I'm genuinely angry that this is given and the player gets a yellow card. I feel both decisions are incorrect in law.
I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."I'm genuinely angry that this is given and the player gets a yellow card. I feel both decisions are incorrect in law.
I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."
It is a handball offense if the arm makes the player unnaturally bigger, regardless of any deflection. You can disagree with the R's opinion that the player's arm made him unnaturally bigger, but that is about judgment, not law. (Though I suppose the R could have thought it was deliberate, too, which would also be a question of judgment.
Presumably the caution is for SPAA. I think that gets overused on handling calls in the PA sometimes (OK, I actually think it gets overused a lot), but it seems to be an expectation in some places if there is a shot or cross that is handled that doesn't rise to DOGSO. Again, I think you are really questioning the R's judgment, not a legal error.
Even though its a matter of judgment, there is no way that would be SPA. Blocking it with the foot is not the offence, handling after the block is. The ball is moving up and back at that time. If it didn't hit the hand it would end up either over goal line for a corner or near the corner flag with no one there. Last I check neither of those is a promising attack position with so many defenders present in the PA.I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."
It is a handball offense if the arm makes the player unnaturally bigger, regardless of any deflection. You can disagree with the R's opinion that the player's arm made him unnaturally bigger, but that is about judgment, not law. (Though I suppose the R could have thought it was deliberate, too, which would also be a question of judgment.
Presumably the caution is for SPAA. I think that gets overused on handling calls in the PA sometimes (OK, I actually think it gets overused a lot), but it seems to be an expectation in some places if there is a shot or cross that is handled that doesn't rise to DOGSO. Again, I think you are really questioning the R's judgment, not a legal error.
Sure—as long as you ignore the “except for” provision.Doesn't bullet point one cover this exact situation though?
Laws of the Game 2020/21 | Law 12 | Fouls and Misconduct
Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
I don’t really disagree with you. But I don’t find the caution here out of the mainstream at all. That makes me think it is being taught, which I think is unfortunate. (I would not be thinking about giving a caution if I called that handling.)Even though its a matter of judgment, there is no way that would be SPA. Blocking it with the foot is not the offence, handling after the block is. The ball is moving up and back at that time. If it didn't hit the hand it would end up either over goal line for a corner or near the corner flag with no one there. Last I check neither of those is a promising attack position with so many defenders present in the PA.
I have said this before, with the handball law, every 'fix' they are putting in now, breaks it even more that it was broken before.
Yeah, I get why this "feels" controversial, but it's actually a textbook example of what is now definitely a penalty under the new laws. As soon as your arms go that high - for whatever reason - any contact with them is going to be a penalty most times now.
Also agree with the majority however, in that the caution is definitely unnecessary. You're all right to say that often, a yellow card is just given for any handball in the box without much thought going into it. In reality, a card should only be necessary when the HB stops a shot - red if it's likely to go in, yellow if it's likely to be saved or go narrowly wide. For a cross or a shot that's going comfortably wide, the penalty is enough of a punishment.
I saw this last night, went to re-watch the video to confirm what I thought, but the video had been removed, so had to go from memory....I'm always a little suspicious of 2D stills, but can appreciate your point.i think if it had hit him on his arm / hand which was outstartched i could go with that as it was slightly raised. it hits him on the elbow through which is not raised above shoulder level.
the image below is slightly before impact.
View attachment 4659
Yeah, I get why this "feels" controversial, but it's actually a textbook example of what is now definitely a penalty under the new laws. As soon as your arms go that high - for whatever reason - any contact with them is going to be a penalty most times now.
Also agree with the majority however, in that the caution is definitely unnecessary. You're all right to say that often, a yellow card is just given for any handball in the box without much thought going into it. In reality, a card should only be necessary when the HB stops a shot - red if it's likely to go in, yellow if it's likely to be saved or go narrowly wide. For a cross or a shot that's going comfortably wide, the penalty is enough of a punishment.
I don't think anyone on here is pushing for that?When did this "oh it's handball and it was from a shot so - caution" nonsense start?
So I can pull your shirt off your back, the ref plays a crap advantage because you manage to pass the ball off.
But if I give a penalty for this incident you need a caution even though a penalty is a HUGE upgrade on the sh*t shot.
Explain this to me?!?
I don't think anyone on here is pushing for that?
It used to be the case that almost any penalty would come with an associated card - not through law, more through a lazy convention. That gradually went away for most offences, but seems to have stuck around for HB for some reason. It's an outdated approach, but is still often applied for some reason.
I think maybe it went away earlier in the UK, but I'm sure it used to be the case here as well if you go back enough.*only in UEFA/FIFA competitions
just recalling drogba giving away a penalty in the 2011 CL final for a nothing trip on the edge of the box, ref gives a card without a seconds hesitation.
I think maybe it went away earlier in the UK, but I'm sure it used to be the case here as well if you go back enough.