Defensive handling and OS

Blue 10 is passing the ball to Blue 9, who is in OSP next to goal. Red 3 commits a HB offense, but the ball continues to Blue 9 who kicks it into the goal before the referee whistles for handling. The correct call

A. Goal
B. PK for the HB offense
C. It depends on whether the handling offense was deliberate or merely unnaturally bigger
D. It depends on whether the handling offense counts as a deliberate play or a deflection under the new FIFA slides
E. Offside

I lean to A, but I can't define why C or D aren't better answers. (I'm pretty confident it cannot be B or E, but jut threw them in there as the other possible options . . .) This came up in another discussion board and curious what thoughts are here. I believe IFAB has said that deliberate handling is always a play that resets OS, but I can't recall where--perhaps in the Q&A?

"PK for an offside offence"? That can never happen.

But I get your point and the gap in the wording of the laws. The intent of the law is to award a goal here.

It's in law 11

(Fixed the typo in B)

I forgot that was actually dropped into Law 11 and thought it was other guidance.

I think that is what they mean, too, but I can't really prove it. Putting "deliberate handball" in there at about the same time they created non-deliberate HB offenses doesn't help give clarity. And even beyond that, the sentence construction makes the HB language a subset of "deliberately plays the ball," which has been interpreted to not include as deliberate actions that would be sufficient to be deliberate for purposes of handling.

I really wish IFAB could get some better editors . . .

There was a time the entire offence, no matter how it was done, was called 'deliberate handball'. What law 11 means is "including by committing a handball offence", but it is using the old naming.

On a side note, 'non-deliberate handball offence' can only happen while attacking so it can't apply to your scenario. The 'unnatural position handball' is not exclusive of deliberate handball, it's just one way of it being deliberate. As you say, the laws are not written the best to convey this.

IFAB knows they are not good at wording the laws, that's why to continually refer us to the intent of it. He editors seem to be very good referees who know how to draft. While they should be very good technical drafters/writers who know how to referee.

one said:

There was a time the entire offence, no matter how it was done, was called 'deliberate handball'. What law 11 means is "including by committing a handball offence", but it is using the old naming.

On a side note, 'non-deliberate handball offence' can only happen while attacking so it can't apply to your scenario. The 'unnatural position handball' is not exclusive of deliberate handball, it's just one way of it being deliberate. As you say, the laws are not written the best to convey this.

IFAB knows they are not good at wording the laws, that's why to continually refer us to the intent of it. He editors seem to be very good referees who sort of, kind of, but not really know how to draft. While they should be very good technical drafters/writers who know how to referee.

Click to expand...

Your history is, of course, correct. We had decades of nothing more than deliberate handling in the opinion of the referee. And making oneself unnaturally bigger (biggering?) certainly began as a flavor of deliberate, I'm not sure that is what it is today. I think that is how it should be thought about and taught, but I'm not sure it is. I think many see biggering as a separate offense and lose track of the idea that the concept was created to capture the sneaky deliberate handling that a player tries to hide.

(Aside: I was doing a high school game and there was ball to arm contact that was not an offense, and from years and years of habit called "not deliberate, keep playing" and heard the boys on the touchline aghast--"He doesn't even know that changed! That's horrible." And I can't really blame them as IFAB keeps mucking it up with changes. Hopefully we've stabilized.)

And I fixed your last paragraph.

socal lurker said:

Blue 10 is passing the ball to Blue 9, who is in OSP next to goal. Red 3 commits a HB offense, but the ball continues to Blue 9 who kicks it into the goal before the referee whistles for handling. The correct call

A. Goal
B. PK for the HB offense
C. It depends on whether the handling offense was deliberate or merely unnaturally bigger
D. It depends on whether the handling offense counts as a deliberate play or a deflection under the new FIFA slides
E. Offside

I lean to A, but I can't define why C or D aren't better answers. (I'm pretty confident it cannot be B or E, but jut threw them in there as the other possible options . . .) This came up in another discussion board and curious what thoughts are here. I believe IFAB has said that deliberate handling is always a play that resets OS, but I can't recall where--perhaps in the Q&A?

Click to expand...

I'd lean towards A in my game with the assumption that the OS offence hasn't taken place until Blue 9 actually becomes "active" and therefore the handball offence resets that. Possible yellow for Red 3 as well. (Unless I've read your post wrong).

I think people on this site are unduly harsh of IFAB. True, they may have problems with wording Laws....but look at the national Government: teams of lawyers, private secretaries and clerks all work at drafting laws that end up having myriad loopholes and mistakes. And yet we
expect a bunch of ex referees sitting around a table to produce iron clad and crystal clear rules that will encompass hundreds of rare or outlandish situations. I do think that some people on here are just expending vast amounts of ingenuity LOOKING FOR the slightest opportunity to berate the law makers..

Dan56 said:

I think people on this site are unduly harsh of IFAB. True, they may have problems with wording Laws....but look at the national Government: teams of lawyers, private secretaries and clerks all work at drafting laws that end up having myriad loopholes and mistakes. And yet we
expect a bunch of ex referees sitting around a table to produce iron clad and crystal clear rules that will encompass hundreds of rare or outlandish situations. I do think that some people on here are just expending vast amounts of ingenuity LOOKING FOR the slightest opportunity to berate the law makers..

Click to expand...

Let's just say I disagree with your analogy, your conclusion and your closing statement.