Wolves v Citee

[AlexF]

The explanation was not in the law when the wording first excluded hands and arms. I'm saying the reason now given has only been provided years later. USSF had this ten years ago:
USSF answer (October 1, 2008):
The Law is quite clear about this. Any part of the body that can LEGALLY play the ball is considered when the referee looks for offside. That excludes the hands and arms, as they cannot legally play the ball. The same is true of the hands and arms of the opposing players.

I'd never heard this "new" rationale until this FAQ came up with it and I see no evidence that the "help the AR" argument was why hands and arms were excluded in the first place.

And yet -- why were a GK's hands/arms NOT included when the GK was a defensive player then?

This is likely yet another case where the USSF made an assumption... and it was the wrong one (see their "Advice to Referees" for some excellent other examples of such).

 

[Peter Grove]

This is likely yet another case where the USSF made an assumption... and it was the wrong one (see their "Advice to Referees" for some excellent other examples of such).

I was about to say the same thing. Statements made in the past by the USSF cannot be taken as in any way indicative of the IFAB's views on the law. The USSF had a long and consistent history of saying things in their "Advice to Referees" document that were almost totally at odds with the Laws of the Game which is probably one reason why it was discontinued and should not be relied on as an authoritative source.

The IFAB has only ever given one rationale for this - and it has not changed.

 

[one]

Very late to this party. Wolves' first goal for me DHB.

Deliberate in the LOTG does not have the same meaning as you would find in your everyday conversation or a dictionary. This is the case for many terms in the LOTG (another good example being "gaining an advantage"). Like or not the current interpretations do not require a player necessarily intend to handle the ball for it to be deemed a DHB. Sure if there is intent its DHB, but sometimes it's also DHB without the intent of handling the ball (call it a careless handball if you like).

I wonder if anyone who thinks Wolves' first goal was NOT DHB, also thinks the 83rd minute penalty for Brighton in BHA Vs FUL was not DHB also.
http://footy1.matchat.online/embed/D5HnP2j2oo
the incident is at 4.45 of the vid.

For me both had no intent to handle but with the current interpretations, both are DHB.

As indicated many times in the past, the law has to change to make interpretation of DHB much more clearer.

 

[Ben448844]

Predictably, during my game yesterday (first league match of the season), completely unintentional handball in the box, defender has gone to clear the ball with a header and it's hit the hand of another defender who was inches away from him and was looking the other way. I get surrounded and hit with the usual "he's gained an advantage so must be a pen" etc etc. It was great that I could just state that it was deliberate and that's all that matters. I could've gone into the IFAB guidelines but we'd all be confused by the end and the simplicity of a single and clear law is a great thing in these circumstances to allow the ref to make the decision and easily explain it

 

[santa sangria]

Predictably, during my game yesterday (first league match of the season), completely unintentional handball in the box, defender has gone to clear the ball with a header and it's hit the hand of another defender who was inches away from him and was looking the other way. I get surrounded and hit with the usual "he's gained an advantage so must be a pen" etc etc. It was great that I could just state that it was deliberate and that's all that matters. I could've gone into the IFAB guidelines but we'd all be confused by the end and the simplicity of a single and clear law is a great thing in these circumstances to allow the ref to make the decision and easily explain it

You gave it?
Inches away, looking the other way... what am I missing here?

 

[JamesL]

Very late to this party. Wolves' first goal for me DHB.

Deliberate in the LOTG does not have the same meaning as you would find in your everyday conversation or a dictionary. This is the case for many terms in the LOTG (another good example being "gaining an advantage"). Like or not the current interpretations do not require a player necessarily intend to handle the ball for it to be deemed a DHB. Sure if there is intent its DHB, but sometimes it's also DHB without the intent of handling the ball (call it a careless handball if you like).

I wonder if anyone who thinks Wolves' first goal was NOT DHB, also thinks the 83rd minute penalty for Brighton in BHA Vs FUL was not DHB also.
http://footy1.matchat.online/embed/D5HnP2j2oo
the incident is at 4.45 of the vid.

