Luton v Wolves

[bloovee]

Great so now refs have to take into account not only where the players arm was but where the shot was aimed? Everyone who complains about the handball law being too complex usually ends up arguing it should be even more complex to get the outcome they want.

Why is that so hard? The shot is low and the arm is high, or the shot is high and the arm is low, but a deflection means it hits the arm. It's just another decision to make, whether about intent, or the difference between a robust or a careless tackle.

 

[RustyRef]

Yes but I think someone posted from IFAB querying it who confirmed it is still relevant.

Don't remember seeing that. And if that is the case it should be put back into the laws. Refereeing is difficult enough as it is without having the laws saying one thing and the rules something completely different, both published by the same organisation.

 

[Runner-Ref]

The player did not run towards the opponent waving an arm in the air. His arm is in that position because of his own movement in attempting to block the football.

Are you stating that an arm above a certain angle is unnatural? What is the exact angle the arm can be taking into consideration physical dynamics? Straight? Ninety degrees and rigid?

It is all about context and the situation. So does it mean players can always have their arm in a 3 o’clock position? No, see the Arsenal vs Spurs game. But I’d say in some instances, an arm in that position could be seen as natural.

I just don’t see how having your arm above your head can be seen as natural

 

[ARF]

and not even they * really think an unintentional handball nowhere near goal with only a remote chance of leading to a goal deserves a free shot at goal from 12 yards.

I would say that many offences that result in penalties being given don't deserve giving the opposition a free shot at goal from 12 yards, but that's football.

 

[bloovee]

You don't really have a choice if you want to be a referee, or indeed be a member of and post on a refereeing forum. The laws are the laws whether we like them or not.

It's a poor do if we can't say IFAB's got it wrong.

Don't remember seeing that. And if that is the case it should be put back into the laws. Refereeing is difficult enough as it is without having the laws saying one thing and the rules something completely different, both published by the same organisation.

Then the laws would be even longer. Just on the throw-in, IFAB decided that facing the field of play meant that some part of the body must face the field of play, and that the thrower must really use both hands and not just throw with one and guide with the other. Removing guidance doesn't necessarily mean it's not still relevant.

 

[bloovee]

I would say that many offences that result in penalties being given don't deserve giving the opposition a free shot at goal from 12 yards, but that's football.

I agree, but for most fouls in the PA where (e.g.) a player is going away from goal the general consensus would be that was a stupid tackle to try and make (so "merited"). But this is about accidental handball (so "unmerited").

 

[Pembroke]

It is all about context and the situation. So does it mean players can always have their arm in a 3 o’clock position? No, see the Arsenal vs Spurs game. But I’d say in some instances, an arm in that position could be seen as natural.

I just don’t see how having your arm above your head can be seen as natural

So your natural position has no measurement. It is all about context.

Here is context. A norm and a logical expectation is bipedal movement where the arms move in opposite direction to leg movement. This is normal physical movement. The player (Luton v Wolves) was displaying a natural (normal) bipedal movement, a normal action because of his explosive movement.

 

[FirsFox40]

Every week the Premier League has the chance to define how Law should be applied throughout the game in this country, and every week… ah…

 

[santa sangria]

This was still lead to major inconsistencies. So doesn’t really solve the issue

Good effort tho

 

[santa sangria]

I’ll throw this in… common sense and the “guidance” and utterance from PGMOL is that there is a higher bar for fouls in the penalty area. This is inconsistent with how the handball law is applied.

Two things here: PGMOL diverging from UEFA is a bad idea. I can only imagine how heated some meetings must be over that. Also the HB law needs to be softened significantly. It’s become technical “water polo” syndrome and it’s bad TV.

 

[RustyRef]

It's a poor do if we can't say IFAB's got it wrong.



Then the laws would be even longer. Just on the throw-in, IFAB decided that facing the field of play meant that some part of the body must face the field of play, and that the thrower must really use both hands and not just throw with one and guide with the other. Removing guidance doesn't necessarily mean it's not still relevant.

