And therefore wrong......
Che vs Ajax
- Thread starter deusex
- Start date
- Status
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think the "automatic" yellow actually makes sense under Law 12. SPAA handling still has "to interfere with or stop," whereas SPAA fouls simply is "which interferes with or stops " a promising attack. As "deliberate" is a broad term of art, I don't think everything that counts as deliberate handling under modern guidance necessarily satisfies being done "to" interfere with or stop a promising attack. Indeed, since it isn't red, we know it was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, so the handling converted something that was not an obvious goal scoring opportunity into an obvious goal scoring opportunity. I'm hard pressed to see a context that needs a caution less than that. All that said, I've heard in various places that the UEFA instruction is that handling on a shot is an auto-yellow. So the R is simply following directions.
No it's not. It is a hand ball* offense to deliberately handle the ball. Deliberately leaving your hand so it can be hit by the ball is exactly that: deliberately handling the ball. (Now if you're arguing that he wasn't able to get his arm out of the way so therefore it can't be deliberate, I would agree with that analysis. [I don't have a comment on the specific play, as I have not see a clip.])
__________
*I still have trouble saying hand ball. . .
deusex
RefChat Addict
So the defender decided to give away a penalty to stop a promising attack... Bold tactic!
The bit you've picked out is clearly to caution defenders that handle the ball OUTSIDE THE AREA to stop a promising attack.
Cautioning a player for stoping a promising attack in the penalty area is ridiculous. You've HELPED the attacking team!!
It is certainly a factor to be added to the mix in deciding whether or not the defender acted deliberately.
It isn't determinative, but it certainly isn't tosh to any degree, let alone utterly.
Okay then, no sanctions for anything that gives away a penalty! Yeah... no.
Not to mention SPA is specifically mentioned as an offence in the box when the LOTG says 'SPA in the PA is a caution unless it was an attempt to play the ball, when no sanction is necessary.'
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That only applies to fouls, not to the separate handling SPA (and your quote isn't a quote, it's a paraphrase):
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
• commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- scores in the opponents’ goal
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
- the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The handball law was a problem before they tinkered, it is worse now. They should have either left it alone or made it very, very simple in words of very few syllables.....something like...'touch the round thing with the bits of your body that come out from your shoulder and it's a free kick to the other team'. That should do it even simpletons should understand that, therefore, so should everyone on here........
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Oh c'mon, what could you possibly do to be more clear than to say that certain things are "usually" offenses? 
It was obviously not meant to be totally accurate to the book, hence the abbreviations. My point of bringing that up was to counteract the notion that:
How can it be ridiculous when it is mentioned in law specifically?
Indeed, very difficult to argue that a handling a shot on target hasn't denied a promising attack. Of course there is the counter argument to say that the penalty is better, and therefore the handling has actually created a better promising attack rather than denying one. For me it depends on the shot, if it is clear going to be saved then I probably wouldn't caution as the penalty is more promising, but that doesn't apply here as he really caught the shot and it may even have been going in.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Yeah that's exactly what I said wasn't it? Yeah... no
Excluding DOGSO, it is all but impossible to try to gain an advantage by handballing in the box
No defender EVER "tactically" conceded a penalty in a non DOGSO situation. Handball in the box is almost always a "brainfart" handball which does not require a caution.
So what are we cautioning for? If I was on the oppositon I'd want the handballer to carry on giving away stupid penalties!!
Also, as social lurker has posted, the law backs me up
It can be as per my earlier post. A shot that is clearly on target before being handled, like this one was, could easily be deemed to be more of a promising attack than having the penalty.
deusex
RefChat Addict
My point is it's certainly not "mentioned in law SPECIFICALLY"
If the shot is really more likely to result in a goal than a penalty (>80%) then, for me, it's DOGSO
one
RefChat Addict
Except for when they are usually not offencesOh c'mon, what could you possibly do to be more clear than to say that certain things are "usually" offenses?
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I know who told you that!
Its amazing how much we refer back to that evening - worth going and not just for the chocolates!
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
As I've said before, selling a handball decision is surely a piece of cake for most of us without video scrutiny. WE can't even begin to agree on here, so the players/managers have no chance
"Its the new handball ball laws mate, what can I do?!"
Sorted!
"Its the new handball ball laws mate, what can I do?!"
Sorted!
We caution because law says so?
I don't even know what your logic is here? So if a foul isn't deliberate and tactical, we don't need to give sanctions? You tell me?
You: "Cautioning a player for stopping a promising attack in the penalty area is ridiculous."
Me: "How can it be ridiculous when it is mentioned in law specifically?"
You:
Page 109 - "commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball"
Handball is not an attempt to play the ball, therefore is a caution if it is SPA in the PA. Just because it doesn't spoonfeed you with: "This includes handball, which isn't an attempt to play the ball, therefore should also result in a penalty kick and caution", doesn't mean it isn't true.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
- Status