For me both had no intent to handle but with the current interpretations, both are DHB.

As indicated many times in the past, the law has to change to make interpretation of DHB much more clearer.

Mitro and Boly handballs are so different. I think the Mitro one is correct and Boly incorrect.

 

[one]

Mitro and Boly handballs are so different. I think the Mitro one is correct and Boly incorrect.

Much of the argument on the ten pages or so here is relying on intent. My post is pointing out intent alone is not a determining factor.

The only comparison I am making on the two incidents is on intent. As far as intent goes, they are very similar as neither had intent of handling. Although I don't agree with you, by saying one is DHB and the other isn't, you have basically confirmed my point that intent alone (or lack of) is not enough.

 

[Padfoot]

Very late to this party. Wolves' first goal for me DHB.

Deliberate in the LOTG does not have the same meaning as you would find in your everyday conversation or a dictionary. This is the case for many terms in the LOTG (another good example being "gaining an advantage"). Like or not the current interpretations do not require a player necessarily intend to handle the ball for it to be deemed a DHB. Sure if there is intent its DHB, but sometimes it's also DHB without the intent of handling the ball (call it a careless handball if you like).

I wonder if anyone who thinks Wolves' first goal was NOT DHB, also thinks the 83rd minute penalty for Brighton in BHA Vs FUL was not DHB also.
http://footy1.matchat.online/embed/D5HnP2j2oo
the incident is at 4.45 of the vid.

For me both had no intent to handle but with the current interpretations, both are DHB.

As indicated many times in the past, the law has to change to make interpretation of DHB much more clearer.

 

[JamesL]

Much of the argument on the ten pages or so here is relying on intent. My post is pointing out intent alone is not a determining factor.

The only comparison I am making on the two incidents is on intent. As far as intent goes, they are very similar as neither had intent of handling. Although I don't agree with you, by saying one is DHB and the other isn't, you have basically confirmed my point that intent alone (or lack of) is not enough.

The difference for me is one moves his arm into the path/flight of the ball, deliberately. Whereas the other is incidental, instinctive and secondary to another action.

 

[Peter Grove]

Deliberate in the LOTG does not have the same meaning as you would find in your everyday conversation or a dictionary. This is the case for many terms in the LOTG (another good example being "gaining an advantage").

I'm sorry but where are you finding any evidence that deliberate has a separate meaning in the Laws? Just because the LOTG give a specific definition for what the phrase '"gaining an advantage" means, it doesn't follow that other words in the law have different meanings from their normal use.

You might just as well claim that the words "field" or "line" or "ball" must mean something different than their normal definitions, because "interfering with play" has a different meaning in the Laws than in everyday use.

When the IFAB wants a word or phrase to have a specific meaning, they provide us with a clear definition if what that is. If they don't provide a definition, then I believe we have to take it that words carry their normal definition - otherwise what the heck are we basing the definitions on - guesswork?

Now, I think it's true that based on what we see in some games, a lot of referees seem to be using a definition of "deliberate" that does not correspond to what a dictionary says it is but that has nothing to do with what the laws say and everything to do with their own (mis)interpretation of what they think the law should mean.

 

[bloovee]

I was about to say the same thing. Statements made in the past by the USSF cannot be taken as in any way indicative of the IFAB's views on the law. The USSF had a long and consistent history of saying things in their "Advice to Referees" document that were almost totally at odds with the Laws of the Game which is probably one reason why it was discontinued and should not be relied on as an authoritative source.

The IFAB has only ever given one rationale for this - and it has not changed.

Well, here's the challenge - I've found something going back ten years to say that arms and hands were not included because you can't score with arms or hands. If you can find something before the FAQ to support the rationale in the FAQ, feel free to post it.

(Had anyone heard that rationale before it got in the FAQ?)

 

[bloovee]

But if it isn’t a deliberate act then surely it is against the spirit of the game to punish a player for something over which they have no control

You're not punishing a player. You're penalising an action that gave one team a goal scored with the hand, and why's that "in the spirit of the game"?

