The Ref Stop

Development football handballs

T

traser

New Member
Hi, first post here but am pleased to have found the site as it's been helpful so far. I've searched and obviously, there are many handball threads but none that appear to apply to my question. Or, perhaps it's so obvious that I shouldn't be asking.

I have been refereeing girls development matches, ages 8-10, mainly to build experience but also because they have a severe lack of refs available in my area. One occurrence that happens quite often is that when the ball is kicked at chest height girls have a tendency to put their arms up to protect their chest and the ball hits the arms. Not making the body larger necessarily (and the arms are tight in front of the chest), and it's a reaction they can't control very well at this age. However, there are shouts from players and sidelines to blow for the offence.

Does a reaction constitute a deliberate action, therefore requiring a foul to be given? The body is made larger, but not, in my opinion unnaturally - it's not like they are waving them around. But, it's clear that it does hit the arm or hand in self-protection.

What do/would you do?
 
The Ref Stop
traser said:
Does a reaction constitute a deliberate action, therefore requiring a foul to be given? The body is made larger, but not, in my opinion unnaturally - it's not like they are waving them around. But, it's clear that it does hit the arm or hand in self-protection.
Click to expand...
In my opinion here lies your answer. As 8-10 year olds, they will have an instinct to protect themselves, most often their upper torso and face, and they will normally do this by bringing their hands up.

Law for handball:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. 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

In my opinion, moving your arms to defend yourself at that age is justifiable by the player's body movement for that specific situation, see bold above.

Whilst you could argue they move their hands towards the ball, when I reffed 8-10 development games, I never called handballs for that, I'd rather they did that, than get clobbered by a ball and require medical attention.

I'm sure the older and wiser on here can shed more light
 
Theres a post on here somewhere about a handball from Mane at Bayern that has a qna from IFAB about it being a reflex and not being a handball.
 
I ref an u10s boys team occasionally to help out ..

I would say proximity would play a part here. Is it far enough away that they have a chance to do something other than put their arms up.. like get out of the way altogether.

I have to say my tolerance to handball is very high at development football, I’m not giving it unless it is massively making their body bigger or is 100% deliberate .. rarely does an under 10 ‘deliberately’ commit a handball offence. Actually, most of the time I give it they are mortified that they have!

All this said.. it is about learning the game so perhaps giving the handball and then explaining why might teach them to try and react better in the future? After all, putting your arms up like that when older is likely to be given as handball. Tough one.. I have sat on the fence a bit there!
 
I would suggest this. First, at this age, forget all about unnatural position and focus on deliberate. Second, where a player (regardless of gender) is acting in an instinctive/reflex way to protect themselves, that is not deliberate. As R, simply call out “not deliberate keep playing.” If the player has time and chooses to use their arms instead of using another part or getting out of the way, then you have a handling offense. This concept applies at all levels of the game—but what is an acceptable reflexive/instinctive defense is much broader with young players, as we expect players to develop reflexes/instincts that don’t use their arms as much for protection as they get older. Third, at that level, if you never were to call a HB offense, you would be right far, far more often than you were wrong.
 
Thanks to everyone for their input. I haven't been giving the handballs as I saw them as reactions and not deliberate, however, I had felt guilty about not giving them as well. There have been some good reasons in the replies and I'm happier now that I made the right call in those circumstances.

To Redref34 - yes, proximity is certainly a consideration, but kids are kids and sometimes can't predict the flight of the ball over distance, or make decisions to chuck the correct limb at it :D
 
george.g said:
In my opinion here lies your answer. As 8-10 year olds, they will have an instinct to protect themselves, most often their upper torso and face, and they will normally do this by bringing their hands up.

Law for handball:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. 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

In my opinion, moving your arms to defend yourself at that age is justifiable by the player's body movement for that specific situation, see bold above.

Whilst you could argue they move their hands towards the ball, when I reffed 8-10 development games, I never called handballs for that, I'd rather they did that, than get clobbered by a ball and require medical attention.

I'm sure the older and wiser on here can shed more light
Click to expand...
Common sense must surely rule. We want kids to enjoy the game. Well done.
 
traser said:
I have been refereeing girls development matches, ages 8-10, mainly to build experience but also because they have a severe lack of refs available in my area. One occurrence that happens quite often is that when the ball is kicked at chest height girls have a tendency to put their arms up to protect their chest and the ball hits the arms. Not making the body larger necessarily (and the arms are tight in front of the chest), and it's a reaction they can't control very well at this age. However, there are shouts from players and sidelines to blow for the offence.
Click to expand...
The only time I have ever given this as handball was in an U16 girls game because it came from a fair distance and the action means she basically caught it as AND it was heading into the net.
 
george.g said:
Was it DOGSO then?
Click to expand...

See this I wasn't sure about! No players were close and she was behind the ball, so it hitting her arms didn't stop the ball entering the goal but they were outstretched in front of her enough to effect the balls movement.

A red would be a tough sell because A. the previously mentioned body between the ball and goal and B. hard to tell if, without her hands there, it would have fallen to a player with a GSO

In the end went with no card because it wasn't deliberate to be USB
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
See this I wasn't sure about! No players were close and she was behind the ball, so it hitting her arms didn't stop the ball entering the goal but they were outstretched in front of her enough to effect the balls movement.

A red would be a tough sell because A. the previously mentioned body between the ball and goal and B. hard to tell if, without her hands there, it would have fallen to a player with a GSO

In the end went with no card because it wasn't deliberate to be USB
Click to expand...
If not DOGSO, SPA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top