How can anyone say that was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity? It clearly was. It doesn't say anywhere that the ball has to be on it's way in.
Of course it does. It says "if he prevents a goal or a goal scoring opportunity". Take that in two parts
"prevent a goal"
To prevent a goal, the ball has to be going in. Or else there is no goal being prevented.
It's the same rule as for a red card for a professional foul. Who's to say whether the player would definitely have scored if he hadn't been brought down by the last man when clean through, but it's an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
"Preventing a goal scoring opportunity"
This means stopping someone taking shot - using your hand to poke the ball away as they're about to head it, or using your hand to stop the ball going through to someone in a good shooting position. Since a shot was taken, that goal scoring opportunity wasn't denied by the handball (he got a shot away, and it went wide, the same as if a player is fouled but the ref waves play on because there's a shot to be had, in such circumstances refs aren't supposed to give reds because the team got a shot away, regardless of how on target it is). So in this instance denying a goal scoring opportunity is about whether there was a chance for someone else to follow up with a shot.
With a professional foul, when determining if the a goal scoring opportunity has been denied referees have to consider where on the pitch the incident occurred, the severity of the foul, whether there were covering defenders, and - importantly in this case - how likely the player is to have gained or retained possession of the ball without the foul.
In this instance, the ball was going wide, no player could get on the end of it, it would have gone out of play without the handball, ergo, no clear goal scoring opportunity was denied.
The fact that the player put the shot wide is irrelevant. What if the shot was going to hit the post, is that then not a red because it wasn't going in? How is the ref supposed to judge whether it will bounce straight back out to the striker or go wide in that situation.
Given my explanation above, that. The ball was going wide is entirely relevant. It wasn't going to hit the post so that's an irrelevance, the rules apply to what actually occurred, not what could have occurred in some hypothetical situation.
What occurred was a shot was taken, was going wide, got helped on its way by a player's hand, no goal was denied, no goal scoring opportunity was denied. According to the laws of the game, that is not a red card offence.
Is it an understandable mistake? Absolutely. By all accounts it was the side facing assistant who alerted the ref to the incident, and named the player, the ref was taking his advice, and from that view, the Lino wouldn't be able to see it was going wide. The ref has to trust his assistants,and can't just take the word of a player.
Will the FA overturn it? They should, but they don't always do what they should, especially when they want to protect officials. Having got the wrong player is embarrassing enough, they might argue there isn't enough evidence to overturn the red. To me, and so many others, it is clear the ball was going wide, swerving away from goal before it was touched by AOC, so should be overturned.
Last edited: