ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
If it creates a clear goal-scoring opportunity, it is valid to whistle without the ball entering the goal
Topical question
- Thread starter one
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
And you penalise every time the GK takes 7 seconds?
I did a bunch of tournament games today.
Striker facing away from goal, edge of the box, ball bounces up and hits his elbow. I just cannot risk a goal or chance after 4-5-6 seconds or 4-5-6 touches. It is so grey and it can only badly for me, the teams, crowd etc. if I don’t blow.
Stuck record but good luck dealing with the fallout if you allow attacking accidental HBs and you have to manage allowing/disallowing goals, corners, PKs etc etc
Why do you insist on making it up?And you penalise every time the GK takes 7 seconds?
I did a bunch of tournament games today.
Striker facing away from goal, edge of the box, ball bounces up and hits his elbow. I just cannot risk a goal or chance after 4-5-6 seconds or 4-5-6 touches. It is so grey and it can only badly for me, the teams, crowd etc. if I don’t blow.
Stuck record but good luck dealing with the fallout if you allow attacking accidental HBs and you have to manage allowing/disallowing goals, corners, PKs etc etc
Apply the laws as they are written. If the players don't understand and expect some other decision then it's time they learnt the laws.......most other sportsmen do why not them?
I haven’t refereed any games yet, I’m on here to learn.And you penalise every time the GK takes 7 seconds?
I did a bunch of tournament games today.
Striker facing away from goal, edge of the box, ball bounces up and hits his elbow. I just cannot risk a goal or chance after 4-5-6 seconds or 4-5-6 touches. It is so grey and it can only badly for me, the teams, crowd etc. if I don’t blow.
Stuck record but good luck dealing with the fallout if you allow attacking accidental HBs and you have to manage allowing/disallowing goals, corners, PKs etc etc
managing allowing/disallowing goals based on the LOTG would be exactly my job, however difficult one team may find that decision.
one
RefChat Addict
@santa sangria you are a good referee with a lot of experience. Reading your posts throughout the years I know you can manage a tough situation if you have to. I really don't understand the voluntary choice of denying a team a legitimate goal (or at least a good chance of it) because it is the easier decision to make.
I have said this before (many times). Everytime a referee uses the 6 second law to justify other wrong decisions they knowingly make, I curse IFAB.
I have said this before (many times). Everytime a referee uses the 6 second law to justify other wrong decisions they knowingly make, I curse IFAB.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I’m going sideways here, but what’s the solution on 6 seconds? Or was it always a solution in search of a problem? Back in the 4-step days, there was also a provision about taking an up unreasonable amount of time to put the ball in play. They could have lost the steps and not added the 6 seconds—which would have us exactly where we are today, except we wouldn’t be ignoring the way the law is written. But being where we are, I’m not sure there is an easy fix—especially when the sanction is a messy IFK in the PA. Would we be more comfortable enforcing it (at some amount of time) if the consequence was a corner kick instead? Would a warning arm signal at 5 seconds help? Visible counting like in basketball (yuck!)?
I actually think that a strict 6 seconds is too short a time in reality. If you count from the moment the GK gathers the ball, through to him catching his breath and scanning the field, allowing for a move to attempt a throw that then gets cut off to the ball leaving his hands for a kick - that easily takes more than 6 seconds and we wouldn't instinctively consider that unreasonable. So first thing I'd do is increase it to 10 seconds, which I think allows for a strict implementation without feeling unfairly rushed.
Corner kick as a sanction is an interesting idea - as you say, we're all more experienced managing those and a switch from the ball in GK's hands to defending a corner is a significant enough sanction. I also like the idea of a single, agreed-on visible signal when you're approaching the end of your time, standardise the warnings. Those on here who referee futsal will be better qualified to comment on visible counting...
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Back to the OP - and I had another one this morning... crowded area, ball bounces up against attacker’s elbow in the ”D”... you know what happens next: massive appeals from the defenders.
What can happen after that? Say you don’t blow. As a ref you have to communicate . There’s no ”waiting on a GSO in an elastic time window” signal or easy phrase or signal and the last thing you want to do is say ”no offence”, ”no HB” or cut the grass, because it might be an offence! So, ignore the appeals...
And then what can happen: if the attacker creates any kind of opportunity or any kind shot then you have to blow the handball. Thing is, if the striker gets the ball to a teammate it’s going to be a GSO.
And then the worst thing that can happen is if there is a GSO after a few more touches/seconds and you are in the horrible grey zone questioning how direct was the HB’s contribution and then managing the protests and allowing/disallowing the goal.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this and the ”problem” is that this is a totally different paradigm from anything else in the LotG - it’s a ”reverse advantage”. With a normal advantage, after the offence, you penalise the offender if something bad happens to them (the other team get a better position).
With this ”law” you penalise the offender if something good happens to them. And here’s the crux, my contention is, with an accidental HB close to goal or while attacking in the final third, realistically, keeping possession is already so good - I am going to argue that it ”creates a goalscoring opportunity”. And the ref is 5-4-3-2-1 seconds from a nightmare!
