A&H

England v Germany Euro 22 Womens Final

I’ve got a German friend badgering me and I’ve watched a lot of clips - On probability, I think the ball has bounced up to her shoulder and then the arm above the bicep.

I think the player had her arms up already to stop herself falling over. I don’t think it was hand to ball.

So, to the law - I think this decision highlights that the new handball law is poorly worded and self-contradictory.

Is it bottom-of-armpit level - maybe - but it’s really hard to judge contact point.

Is it justifiable - maybe - and this is completely subjective here.

Is it a risk - yes.

Is it an offence - up to you, if you are German, yes.., English, no!

”A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.”

The last line is a stinker. ”The player takesa risk…” is useless - it is not phrasing that should be in the LotG. IMHO of course.
 
The Referee Store
I’ve got a German friend badgering me and I’ve watched a lot of clips - On probability, I think the ball has bounced up to her shoulder and then the arm above the bicep.

I think the player had her arms up already to stop herself falling over. I don’t think it was hand to ball.

So, to the law - I think this decision highlights that the new handball law is poorly worded and self-contradictory.

Is it bottom-of-armpit level - maybe - but it’s really hard to judge contact point.

Is it justifiable - maybe - and this is completely subjective here.

Is it a risk - yes.

Is it an offence - up to you, if you are German, yes.., English, no!

”A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.”

The last line is a stinker. ”The player takesa risk…” is useless - it is not phrasing that should be in the LotG. IMHO of course.
Think this is a great answer. Shows that it is arguable from both sides! I think because the ball pinballed from one part of the body to the other could have been the decisive factor.

Sellable from both sides, but from the fact that it took me so many viewings to see it properly, that to me settles it.

On the whole - a tough-fought game which was very even.
 
Think this is a great answer. Shows that it is arguable from both sides! I think because the ball pinballed from one part of the body to the other could have been the decisive factor.

Sellable from both sides, but from the fact that it took me so many viewings to see it properly, that to me settles it.

On the whole - a tough-fought game which was very even.
It is indeed a great answer. And a reality check that pretty much regardless of how well you write the handball law (and personally I think it's now in a really good place) there will still be a grey area where subjective opinion comes into play.

However, the 'pinballing' idea is a red herring. Assuming the officials don't see this as a deliberate movement of arm to ball (IMO clearly not) and assuming they believe it's hit the arm in an area which can equate to handball (IMO it has) then the ONLY decision to make is whether that arm position was justifiable for the body movement being undertaken.
 
It is indeed a great answer. And a reality check that pretty much regardless of how well you write the handball law (and personally I think it's now in a really good place) there will still be a grey area where subjective opinion comes into play.

However, the 'pinballing' idea is a red herring. Assuming the officials don't see this as a deliberate movement of arm to ball (IMO clearly not) and assuming they believe it's hit the arm in an area which can equate to handball (IMO it has) then the ONLY decision to make is whether that arm position was justifiable for the body movement being undertaken.
This is why I think this particular play is so interesting from a refereeing level. My line of reasoning is the exact opposite of yours, and I’m not quite sure which one of us - if either of us - is more correct.

For me, it’s an easy decision that Williamson’s arm is in an unnatural position. My question, as stated earlier, is whether the ball hits the arm in a spot that is a consideration for handling. I THINK it does after watching a slow motion replay 7-10 times, but honestly I’m still not 100% sure. Since I’m one that generally has to be confident that I’ve seen a penalty before giving one, I’m positive that I wouldn’t have given this even if I was in perfect position to see the play. If I’m not sure after watching a replay many times, I know I wouldn’t call that in real time with a single look.

As for VAR, I’d have to imagine they only would have intervened if they were sure as well. If they are seeing these replays and saying, “I can’t tell with 100% certainty”, then they are correct not to recommend an onfield review. I’d say the exact same thing if the on field call was a penalty. Keep in mind this was an Italian VAR team, and Serie A generally has a lower threshold for using VAR to recommend reviews for handling. I know UEFA training differs from AIA training, but you have to think an Italian VAR would still err more toward a stricter standard for handling. Yet there was no on-field review.

The summary for me is this is an incredibly tough call in a major European final, and it’s really tough to heap criticism on the officials no matter what call was made. Calls like this are why refereeing is so difficult and why those who are so quick to criticize need to take the course and work some games before spouting off about it.
 
For me, it’s an easy decision that Williamson’s arm is in an unnatural position. … I know UEFA training differs from AIA training, but you have to think an Italian VAR would still err more toward a stricter standard for handling. Yet there was no on-field review.

I’m not with you on unnatural. The arm was in a natural position for balance for what she was trying to do--there is not a glimmer of an inkling here that the arm was up there to take away space or that there was any probability that the ball would hit it. For me the on,y way to get to HB here is if the the R feels there was a deliberate action on the second contact, which would be defensible--but I’m not convinced it should meet the C&O standard.

I know you know this, but there shouldn’t have been an OFR unless the VAR concluded this was a C&O handling. Each competition seems to draw that line in a different place, but a high bar on C&O seems to be place in the international competitions, so I don’t find it surprising at all that, even if the VAR thought the better call was HB that he didn’t think it meant the C&O standard and therefore didn’t send it down.
 
Back
Top