This is my point.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> Wellington actually said, while at Eton ten years after Waterloo watching a cricket match, "The battle of Waterloo was won here."


Good Lord... please do your research before posting nonsense.... do I really have to do everything for you? 

See here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington

Search for "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton." 

and BTW, since you're too lazy, apocryphal means: "(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true."


----------



## focomoso (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> While you have your dictionary open, look up "integrity".


That's a completely different matter.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 24, 2019)

espola said:


> He was breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage.  Isn't that what you have been arguing all along?


The key word is "dishonestly".


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 24, 2019)

focomoso said:


> The point has flown by. I'm not frustrated at loosing. I'm frustrated at bad coaching. I'm not complaining about the opportunistic long ball. The teams I'm talking about don't "look up and see opportunities", they boot the ball without looking up all the time, no matter what.
> 
> 
> So you get a win against a bad team. This is my point.


I'm with you on this one.  It's actually a fairly obvious sign you're playing a bad team if all they do is boot the ball.  But it's absurd when parents complain about it after losing to a team like that or they'll use that as an excuse. There really is no excuse and it's on the defense and/or coach for letting them get behind you and/or not winning those 50/50's.


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Wrong. He was using the rules towards his teams advantage, everything he did was by the book - addressed by the rules. The rules state - if you deliberately handle the ball on a goal scoring opportunity, the penalty is a send off and free direct kick or a PK. Those are the rules. He played by them. The penalty for kicking a ball out of bounds is either a goal kick, a corner, or a throw in. Defenders kick the ball out of bounds to prevent goals all the time. A handball outside the box is a direct free kick, inside, it's a pk, nobody would call him a cheater if it happened outside the box at midfield, no one would question his integrity if he had intentionally fouled a player about to score. It's a transaction, a part of the game, nothing more, nothing less.  There is no moral value associated with this.
> 
> If you have a problem with this play, then you have a problem with the rules, not the player.... back to square one - don't hate the player, hate the game.


He cheated.


----------



## espola (Apr 24, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Good Lord... please do your research before posting nonsense.... do I really have to do everything for you?
> 
> See here: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
> 
> ...


http://stimpson.allfunandgames.ca/informationroundup/who_said_the_battle_of_waterloo_was_won_at_eton.php


----------



## jpeter (Apr 24, 2019)

Top 10 Famous Soccer Handballs

Only two defending rest are offensive use including the hand of god:


----------



## coachrefparent (Apr 24, 2019)

A deliberate handball to prevent a goal is not "cheating" nor "dishonest", just as stepping over the line into the field during a  throw in, passing to a teammate who is in an offside position, touching a goal kick before it leaves the box, or pushing an opponent carelessly isn't either. Just a rules infraction that is addressed by those rules.


----------



## electrichead72 (Apr 24, 2019)

Messi>CR7 said:


> On a related note.  If you guys or your kids haven't seen it, pay the $3 per-game fee and watch Juventus vs Ajax (2nd leg of UCL) on BR Live.


Thanks for that tip.

I missed that game and wanted to see it, I didn't know you could go back and watch them.

Ajax is playing so great right now, their ball movement is something else.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 24, 2019)

electrichead72 said:


> Ajax is playing so great right now, their ball movement is something else.


They've been my pick since they got out of the group stage. Too bad I didn't lay any $$$.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 25, 2019)

toucan said:


> If, as you claim, Wellington never said those words, then you have no basis for describing the "context" in which he used them.
> 
> If he did say those words, then my attribution of his meaning (that honorable play has importance) is at least as valid as your attribution of his meaning (that Etonians played with "grit.").


Incorrect logic. Just because he didn't actually say those words, and even if the saying was false, it does not mean the widely distributed phrase had no common meaning nor context.

In your case - you’re 0 for 3.
1) Wellington never actually said it.
2) The generally accepted meaning doesn't have anything to do with playing with honor.
3) The statement was a load of crap either way you interpret it - while they did have victories, the alumni of Eton we’re equally known for numerous disasters because they lacked intelligence and couldn't see the forest beyond the trees - doing things the same way they always had.