I think the easiest justification in law for blowing early is ”creates a goalscoring opportunity” and I think that makes it super smart.
(Doing a youth tournament, 7 matches yesterday, 4 today, so far I’ve had 3 accidental HBs where I’ve blown early, and maybe 7 inconsequential accidental HBs in midfield where I waved them on.)
What can happen after that? Say you don’t blow. As a ref you have to communicate . There’s no ”waiting on a GSO in an elastic time window” signal or easy phrase or signal and the last thing you want to do is say ”no offence”, ”no HB” or cut the grass, because it might be an offence! So, ignore the appeals...
And then what can happen: if the attacker creates any kind of opportunity or any kind shot then you have to blow the handball. Thing is, if the striker gets the ball to a teammate it’s going to be a GSO.
And then the worst thing that can happen is if there is a GSO after a few more touches/seconds and you are in the horrible grey zone questioning how direct was the HB’s contribution and then managing the protests and allowing/disallowing the goal.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this and the ”problem” is that this is a totally different paradigm from anything else in the LotG - it’s a ”reverse advantage”. With a normal advantage, after the offence, you penalise the offender if something bad happens to them (the other team get a better position).
With this ”law” you penalise the offender if something good happens to them. And here’s the crux, my contention is, with an accidental HB close to goal or while attacking in the final third, realistically, keeping possession is already so good - I am going to argue that it ”creates a goalscoring opportunity”. And the ref is 5-4-3-2-1 seconds from a nightmare!
I think the easiest justification in law for blowing early is ”creates a goalscoring opportunity” and I think that makes it super smart.
(Doing a youth tournament, 7 matches yesterday, 4 today, so far I’ve had 3 accidental HBs where I’ve blown early, and maybe 7 inconsequential accidental HBs in midfield where I waved them on.)
If the intent is to prevent unnecessary delay to the game, no exact limit should be prescribed at all.
Leave it to the referee to make a decision about how long is too long:
Once the goalkeeper has clear space around them, the impending free kick against the goalkeeper is shown by a raised arm (IFK signal).
If the goalkeeper doesn't release the ball shortly thereafter, the whistle gets blown, then the corner kick awarded (and signal changes to point to corner).
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
@santa sangria , First of all the communication I would use is "not deliberate". I often use that even if in midfield, best preceding by "no...".
I am not sure if you are in fact following the process right. You could not communicate this until you have an outcome (not necessarily stopping game) as with the 'immidiate' clarification. So in practice the player should either score or create a GSO within at most two touches or I'd say a stretched one second. If that happens you blow the whistle and give the FK. If it doesn't then you can do the communication and two possibilities thereafter. Nothing comes of the attack which is all good. A goal is scored after a few seconds or longer. You allow that and justify it by saying the accidental handball was in the build up and did not directly create the goal. It will be a hard sell but we have those every now and then.
I have had this twice, once in February before the break and once last weekend. Neither time I had time to blow the whistle before ball was out of play.
First one was a one on one with keeper and the close range shot bounced of keeper into attacker's hand and then to his feet for a tap in. Blew the whistle and disallowed the goal. Restart with DFK.
Second one was all very quick. Deflection off a defender to an attacker's arm then on his foot. He was clearly in a GSO but hit the post from close range and out. Goal kick was the better option for restart there.
I am not sure if you are in fact following the process right. You could not communicate this until you have an outcome (not necessarily stopping game) as with the 'immidiate' clarification. So in practice the player should either score or create a GSO within at most two touches or I'd say a stretched one second. If that happens you blow the whistle and give the FK. If it doesn't then you can do the communication and two possibilities thereafter. Nothing comes of the attack which is all good. A goal is scored after a few seconds or longer. You allow that and justify it by saying the accidental handball was in the build up and did not directly create the goal. It will be a hard sell but we have those every now and then.
I have had this twice, once in February before the break and once last weekend. Neither time I had time to blow the whistle before ball was out of play.
First one was a one on one with keeper and the close range shot bounced of keeper into attacker's hand and then to his feet for a tap in. Blew the whistle and disallowed the goal. Restart with DFK.
Second one was all very quick. Deflection off a defender to an attacker's arm then on his foot. He was clearly in a GSO but hit the post from close range and out. Goal kick was the better option for restart there.
WiisardNic
Well-Known Member
I kind of get both points. But, in reading what the new LOTG say, I would wait for that next touch/see where it lands. If the player takes a shot immediately, and misses, I think I would still blow for handball, because then you're kind of saying that you're allowed to do it, and lets say in the same game when it does go in the goal the next time it happens, well..
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Twice more in attacking areas in this afternoon’s games (u15 and u13 wet grass).
First one, I blew as it was in the box and he was shaping to shoot. Second one I did not blow as he was outside the corner of the box, pressured, facing away from goal, with no passing options - the context was that an imminent GSO was “impossible”, so it was easy to signal play on.
