A&H

Handball in the box

Paul Sangster said:
How do we know if the 'directive or interpretation' in this video has been endorsed by IFAB?
Click to expand...
I have seen responses from the IFAB technical committee following the same lines of thought.

Sheffields Finest said:
I agree with all your points RJ, That said, Like Minty, I'm also not convinced on this Unnatural position clap trap, If i'm a defender, i'm doing just that, defending, I cant predict where the ball will be struck against me so how can it be a deliberate action to hand ball it!! It was a chanced connection, hardly deliberate on the defenders part. I always thought of myself of a decent judge on this and still get the majority right on TV. The ones I wince at are the arms flaying behind a defender given as hand ball, scandalous!!!
Click to expand...
The idea about unnatural position is that the onus is on the defender to try handling. In line with that video.
Good thing that the LOTG talk about consideration given to the position of the hand.

I think the best example of unnatural position is if the wall all stuck their arms up in the air before the ball was kicked. It's hand to ball, not ball to hand. Their hand doesn't move towards the ball - it just shouldn't have been there.

Like when you're closing down an attacker. It's on you to make sure you're not sticking your arms right out to the side.

Or running across in front of a ball that's being kicked - you don't get to stick your arms out in front and smother the kick.
 
The Referee Store
Mintyref said:
No, they are not. The second is not intentional therefore cannot be deliberate handball.......
Click to expand...
Hey Minty, can see you feel strongly about this .. but what you are arguing is simply at odds with the way all referees are currently being asked to interpret this law. @CapnBloodbeard gives multiple good examples above of relevant situations which are NOT "hand to ball" but (in this day and age) should still be penalised. The distinction between the wider definition of a deliberate act and the narrower definition of deliberately handling the ball is critical for us all to understand ...
 
Russell Jones said:
Hey Minty, can see you feel strongly about this .. but what you are arguing is simply at odds with the way all referees are currently being asked to interpret this law. @CapnBloodbeard gives multiple good examples above of relevant situations which are NOT "hand to ball" but (in this day and age) should still be penalised. The distinction between the wider definition of a deliberate act and the narrower definition of deliberately handling the ball is critical for us all to understand ...
Click to expand...
So the problem lies with the law as it stands. If it needs "interpretation" then it is not written correctly. I'll give you things like sticking your hand in the air in a wall are a handball offence. I won't give in when it comes to other natural movements of the arm whilst the body is in motion.
Anyway, I'm not last week's ref, more last season's as I've retired.
 
Agree, funny enough, with the above. In the two clips shown. and esp in the first one, I cannot fathom at what part any of the act of handling the ball could be termed as anything like deliberate
When is still standing and deciding in his head to make a slide?
When he is actually in the process of sliding?
When he is spangled on the ground in movement and not really in control of his arm movements therefore in no way has he a> got time in his brain to think about using his hand to stop thd ball or b> got little, if any control over where his arm will end up

I agree its to the detriment of the attacker if the ball happens to strike the arm of the defender, but, I either cannot see, or can see, but clearly dont understand, how the defenders handling actions can be deemed as deliberate
 
Almost everything needs interpretation and judgement in this sport!
But I've always argued that handball would be better off being described as careless, rather than deliberate.
Or perhaps have some clauses where 'in X situation, any ball-hand contact is a foul' (after all, FIFA are pretty much saying that's how it goes with a defender sliding. If that's what they want, then write it down somewhere!!)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Almost everything needs interpretation and judgement in this sport!
But I've always argued that handball would be better off being described as careless, rather than deliberate.
Or perhaps have some clauses where 'in X situation, any ball-hand contact is a foul' (after all, FIFA are pretty much saying that's how it goes with a defender sliding. If that's what they want, then write it down somewhere!!)
Click to expand...

@Ciley Myrus
Have you at least watched the video?

Outside of that, I've already explained why the first one would be, in my books, even outside of the FIFA explanation - he's dragging his arm along the ground and making his body at least 2 feet longer. That's no different to a defender running in with arms sticking out to the side. Or running in to block a kick with arms sticking out and in front
 
Where should his arms be when sliding? Cut off and stored in a trinket box until the striker has shot?
Running, the natural movement is arms in, not out, so if someone is running and arms are outstretched and make contact with the ball, yes, I can justify a deliberate act
You try running, at speed, turning, then launching into a slide tackle attempt and see where your arms go, and then tell me his are not in the natural position of someone hitting the deck
Even imagining the act in your head, your right arm will fall to your right hand side as a support for your back and your left arm will extend upwards to the top left hand side to support the impact to your neck
For this player NOT to be penalised by the logic apparent, he would need to waterslide dive bomb into the tackle, and, that simply does not happen
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Where should his arms be when sliding? Cut off and stored in a trinket box until the striker has shot?
Click to expand...
Already answered that one mate. Every team I played in we were taught to tuck the arms underneath - that's also cushioning the impact.

You can't possibly be arguing that a defender should be allowed to have their arm stretched out along the ground as a legal method of blocking the ball with their arm.
 
He is not stretching out to block a ball though, he is stretching out to make his slide
The fact there is a ball rattled into his arm is due to the actions of his opponent
 
There are a number of way a slide action can be made. The ones in the clip gives the defender the highest chance of blocking the ball using ANY body part with an action that can be described as a natural movement. Other natural movement slides also exist which will be less 'risky' (or no slide at all). Why give the defender who has been left behind by a good attacking move the benefit of using a risky move? That's the whole point of the reasoning behind the video explanation. He has a choice of sliding without taking a such a risk (or not slide) but did not.
 
To the OP, don't be too critical of yourself. Accept you were unlucky to have a tough decision to make with big consequences either way very late in the game. Referees, managers and players always move on, as emotion finds another outlet.
Regarding handball, I think there would be forensic attacks on the semantics of the law however it was written. I will add that 'deliberate' can be said of a killing without implying murder. We should ask ourselves whether football would be any better as a spectacle, or easier to referee, if the authorities enforced the law for any touch with the hand or never at all. The struggles we face are perhaps a necessary evil.

I agree that 80-90% of handball claims are unreasonable. On the weekend, I awarded one where the ball travelled a considerable distance and struck a defender on his arm, close to the body, about 25 yards from goal. It was extremely similar to one I didn't give a few months ago, just inside the penalty area. Obviously, the assumption is that the location of the alleged offences made all the difference, and I will concede that that is highly possible. On the former, however, there was a slight movement of the body prior to contact. That drew my attention to the hand, but perhaps he was actually trying to take evasive action. I could have been wrong or right on either or both, and frankly I am much more likely to lose sleep over discipline or erring fundamentally in law than a split-second interpretation. I don't think it is helpful to rule out all handballs 'close to the body' and 'unnatural position' essentially just justifies the fact that referees will identify and 'sell' that contact more easily.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Mmm, I’m happier with deliberate or not ITOOTR
Click to expand...
I'm happy with deliberate too. What would really sort it though would be handball = foul. You could then use intention(deliberate or not) to determine whether a card is warranted and depending on circumstances the colour.
Perhaps not though as it just shifts the argument to card or not and what colour......
 
There's a national thing on this as well. You see a lot less handling instances penalised in the Premier League than you do, as an example, in the Spanish League. Not saying it is right, but then again the same applies to physical contact as well, plenty of Spanish players have moved to England and said they cannot believe how much contact the referees allow.

Same game, same laws, but applied slightly differently.
 
After 18:00 mins in the vid: "a shot on target that is handball but not DOGSO is SPA/YC"... I don't get that... Surely any shot on target that is handballed must be RC, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top