----------



## espola (Apr 25, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> A deliberate handball to prevent a goal is not "cheating" nor "dishonest", just as stepping over the line into the field during a  throw in, passing to a teammate who is in an offside position, touching a goal kick before it leaves the box, or pushing an opponent carelessly isn't either. Just a rules infraction that is addressed by those rules.


It's cheating.


----------



## espola (Apr 25, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Incorrect logic. Just because he didn't actually say those words, and even if the saying was false, it does not mean the widely distributed phrase had no common meaning nor context.
> 
> In your case - you’re 0 for 3.
> 1) Wellington never actually said it.
> ...


Nonsense.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 25, 2019)

espola said:


> Nonsense.


You’re an idiot.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 25, 2019)

espola said:


> It's cheating.


Lol. Not only is it not cheating but there’s nothing you can do to stop them so your opinion is worthless.


----------



## espola (Apr 25, 2019)

Supermodel56 said:


> Lol. Not only is it not cheating but there’s nothing you can do to stop them so your opinion is worthless.


It's cheating.

My opinion has the same value as yours.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Apr 25, 2019)

espola said:


> It's cheating.
> 
> My opinion has the same value as yours.


Nope.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (May 4, 2019)

SoCal GK mom said:


> Slightly off topic, but I have a seen a player deliberately handle a ball and still fail to prevent the goal. (Goalkeeping is harder than it looks!) What is the ruling in this case? I think the goal was called off, a yellow card issued, and a penalty awarded. This seemed like the wrong call to me, but curious I'm what surfref and others think.
> 
> As to the OP's scenario, the player who committed the foul did so while knowing the consequences, and it sounds like it was the right choice. Fouling is part of the game- as long as no one is injured, I don't see a problem with it.


It seems your question was lost in the drama of feeding a troll.
Here is the answer to your question: A perfect referee will wait to blow his whistle after the handling, and then award the goal after it crosses the line, and then caution the defender for unsporting behavior for the attempt to stop the goal.

Referees are human and sometimes the blow the whistle too early, they blow the whistle and stop play before the ball crosses the goal line. If you do not award the goal, then you MUST issue a red card.

TL;DR: If goal is scored after attempted DOGSO, then yellow. If the goal is missed after, then red.

Complicated addition to the rules: 2019 rules state that if the referee signals "advantage" after a DOGSO worthy foul and the attacker misses the ensuing shot on goal, then the defender still only gets a yellow. There is a difference between "waiting and seeing" and calling "advantage". 

Lot going on in this decision, oh well. What can you do?


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (May 4, 2019)

For what its worth, a wise decorated referee who is long in the tooth said 1 thing of advice not too long ago. He said, "referees are there to punish cheaters". He said this in the context of teaching the referees who wanted to call a PK on a "trip". In his opinion, both players were looking at the ball, did not see each other, and a collision/entanglement happened that appeared to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. He basically said, since the defender wasn't "cheating"; It was just incidental contact and it shouldn't be called. The real cheaters would be the ones trying to convince the referees to give them a PK they didn't deserve.

The point is, refs are there to punish cheaters, and there are a lot of cheaters in this game.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (May 4, 2019)

Cheating was defined earlier from a dictionary as "...gaining an unfair advantage..."

Stepping over the line on a throw in is still an unfair advantage. I don't think intention is a part of the word cheater. You can accidentally see the answers to the test written on your neighbors hand who is purposefully cheating. The thing is, accident or not, both the purposeful cheater and the accidental cheater gain the same unfair advantage over their classmates.

I think the miscommunication in this thread is that the word "cheater" has a pretty negative connotation. However, that negative societal connotation of labeling someone as a "cheater" is not present in the dictionary.

I would say that all fouls are cheating, tactical ones, professional ones, and even careless ones. The fact that it is in your benefit to cheat on purpose sometimes is more the fault of the "system" (The Laws of the Game).


----------



## timbuck (May 4, 2019)

I’d take a good tactical foul to lose a game over a team that goes up by a goal and immediately starts smashing the ball 3 fields over every time they get a touch in their defensive third.


----------