More context again, today’s tournament football, serious coaches, 1-200 parents/friends, it’s way beyond a hard sell - if I had a blatant HB followed 5 seconds later by a goal it would be pitch invasion at full time, threats and complaints to the organisers at least. Same if I signal “not deliberate”, then disallow a goal. All hell is breaking loose!
No surprises!
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
...still riffing on this... there’s another reason why this is so topsy turvy... as well as the “anti-advantage” idea... it’s also a totally new paradigm in terms of “goalscoring opportunity” related to HB versus ”obvious goalscoring opportunity” related to DOGSO.
And there’s s a couple of aspects to this:
- OGSO is something that doesn’t happen, the ref has to imagine it and use the criteria as considerations.
-GSO - if you don’t blow for the accidental HB and wait for it - is something that happens in front of your eyes.
- OGSO clearly includes ”obvious”, GSO in the handball section does not include “obvious”. I presume this is on purpose.
- GSO is not defined in LotG and there are no “considerations” available listed for a “non-obvious” goalscoring opportunity.
- “creates a” goalscoring opportunity - “creates” is not defined in the LotG.
You can tell where I’m going with this. It’s full of holes. And I think there’s enough leeway that - faced with an assessor - you can argue that an accidental HB that results in possession in a threatening area qualifies as “creates a goalscoring opportunity”.
There. I feel so much better. Pick-the-bones-out-that!
And there’s s a couple of aspects to this:
- OGSO is something that doesn’t happen, the ref has to imagine it and use the criteria as considerations.
-GSO - if you don’t blow for the accidental HB and wait for it - is something that happens in front of your eyes.
- OGSO clearly includes ”obvious”, GSO in the handball section does not include “obvious”. I presume this is on purpose.
- GSO is not defined in LotG and there are no “considerations” available listed for a “non-obvious” goalscoring opportunity.
- “creates a” goalscoring opportunity - “creates” is not defined in the LotG.
You can tell where I’m going with this. It’s full of holes. And I think there’s enough leeway that - faced with an assessor - you can argue that an accidental HB that results in possession in a threatening area qualifies as “creates a goalscoring opportunity”.
There. I feel so much better. Pick-the-bones-out-that!
one
RefChat Addict
If you think IFAB deliberately used GSO rather than using OGSO in the accidental handball ruling, you are giving them way too much credit.
It's the same concept as far as they are concerned. They just can't get their wording right. Have they ever?
Law change explanations for both last and this year will attest to this.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
You're right. It is a can of worms. Best left unopened. I fervently hope that at some point soon, IFAB realise that (to use a quote from a surprising source) "the cure is worse than the disease"! The sooner we return to one uniform HB rule for both attackers and defenders, that accepts that the ball hitting the arm in a truly accidental fashion is simply part of the game, regardless of the eventual result of this occurrence, the happier I will be
. Until then, even with the clarification coming in for 20/21, I fear the inconsistency and debate will rumble on 
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
“I don’t like handball, oh no, I love it, ah”
one
RefChat Addict
And that my friend is the problem for every law "I say something but I mean something else". If you were to 'only' apply the wording you would almost never award any goals unless in some cases very early in the game. Like it or not you already are applying the intents and not the wording in many cases.
I am not implying you should guess intent. If you are reasonably sure of the intent then you should apply it and I think i know what the intent was when this law was introduced.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
You're right. It is a can of worms. Best left unopened. I fervently hope that at some point soon, IFAB realise that (to use a quote from a surprising source) "the cure is worse than the disease"! The sooner we return to one uniform HB rule for both attackers and defenders, that accepts that the ball hitting the arm in a truly accidental fashion is simply part of the game, regardless of the eventual result of this occurrence, the happier I will be
But there never was consistency on deliberate handling. A clear handling offense in South America, for example, was a clear non-offense in England or the US. The mistake isn't that there is less consistency, the mistake is in how they have tried to remove consistency.
I do think VAR is part of the problem. To be able to have "clear error" there needs to be greater clarity on the offense--more concrete and less judgment (especially if the goal is for a VAR to be able to make the determination in the booth without the R exercising judgment with an OFR). And that flies against decades of the SOTG (i.e. "in the opinion of the referee").
USSF had a conceptually nice memo some years back that, IMHO, was a better approach and would have been a better approach for IFAB to have taken. (I say conceptually because it was not as clearly written as it could have been and was oft-misunderstood because of that.) The memo reiterated the fact that handling must be deliberate to be an offense, but also set out factors that could help a referee make that determination. For example, a player immediately controlling the ball or the ball going in a convenient direction is suggestive of it being deliberate--a clue, if you will, not a determining factor alone. I suppose this might have been the underlying intent of some of the drafting committee from the use of "usually" the first time round, which led to the debate as to whether the "usually" factors were helpful to determine "deliberate" or an exception to deliberate--this year's revisions made clear they are an exception, which I think was a terrible mistake.
So I agree the game would be better off (especially in non-VAR games) if we abandoned the last two years of "improvements" to the handling offense and went back to "deliberate." But, like VAR, that's a tough genie to put back in the bottle.