You can have an opinion on it, but (assuming you are a referee) as a referee you can only apply the laws as they are written. Otherwise you become "last week's referee".

Same on a referee forum, no issue in saying the law is an ass, but can't really criticise a referee for applying it correctly on the ideological thought that you hold.

 

[bloovee]

You can have an opinion on it, but (assuming you are a referee) as a referee you can only apply the laws as they are written. Otherwise you become "last week's referee".

Same on a referee forum, no issue in saying the law is an ass, but can't really criticise a referee for applying it correctly on the ideological thought that you hold.

Good job I didn't criticise the referee then.

Plus there's always the caveat that no referee applies all the laws as they are written.

 

[santa sangria]

Just seen the highlights of this. Daft defending. But changes to the HB law must follow. No on wants this.

Talksh**** used the tight rope walker analogy earlier. You can’t walk the Grand Canyon rope wrapped in cellophane like paranoid luggage!

 

[Runner-Ref]

So your natural position has no measurement. It is all about context.

Here is context. A norm and a logical expectation is bipedal movement where the arms move in opposite direction to leg movement. This is normal physical movement. The player (Luton v Wolves) was displaying a natural (normal) bipedal movement, a normal action because of his explosive movement.

I’m still not buying that your natural position for your arm is to put it above your head.

We can agree to disagree on this

 

[RustyRef]

Good job I didn't criticise the referee then.

Plus there's always the caveat that no referee applies all the laws as they are written.

OK, I should have said criticised the decision rather than the referee.

It seems that the majority of referees think, using the current law, that this was handball, even if they don't agree with the law.

 

[Big Cat]

In the UK at least (probably not the ROTW), nobody in football (except for David Elleray and many referees) is happy with the 'natural/unnatural position' stipulation. It's been the worst clarification regarding HB that i can recall and has made for a farce

It does make HB easier to referee, but it's pure Penalty Area Bingo IMO. Many games decided on 'Acts of God'

 

[Mr Dean]

I think this incident is one of those edge cases where there is no correct answer. Some referees will see the position of the arm as natural, others will not; either decision is fine with me. Personally, I'm not inclined to give handball when I feel that the player has placed their hand/arm in a position unconsciously and their is no time to move the arm out of the way.

 

[Mr Dean]

In the UK at least (probably not the ROTW), nobody in football (except for David Elleray and many referees) is happy with the 'natural/unnatural position' stipulation. It's been the worst clarification regarding HB that i can recall and has made for a farce

It does make HB easier to referee, but it's pure Penalty Area Bingo IMO. Many games decided on 'Acts of God'

I don't think handball is easier to referee now days as this incident highlights. Before, the only grey area was deliberate/accidental. Now, there is an additional grey area of natural/unnatural. Much more difficult imo.

 

[Big Cat]

I don't think handball is easier to referee now days as this incident highlights. Before, the only grey area was deliberate/accidental. Now, there is an additional grey area of natural/unnatural. Much more difficult imo.

Sounds like you're not finding it easier to adjudge because you're not applying the Law as it's intended at this time

Personally, I'm not inclined to give handball when I feel that the player has placed their hand/arm in a position unconsciously and their is no time to move the arm out of the way

This is not current

It's not for us to agree or disagree with IFAB (well it is and I do a bloody good job of it but only on RefChat and down the Boozer)

 

[Mr Dean]

Sounds like you're not finding it easier to adjudge because you're not applying the Law as it's intended at this time

Unfortunately, my psychic abilities are limited so I can only apply the laws as written rather than as intended.

This is not current

It's not for us to agree or disagree with IFAB (well it is and I do a bloody good job of it but only on RefChat and down the Boozer)

Since "unnaturally bigger" doesn't have a strict definition, IFAB have given referees quite a bit of discretion. As I said earlier, different referees will see things differently and that's fine. I don't like the way the handball law is written but I still apply it correctly.