A&H

Handball (or not) ?

J

JG130273

New Member
Level 5 Referee
Hi All

Opinions required please on the following match incident from my game this morning.

Attacker has rounded the goalkeeper - shoots on goal from approx 8 yards out - defender on line dives to his right - arms are folded upwards and tightly into his own chest (imagine a goalkeepers arms having caught the ball into his chest then remove the ball). Ball hits defender squarely against both arms and goes out over the goal line.

To clarify, ball has struck both of the arms folded tightly into the chest. Arms have not made the body unnaturally bigger. If the arms are not in that position the ball strikes the defenders chest.

what would you give if anything?
 
The Referee Store
JG130273 said:
If the arms are not in that position the ball strikes the defenders chest
Click to expand...

This sounds like the player's arms are not making the player "unnaturally bigger". Therefore, the only consideration is was it deliberate? Did the player intend to touch the ball with his arms?

If not, play on.
 
I don't have the answer. A similar incident has been discussed before with different opinions. Whtever your decision you have to sell it with confidence. But I give you a couple of other scenarios as food for thought.

Imagine your exact scenario with same arm/hand position but he catches the ball!

Also another scenario he is standing on the line, ball coming from a long distance right at his chest. He can easily let the ball hit his chest but he puts his arms on the chest the same way you described it.
 
I probably have nothing here. It sounds like the arms were appropriately tucked to avoid handling away from the body. But if he does anything to direct the ball with the arms, or it is slow enough he could have moved the arms away and let it just hit the chest, I'm starting to think deliberate handling. It doesn't sound from your description that either of those applied, so it sounds to me like incidental and keep playing. @JG130273 , what was your call and what was your reasoning?
 
Obviously a you had to be there moment but although hes not made himself naturally bigger surely the natural stance for your arms is by your side not tucked into your chest, it would make more sense for the defender to chest the ball depending on the force its been hit at.

If it is hand ball hes also got to see red.
 
I have given a penalty and no red card for this. The players went ballistic, until I told them "if it hadn't hit his arm it would have hit his chest, so he's given you a goal scoring opportunity when there wasn't one before!" Some players didn't accept it, but most understood.
 
It sounds like it’s safe to play on on the basis it wasn’t making the body unnaturally bigger, but is there argument for this to be a handball under ‘deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball’ even if the movement was to put his arms to his chest?
 
Peter Grove said:
According to the original post:


So are you saying it's a red card for a handling offence that prevents the ball from striking a defender's chest?
Click to expand...
We have had this discussion before.

A shot from 25 yards out directly in front (after a corner clearance) goes to a defender on the goal line line. It is chest hight and if the defender doesn't move it bounces of his chest. But he puts his hand up and catches the ball in his chest. The games expects nothing other than a send off here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
one said:
A shot from 25 yards out directly in front (after a corner clearance) goes to a defender on the goal line line. It is chest hight and if the defender doesn't move it bounces of his chest. But he puts his hand up and catches the ball in his chest. The games expects nothing other than a send off here.
Click to expand...

But the act of catching is therefore deliberate, so it makes it easy. Perhaps more tricky is a defender who has their arms close to the chest before a shot and the ball sticks there for a second or so.
 
Martiju said:
But the act of catching is therefore deliberate, so it makes it easy. Perhaps more tricky is a defender who has their arms close to the chest before a shot and the ball sticks there for a second or so.
Click to expand...
The deliberate act is what determines if it is an offence or not. Not if it's DOG or not. Surely we are not saying if it's deliberate it's DOG otherwise it's a pen but not DOG.

The question is if it denied an obvious goal? And a debate around if it is deemed deliberate, does a player's own chest behind it matters.
 
RustyRef said:
That's what I was thinking, had it not hit the arms it would hit the chest therefore I can't see how it could possibly be DOGSO.
Click to expand...
For DOGSO the advice I've always heard is to remove the offending player completely from the equation... you wouldn't say "yes the defender pulled the attacker back first, but he's won the ball cleanly afterwards so it's not a red", why would this be different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Alex Rush-Fear said:
For DOGSO the advice I've always heard is to remove the offending player completely from the equation... you wouldn't say "yes the defender pulled the attacker back first, but he's won the ball cleanly afterwards so it's not a red", why would this be different?
Click to expand...

Or if he hadn't fouled him he could have easily cleared the ball.
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
For DOGSO the advice I've always heard is to remove the offending player completely from the equation... you wouldn't say "yes the defender pulled the attacker back first, but he's won the ball cleanly afterwards so it's not a red", why would this be different?
Click to expand...

I think it is different. In your example, he was able to gain an advantage in the ability to clear the ball because of the foul--and that is a DOGSO scenario, not a DOG scenario.

DOG is denying an actual goal, not an opportunity. So if the ball was clearly not going into the goal because it was going to hit the player in the chest, the very stupid handling did not deny a goal--it created a great scoring opportunity via the PK. At least at the level of games I do, I'm not giving a DOG send off for that. If the attacking team complains I'm just going to explain that the defender didn't deny a goal because it wasn't going in--the defender gave them a gift of a PK and they should be happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top