 

[JamesL]

You're not punishing a player. You're penalising an action that gave one team a goal scored with the hand, and why's that "in the spirit of the game"?

Because it is not an offence to accidentally handle the ball so disallowing a goal that was scored, without any offence taking place is unfair on the team which has scored.

 

[one]

@Padfoot If you have a logical argument put it forward, otherwise no trolling.

I'm sorry but where are you finding any evidence that deliberate has a separate meaning in the Laws?

Through the widely accepted interpretations (not the wording of the law itself). In the same post I have provided a perfect example of an incident in BHA Vs FUL where it clearly is not intentional but just about every referee would give it a DHB.

EDIT: I have also stated the law need to change to reflect this.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Predictably, during my game yesterday (first league match of the season), completely unintentional handball in the box, defender has gone to clear the ball with a header and it's hit the hand of another defender who was inches away from him and was looking the other way. I get surrounded and hit with the usual "he's gained an advantage so must be a pen" etc etc. It was great that I could just state that it was deliberate and that's all that matters. I could've gone into the IFAB guidelines but we'd all be confused by the end and the simplicity of a single and clear law is a great thing in these circumstances to allow the ref to make the decision and easily explain it

So your decision based on your post, was to play on.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Mitro and Boly handballs are so different. I think the Mitro one is correct and Boly incorrect.

I don't see any difference between the two. Both are handling from a misjudgement on the ball's trajectory

 

[Padfoot]

@Padfoot If you have a logical argument put it forward, otherwise no trolling.

Through the widely accepted interpretations (not the wording of the law itself). In the same post I have provided a perfect example of an incident in BHA Vs FUL where it clearly is not intentional but just about every referee would give it a DHB.

EDIT: I have also stated the law need to change to reflect this.

Ok, the logical argument is that you are simply making up an interpretation of a word to suit your agenda without any evidence in the good book to support your ridiculous notion.

In short, you’re being rather silly.

 

[Peter Grove]

Well, here's the challenge - I've found something going back ten years to say that arms and hands were not included because you can't score with arms or hands.

No, you haven't - at least not something that's actually worth anything. If the USSF interpretations ever had any validity then it would only have been in the US. But the thing is, anything issued by the USSF in this regard had absolutely no validity because, as FIFA Circular 1224, issued 19 May, 2010 stated:

We would like to reiterate that the International Football Association Board (or FIFA on its behalf) is the only body with the authority to issue [...] additional instructions concerning the Laws of the Game in order to ensure uniform application worldwide.

 

[one]

Ok, the logical argument is that you are simply making up an interpretation of a word to suit your agenda without any evidence in the good book to support your ridiculous notion.

In short, you’re being rather silly.

I usually don't use persona in a debate but given that you don't seem to have any problems with that I will make an exception in your case (and undershorts the irony in this post). This is not the first time you base your arguments on the person or belittling of the a person's view. This approach represents a weakness of a person's logic which is being compensated by personal demeaning. I pity any referee you would observe (if indeed you are an observer) who would have to sit through your debriefing.

I find it pointless attempting any civil debate with a person with such character.

 

[Padfoot]

I usually don't use persona in a debate but given that you don't seem to have any problems with that I will make an exception in your case (and undershorts the irony in this post). This is not the first time you base your arguments on the person or belittling of the a person's view. This approach represents a weakness of a person's logic which is being compensated by personal demeaning. I pity any referee you would observe (if indeed you are an observer) who would have to sit through your debriefing.

I find it pointless attempting any civil debate with a person with such character.

And again.....you have read what you wanted to hear.....not what was said.

Hard to present you with a logical argument for why your erroneous understanding of what ‘deliberate’ means is spurious without somehow referencing your actual self.......your understanding is flawed, incorrect, wrong etc etc and this is due to you needing it to be so in order that you can justify awarding incorrect handball decisions instead of making the tougher call of being correct in law yet unpopular with players......