A&H

Mark Clattenburg - Arsenal vs Hull

I too think Padfoot has called it accurately.

One little thing about Deliberate Handling that does not get mentioned enough, is that there is a difference between "deliberate" and "intentional". In real life we often use these two terms interchangeably, but in fact Intentional means that the outcome was aimed at or expected, whereas Deliberate means merely that an action is "fully considered, not impulsive" (Oxford English Dic).

As referees we all pretty much understand this (I hope): a player who runs into a challenge with arms spread wide may not actually INTEND to commit a handling offence, but he has made a DELIBERATE choice that leads to such an offence. This was made very clear to me at an RA meeting, where we were told that if the ball came at someone's face from 30 yards away, and they put their hands in front of their face as a protection, they made a DELIBERATE choice (they had time to duck or move out of the way) even if handling was not actually INTENDED...this is an offence. Whereas a fast ball coming from 4 yards away could lead to precisely the same action, but this time instinctive or impulsive...no offence. This is exactly the same distinction we need to make when a defender miskicks a ball straight to a PIOP: clearly this was not their INTENTION, but was it a DELIBERATE play on the ball that went wrong?....if so, no offside offence.

As I say, I believe all referees have an innate understanding of this. It is worth mentioning, because players (or TV commentators) often do not, and I have found that pointing out the difference to a coach after a game, can (occasionally) actually give them food for thought. If, not, at least it buys me time to get to my car while they think it out.
 
The Referee Store
I agree - I think that the way DHB is actually expected to be applied is more in line with 'carelessly handles the ball'.

I like to sum it up as 'handles the ball when the player could reasonably have been expected to be able to avoid contact between hand and ball, given the particularly situation, age and skill of the players'. I think that more or less covers arguments of unnatural vs natural, etc.

In the goal in question - why are people talking about the goal? utterly irrelevant.

Arm in a natural position, just a fluke rebound collected it. Legitimate goal. I'd be saying the same thing if it was a defender who blocked it that way.

Whether a goal is scored isn't a consideration.
 
I hate it when I have to agree with Padders. Hate, hate, hate hate hate hate hate hate hate blommingggggg hate it!!!!!!! :wall: :p:p:D
 
GraemeS said:
I...*gulp*....I think Padfoot has got that exactly right....
Click to expand...

Russell Jones said:
You know what, I'm in exactly the same camp as well :). Though I do feel somewhat 'dirty' admitting it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

DB said:
I hate it when I have to agree with Padders. Hate, hate, hate hate hate hate hate hate hate blommingggggg hate it!!!!!!! :wall: :p:p:D
Click to expand...

Jusr relax and be calmed in the knowledge that the more you do it, the easier it gets!

:cool:
 
Howard Webb was on 606 (Radio 5 Live phone in - may still be available on iPlayer)

He went through the whole incident (the goal) in a calm, rational manner and concluded that it should be a goal.

I then saw the incident and it made me feel a whole lot better - if Howard Webb said that was a goal, it vindicated my decision in my game the same afternoon:

24 hours before kick off, game switched to 3G pitch - consequently ball moving much faster & bouncing higher than on the muddy grass pitches than all players used to at this time of year.

5 mins in, green defender clears from box. Blue attacker is running to meet the ball, it bounces - higher than expected because of the pitch - up and hits his forward hand (he's running quite quick, so arms "pumping" in a natural manner)

Cue shouts of "Handball ref!" "Play on, that just struck him!" I shout for all to hear. Ball drops kindly for him (because it hit the hand) he controls it, runs with it, shoots, scores. Cue more indignation from one or two greens. Confident in my decision, but the inevitable hand of doubt places itself on my shoulder, until I hear & see of the Arsenal Hull incident and I'm a happy bunny again.
 
RustyRef said:
Flip this round the other way though, if it was a defender who blocked the ball going in with his arm above his head everyone would be saying penalty and red card.
Click to expand...
You're not comparing like with like - Sanchez's hand wasn't above his head and you've left out the most important part, that it was deflected unexpectedly onto his hand from short range. If a defender was on the goal line with his arm around chest high directly in front of his body and as he moved for the ball, it was unexpectedly deflected onto his arm by an opponent's touch from close range, leaving him no time or room to avoid the ball striking his hand, I'm not so sure everyone would be saying penalty and red card.
RustyRef said:
So it has to work both ways, had Sanchez's hand not been in that position the rebound would have gone away from goal rather than into it.
Click to expand...
As has already been mentioned by others, the fact it went into the goal is irrelevant to determining deliberate handling.

Having said all that there did seem to be a slight movement of Sanchez's hand towards the ball which left me wondering a little, although I only noticed it on about the third replay and it wasn't apparent in real time.
 
Ganajin said:
I too think Padfoot has called it accurately.

One little thing about Deliberate Handling that does not get mentioned enough, is that there is a difference between "deliberate" and "intentional". In real life we often use these two terms interchangeably, but in fact Intentional means that the outcome was aimed at or expected, whereas Deliberate means merely that an action is "fully considered, not impulsive" (Oxford English Dic).

