It went away because the law was changed to stop it. IFAB were clear one of the reasons to limit SPA-PK was because many yellows were being issued incorrectly.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 It's an outdated approach, but is still often applied for some reason.
*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.
The history of the changes was an effort at uniformity. (I'd say a failed effort, but I digress....) England was at one extreme of the spectrum (nothing is deliberate, play on!) and I think S. America (of course it was deliberate--wouldn't have touched him if it wasn't) was the other. The committee literally sat around a video monitor debating what should be an offense. Frequently there was a blatant split when looking at a clip--all the English/Europeans said clearly not an offense and all the south american reps said it was clearly an offense. What they came up with was a compromise. I suspect that just as folks in Europe and the US (particularly England) are saying that the new handball law is creating offenses that shouldn't be there, over in SA, they are moaning about non-calls that always would have been an offense in the past.I understand the new reqording of the law and interpretation of it in European competition. I just totally disagree with it. I dont think the lawmakers and those who interpet them in the various competitions are looking at what the hand ball law is there for. Id argue that they are thinking about it too much and too literally.
Also, lawmakers occasionally seem to think more about the offense and less about the end result. With this handball interpretation, the end result is more penalties for handball offences and I dont think football fans/players/coaches/managers want this. Defenders often now try and defend by hiding their arms behind their backs because they're so distrustful of the new interpretation of the law. Who wants that?
If philosophy is that far apart, breakaway may be the only solutionThe history of the changes was an effort at uniformity. (I'd say a failed effort, but I digress....) England was at one extreme of the spectrum (nothing is deliberate, play on!) and I think S. America (of course it was deliberate--wouldn't have touched him if it wasn't) was the other. The committee literally sat around a video monitor debating what should be an offense. Frequently there was a blatant split when looking at a clip--all the English/Europeans said clearly not an offense and all the south american reps said it was clearly an offense. What they came up with was a compromise. I suspect that just as folks in Europe and the US (particularly England) are saying that the new handball law is creating offenses that shouldn't be there, over in SA, they are moaning about non-calls that always would have been an offense in the past.
They have also said that the goal was to eliminate defenders having to play unnaturally (e.g., with arms behind their backs) to avoid getting called for PKs. (Even before the changes we clearly saw PK calls that were totally unavoidable being called.) But I certainly don't think they were successful in that objective.
I do think that they thought that by better defining the criteria they were making it more possible for defenders to manage their actions and be able to avoid getting called for handling. But I don't think they succeeded at all in that.
If philosophy is that far apart, breakaway may be the only solution
I for one, don't give a monkeys about S American football, nor do I expect them to tell us how to run our game
Yes, of course. But then UK refs already markedly change their game for the Champions LeagueThat ought to make it easy for World Cup referees then...
But you're missing the point. I don't watch SA games, but based on what I know of the changes, I don't think the changes resulted in any extra handling calls in SA. I think the calls that have folks up in arms in England were always offenses in SA. The compromise was between different visions of what should be handling. If anything, by finding middle ground, there would be fewer PKs in SA with the changes to handling.Surely even in SA they don't want 10s of extra penalties a season & therefore 10s of extra games decided due to a variance in handball interpretation?
I understand the new reqording of the law and interpretation of it in European competition. I just totally disagree with it. I dont think the lawmakers and those who interpet them in the various competitions are looking at what the hand ball law is there for. Id argue that they are thinking about it too much and too literally.
Also, lawmakers occasionally seem to think more about the offense and less about the end result. With this handball interpretation, the end result is more penalties for handball offences and I dont think football fans/players/coaches/managers want this. Defenders often now try and defend by hiding their arms behind their backs because they're so distrustful of the new interpretation of the law. Who wants that?
My thoughts exactly. This will be the time linePresumably the number of hand ball PKs is going to decline as players believe and internalize what is going to be called. (But, contrary to the messaging that came from IFAB, the new hand ball law is not going to make players feel more comfortable in defending without putting their hands behind their back--at least not outside SA.)
Congratulations on your psychic powers!Law 12:
"the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)"
This is quite clearly not a penalty kick in law.
Not under that clause but nothing to stop a referee making it a penalty kick under the one above that one.Law 12:
"the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)"
This is quite clearly not a penalty kick in law.
True.Not under that clause but nothing to stop a referee making it a penalty kick under the one above that one.
"the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger"
the problem is in the interpretation of what is "unnaturally bigger". Players running/moving and using their arm as counter balance or players running/moving with their arm tied next to their body or behind their back?
Except that is clearly not true with the modifications and not what IFAB was establishing. An arm over the head can be obvious accidental but is still a handball--if you put your arm there, the risk is all on you, regardless of whether it is accidental. (And that's before we even get to the attacker handball offense.) "Deliberate" was always subjective and debatable in many cages, but I still think the effort to micro-define handball (which is a trend throughout the Laws for the past several years) was a mistake that hasn't made anything better. But I think it would be very hard to roll back.Perhaps there should be a further clause stating that obviously accidental contact is never handball?