Let’s say that a non-goalkeeper defender deliberately uses his hands to block a shot by an opposing player. The ball still goes in, though. Goal.
If the referee nonetheless penalized the defender for the hand ball, and awarded a penalty kick to the team that just scored - and the penalty kick goes in, too - then this would mean that one illegal act by the defense created two goals, right?
Not according to your post, which specified that the shot was a goal in spite of the illegal actions of the defender.
A penalty kick is only awarded if the scoring opportunity is denied, so the goal would stand, the player would be disqualified, and the game would restart at midfield.
Nope. Since the illegal act didn’t stop the goal, there will be no penalty kick.
But the ref can (and probably will) still eject the player for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is what intentional handball will fall under.
This links into something called “playing the advantage”, where the ref won’t stop play for an infraction if the team infracted against is building up an attack. If the attack fails quickly, the ref may still stop the game and award a penalty/free kick if appropriate.
In your example, if the ball is deflected away but falls at the feet of an attacking player, who shoots for goal but misses, the ref may then award a penalty kick.
Since a clear goalscoring opportunity hadn’t been prevented it would be a yellow card for deliberate handball. In practice, most referees over here would turn a blind eye to it, as the goal had been scored. Handball is an offence in itself, it doesn’t come under Unsportsmanlike (“Ungentlemanly” to old gits like me) Conduct.
So like the delayed penalty in hockey? It’s not whistled until the offending team gets control of the puck.
In this case there are two options:
- goal and nothing else.
- red card and a penalty, but the goal is not awarded as play was stopped when the handball took place.
It’s a fairly recent innovation. Referees used to have to make an instant decision to determine whether the offended against team would benefit from playing on. These days the refs are allowed probably 3-4 seconds (that’s from watching the game rather than seeing the details of the new directive) before calling the foul or letting play continue.
Probably closer to the American football concept of declining a penalty and accepting the results of the play instead, except that it’s the ref that makes the call.
Why can’t the ref play the advantage, award the goal, and then go back and retroactively present the red card (with no PK)? They certainly do that with yellow cards all the time for violent tackles.
The red card offence is ‘denying a clear goalscoring opportunity’. If a goal has been scored that has clearly not happened. The offence therefore is deliberate handball, punishable by a yellow card. As I said earlier, this is rarely enforced over here. If an offence deemed worthy of a red card is committed and advantage is played, the referee will normally send the player off.
I’m sure they can.
So a non-goalie who stops a goal with his hands could potentially kick the ball into his own net immediately after the hand ball and prevent a yellow or red card?
As a soccer referee (albeit youth level, no HS or pro), I would probably (1) Award the Goal (2) Congratulate the player on his quickness of thought and (3) Give him a yellow card on the general principle that he was being a dickhead (we call that "Unsportsmanlike Conduct).
But other referees and fans will probably disagree, and that’s fine; the referee in soccer has a lot of discretion, possibly more than any other official in a major sport.
Good info everyone, thanks. Didn’t know the penalty kick is only awarded if there was no goal.