As referees we all pretty much understand this (I hope): a player who runs into a challenge with arms spread wide may not actually INTEND to commit a handling offence, but he has made a DELIBERATE choice that leads to such an offence. This was made very clear to me at an RA meeting, where we were told that if the ball came at someone's face from 30 yards away, and they put their hands in front of their face as a protection, they made a DELIBERATE choice (they had time to duck or move out of the way) even if handling was not actually INTENDED...this is an offence. Whereas a fast ball coming from 4 yards away could lead to precisely the same action, but this time instinctive or impulsive...no offence. This is exactly the same distinction we need to make when a defender miskicks a ball straight to a PIOP: clearly this was not their INTENTION, but was it a DELIBERATE play on the ball that went wrong?....if so, no offside offence.

As I say, I believe all referees have an innate understanding of this. It is worth mentioning, because players (or TV commentators) often do not, and I have found that pointing out the difference to a coach after a game, can (occasionally) actually give them food for thought. If, not, at least it buys me time to get to my car while they think it out.
Click to expand...
Sorry but that's balderdash, intentional is a synonym of deliberate and vice versa!
But back to the post, I've not yet seen any of the incidents but it sounds like the Alexis' incident was a typical premiership hand ball that would normally be given, but not on most grass roots pitcher unless it was judged deliberate or intentional. The Clucas h/b also sounds nailed on so their's just the Gibb's non sending off and I'll need to see it......
 
Mintyref said:
Sorry but that's balderdash, intentional is a synonym of deliberate and vice versa!
Click to expand...

As I said in everyday speech we often use it as such but it really is not, and the IFAB has sent out a series of videos showing how a defender can miss-kick a ball straight to an offside positioned player and this is considered a deliberate play on the ball, even though the outcome is clearly not intentional.
But feel free to write to write to The Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon St, Oxford and point out their dictionary entry is balderdash.
 
Perhaps a better way of describing it is that sometimes the LOTG use words differently to how they're used colloquially.

Kicked, for instance, tends to require a bit of force, but in the LOTG it's any contact with the foot (kicked and moves).

Part of the confusion over DHB is that the word 'deliberate' implies a conscious decision, which is rarely actually the case, ergo under the LOTG 'deliberate' has a different meaning to colloquial use.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Perhaps a better way of describing it is that sometimes the LOTG use words differently to how they're used colloquially.

Kicked, for instance, tends to require a bit of force, but in the LOTG it's any contact with the foot (kicked and moves).

Part of the confusion over DHB is that the word 'deliberate' implies a conscious decision, which is rarely actually the case, ergo under the LOTG 'deliberate' has a different meaning to colloquial use.
Click to expand...


It is always a problem with anything that uses language, that shades of meaning change over time and leave words, once perfectly fitting the meaning, in a grey area. I would argue that Deliberate and Intentional both imply a conscious act, but Deliberate applies to the act alone whereas Intentional applies both to act and outcome: so an Intentional action is always Deliberate, but a Deliberate action is not necessarily Intentional. Confusing I know, and eventually this distinction between the words will be so far from their use in normal speech that the Laws will need to re-phrase, and Deliberate may go the way of "Ungentlemanly conduct" which did good service for about a century, till it became so ridiculously old fashioned and had to be removed.
 
Ganajin said:
As I said in everyday speech we often use it as such but it really is not, and the IFAB has sent out a series of videos showing how a defender can miss-kick a ball straight to an offside positioned player and this is considered a deliberate play on the ball, even though the outcome is clearly not intentional.
But feel free to write to write to The Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon St, Oxford and point out their dictionary entry is balderdash.
Click to expand...
Strange then that the said organisation list both as synonyms of each other. Sorry @Ganajin but you and IFAB are talking out of your posterior.......synonym, bottom, synonym ar5e.
 
Mintyref said:
Strange then that the said organisation list both as synonyms of each other. Sorry @Ganajin but you and IFAB are talking out of your posterior.......synonym, bottom, synonym ar5e.
Click to expand...

Only trying to pass on what I have been taught (and which seems to me to make sense). Why do you feel such a need to argue
the point so aggressively?
 
Sorry thought this forum was about refereeing...didn't realise I needed a degree in English language to make my decisions on a Saturday afternoon, can just see myself explain the difference between 'deliberate' and 'intentional' to some of the players! :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

On the actual topic of the three incidents -

Goal - hand in natural position, no time to react, no movement towards the ball - CORRECT DECISION
Clucas - DOGSO using his hand, deliberate movement towards the ball, stops the ball entering the net (no one can say if keeper was saving it or not) - CORRECT DECISION
Gibbs Foul - Markovic has controlled the ball prior to contact from Gibbs (WTF has last man got to do with anything?), 30-35 yards out, heading towards goal, one on one with keeper...bye bye Gibbs it wasn't a trip or a push it was an assault..no intention of going for a ball clearly only interested in stopping the player, ball no where close :redcard: WRONG DECISION
 
deusex said:
And this is why out job is so hard.
Pure ignorance
Click to expand...

I don't think it is ignorance, what they say is spot on. They acknowledge the difference between last man and an obvious goal scoring opportunity, so not entirely sure what you are moaning about. Because of how far the covering defenders were away Markovic could have had a sit down, lit a cigar and had a rest before anyone got back to him.

Joking aside, this is why referee coaches tell you to give the expected decision. Aside from a few referees on here, everyone thought this was a red card. Hull players, Arsenal players, including Gibbs, most pundits, supporters, etc. Had he given the red card there would have been little or no debate, whereas the yellow card has led to a high profile debate as to why it wasn't red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top