Deliberate handball to prevent a goal - OK or Not?

[Supermodel56]

It's cheating.

My opinion has the same value as yours.

Nope.

 

[Definitelynotanotherref]

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]

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]

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]

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.