# Question...



## jsmaxwell (Jan 9, 2017)

Corner kick.

Corner Kick is struck.  No reason to think its going directly into goal, but it goes right at the defender standing at the near post. Defender throws up hands and deflects ball into the goal. (clear and obvious handling.)

What is the call?

And, no it doesn't matter where this happened or what the ref did or what was the outcome. I'm just curious what the call is supposed to be.

TIA


----------



## baldref (Jan 9, 2017)

goal


----------



## jsmaxwell (Jan 9, 2017)

baldref said:


> goal


Thanks.  Is that due to advantage or something else?


----------



## GunninGopher (Jan 9, 2017)

Advantage. Goal counts.

I'm pretty sure I'd send the player off, too. Maybe it should be a caution with the new guidelines.


----------



## baldref (Jan 9, 2017)

there is no bigger advantage than a goal. 

the handling, or even the dogso, is irrelevant once the ball goes in the net.


----------



## jsmaxwell (Jan 9, 2017)

Thanks.  I get the advantage. Not sure about dogso, since the CK was not bending toward goal and there were multiple players around. Would have thought PK if the ball hadn't gone in without any ejection.

Youth player. Threw arms up in surprise. No heading allowed. Kid just confused on the spot given ball going straight toward face.


----------



## baldref (Jan 9, 2017)

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.


----------



## GunninGopher (Jan 9, 2017)

baldref said:


> most likely from what you described, that would be the end of it.


Agreed


----------



## espola (Jan 9, 2017)

jsmaxwell said:


> Corner kick.
> 
> Corner Kick is struck.  No reason to think its going directly into goal, but it goes right at the defender standing at the near post. Defender throws up hands and deflects ball into the goal. (clear and obvious handling.)
> 
> ...


"Advantage, play on", followed by a whistle and directions for a kickoff at the center spot.


----------



## espola (Jan 9, 2017)

GunninGopher said:


> Advantage. Goal counts.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'd send the player off, too. Maybe it should be a caution with the new guidelines.


You can't send the player off for interfering with a goal scoring opportunity, since the goal was scored.  A caution might be rubbing it in a little too hard.  Perhaps a word or two from the referee to let the defender know how "lucky" he was.


----------



## espola (Jan 9, 2017)

jsmaxwell said:


> Thanks.  I get the advantage. Not sure about dogso, since the CK was not bending toward goal and there were multiple players around. Would have thought PK if the ball hadn't gone in without any ejection.
> 
> Youth player. Threw arms up in surprise. No heading allowed. Kid just confused on the spot given ball going straight toward face.


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


----------



## baldref (Jan 9, 2017)

espola said:


> "Advantage, play on", followed by a whistle and directions for a kickoff at the center spot.


So, screaming advantage after the ball is in the net accomplishes what? And ussf doesn't require a whistle after a goal so depending on jurisdiction that part is also unnecessary.
No reason to alert anyone about a foul that has occurred, even if it had, which it may not have in the first place. 
Maybe you should stick to complaining and criticizing and leave the instruction to referees to someone who knows.
Just a thought


----------



## espola (Jan 9, 2017)

baldref said:


> So, screaming advantage after the ball is in the net accomplishes what? And ussf doesn't require a whistle after a goal so depending on jurisdiction that part is also unnecessary.
> No reason to alert anyone about a foul that has occurred, even if it had, which it may not have in the first place.
> Maybe you should stick to complaining and criticizing and leave the instruction to referees to someone who knows.
> Just a thought


Are your hemorrhoids acting up today?


----------



## Surfref (Jan 9, 2017)

baldref said:


> So, screaming advantage after the ball is in the net accomplishes what? And ussf doesn't require a whistle after a goal so depending on jurisdiction that part is also unnecessary.
> No reason to alert anyone about a foul that has occurred, even if it had, which it may not have in the first place.
> Maybe you should stick to complaining and criticizing and leave the instruction to referees to someone who knows.
> Just a thought



Good post.  Not because you educated Espola, but because you described what a referee with experience and common sense should do in this situation.


----------



## espola (Jan 9, 2017)

Surfref said:


> Good post.  Not because you educated Espola, but because you described what a referee with experience and common sense should do in this situation.


I was going to just say "point to the center circle", but I didn't think everyone would get it.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 9, 2017)

GunninGopher said:


> Advantage. Goal counts.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'd send the player off, too. Maybe it should be a caution with the new guidelines.


Why would you do that? Caution? For what?


----------



## GunninGopher (Jan 9, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Why would you do that? Caution? For what?


If a player handles the ball in an attempt to deny a scoring opportunity, I believe that they are to be cautioned for unsporting behavior if a goal is scored, advantage having been applied. 

The original post basically described that situation. _My comment was given before he elaborated_ by adding that it was a U11 (or younger) game and the touch was possibly unintentional.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 9, 2017)

GunninGopher said:


> If a player handles the ball in an attempt to deny a scoring opportunity, I believe that they are to be cautioned for unsporting behavior if a goal is scored, advantage having been applied.
> 
> The original post basically described that situation. _My comment was given before he elaborated_ by adding that it was a U11 (or younger) game and the touch was possibly unintentional.


But the poster mentioned no such thing as an "attempt to deny a scoring opportunity" in his original post.


----------



## GunninGopher (Jan 9, 2017)

I'm not going to take the bait.

Troll elsewhere.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 9, 2017)

GunninGopher said:


> I'm not going to take the bait.
> 
> Troll elsewhere.


You can try to deflect all you want but the fact remains that your answer did nothing but expose the dearth of knowledge inherent in it. You personify the typical pretentious armchair sideline "expert" we see week to week.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 9, 2017)

baldref said:


> 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: 

*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 (Jan 10, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> From USSF Directives 2009:
> 
> *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. *
> ...


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 (Jan 10, 2017)

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 (Jan 10, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> From USSF Directives 2009:
> 
> *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. *
> ...


From the original post --

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


----------



## Just a Parent (Jan 11, 2017)

baldref said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

espola said:


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


Right . . .


----------



## baldref (Jan 11, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2017)

baldref said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2017)

espola said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2017)

Toch said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2017)

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 (Feb 1, 2017)

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 (Feb 1, 2017)

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 (Feb 1, 2017)

DWickham said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Just a Parent (Feb 1, 2017)

DWickham said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2017)

jsmaxwell said:


> 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?


----------

