santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Deliberate handball. Pen.
Ball heading to goal. Yellow card.
New stadium. Cheers!
Ball heading to goal. Yellow card.
New stadium. Cheers!
Leeds v Everton
- Thread starter cwyeary
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Behind doesn't necessarily mean closer fwiw, Lewis Dunk was penalised for putting an arm behind his body after the ball slipped under him from a cross and hit it. So even that wasn't considered a natural position. We have put players in a position where they feel they cannot win!
I can't help but feel if this movement was just blocking a cross it would be seen different and no penalty given. Just because he stopped a goal bound attempt, it seems to justify it should be a handball.
I'll accept it more if the defender had an unsighted view and he panics and moves towards the ball and then hits his arm but it was through bodies and a deflection came into play also. There was no arm movement towards the ball, it was ball to arm imo.
I'll accept it more if the defender had an unsighted view and he panics and moves towards the ball and then hits his arm but it was through bodies and a deflection came into play also. There was no arm movement towards the ball, it was ball to arm imo.
There was definitely movement of the arm towards the ball, had he stayed where he was the ball would have missed him, and in leaning to the left to try and blocked the ball I don't see that there can be any argument that the arm didn't move. towards the ball, it had to as it was attached to his body that he moved. If you aren't given a penalty here then I'd suggest that the reason is you believe the arm was in an acceptable position for the footballing action being performed.
I don't really have a strong opinion on this one, feels to me like either outcome is supportable, and incidents like this will always divide the opinion of the officials involved and people debating it afterwards.
Of course it is! I mean really what is the acceptable position if not pinned to his side like this?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
As far as I'm concerned, it's a completely acceptable / natural arm position for the body movement being undertaken.
However, deliberately moving your whole body, including the arm, towards the flight of the ball like that, runs the risk of the ball coming into contact with the arm. The defender took an understandable chance and paid the price. Exactly as if he had attempted to legitimately challenge for the ball but slightly mistimed it , resulting in a Careless foul.
Okay I’ve never been advised or seen guidance that moving a hand or arm towards the ball includes whole body movement. If it does we have a lot of penalties to go back and award at PL level.
Please share that if it exists but that’s a terrible interpretation if so.
If he was stood upright then his arm would absolutely be in an acceptable position. But can there really be any debate that he didn’t move his arm towards the ball by leaning towards it?
As I said, I’m comfortable with either outcome here but I don’t think it was wrong.
But surely the interpretation of the term “moving towards the ball” is the arm or hand moving independently of the body or in an action we do not normally expect from that footballing action.
If not there, where do we expect an arm to be when leaning to block a shot or cross?
Don’t lean, or at least accept If you do you are moving your arm towards the ball and taking a risk. Think about what Neville and Carragher, both former top level defenders, said at the time in that he knew what he was doing. I’d guess they said that because they’d both done the same themselves.
one
RefChat Addict
Football is a physical sport with a lot of body part movements that are legal. As far as I know, the purpose of the non-deliberate clause was that if the hand/arm hits the ball when making those legal movements you don't have to pay a price if you didn't intend for your arm to hit the ball and natural position etc.
The question is, do you think Tarkowski intended for his hand to hit the ball? If your answer is yes then fair enough. But if the answer is no, he intended to block with his torso but he knew the risk (and took a chance), then It shouldn't be an offence. Any player at any time, making any movement around the ball knows there is a risk it may hit the ball, but as said above the non-deliberate clause is there to mitigate this risk (based on intent and hand/arm position).
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Whilst sometimes we question the clarity of players’ thinking, to suggest that any defender would actually intend for the ball to hit their hand in this scenario (with the GK well positioned) would stretch credulity! In that sense, it’s clearly not deliberate .. but is the result of a clearly deliberate action. That action, in and of itself, had the potential to be legitimate. But, IMO, ended up not being so. The same as if that same defender had attempted what might have been a perfectly legitimate challenge but ending up timing it marginally wrong and committing a careless foul.
More generally, I’m delighted to see fewer handball offences now being given at higher levels in England. I believe interpretation is now far more in keeping with the actual law. And I can totally understand the way this particular decision has split opinion. I’m sure it’ll feature in PGMO clips / media and we will get an ‘official’ verdict … I totally accept I might be ‘wrong’
. For me, the biggest learning point for all referees is that, if they choose to penalise ball / hand contact they need to be crystal clear on what basis they are awarding the free kick (deliberate action vs unnatural position) … not least because, in the penalty area, it will impact the correct sanction.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't really think there are wrong or right answers. There are opinions and interpretations.Whilst sometimes we question the clarity of players’ thinking, to suggest that any defender would actually intend for the ball to hit their hand in this scenario (with the GK well positioned) would stretch credulity! In that sense, it’s clearly not deliberate .. but is the result of a clearly deliberate action. That action, in and of itself, had the potential to be legitimate. But, IMO, ended up not being so. The same as if that same defender had attempted what might have been a perfectly legitimate challenge but ending up timing it marginally wrong and committing a careless foul.
More generally, I’m delighted to see fewer handball offences now being given at higher levels in England. I believe interpretation is now far more in keeping with the actual law. And I can totally understand the way this particular decision has split opinion. I’m sure it’ll feature in PGMO clips / media and we will get an ‘official’ verdict … I totally accept I might be ‘wrong’
Having said that, I don't thing comparing this to a mistimed foul is the right comparison. A much better comparison would be to another common handball scenario which I'm sure would also split opinions.
Say a defender jumps up with clear intent to header the ball. He uses his arm movement natural to the action. Its like you said all the action and movements are very deliberate with the potential of being legitimate. But as a result of oppoents also challenging for the ball and clash of bodies, the ball ends up hitting the hand (or hand hitting ball). For me this is not an offence. It is the reason the non-deliberate clause was introduced for and it is commonly not called an offence after the law change.