The Ref Stop

Wales v Belgium Handball

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

S

SelbyRef

New Member
I know handball discussions/debates are pretty common these days but what do others think of this handball decision? Not given on field, overturned on VAR I think.

A lot of the time I can see why they might get given (or not), but this one I really struggle with. I know UEFA might interpret slightly more harshly than in UK, but even so given proximity & hand in a natural position IMO (he’s starting to move/run to his right), really don’t think this should have been given.

Handball
 
The Ref Stop
I'm sick of the handball law, I feel like maybe I need a CPD on application of it, so many different interpretations out there!
 
His arm is away from his body making it bigger.. So I can see why it was given. You could argue harsh, but point of contact is the forearm so by letter is a handball..
 
Steve Fall said:
His arm is away from his body making it bigger.. So I can see why it was given. You could argue harsh, but point of contact is the forearm so by letter is a handball..
Click to expand...
Overall, I firmly disagree, despite agreeing with most of what you say 😊. The ball absolutely hit the arm and the arm was clearly ‘away from the body’. However, the arm position felt entirely natural to me and totally justified by the body movement being undertaken. For anyone who views it similarly, this is 100% not a handball offence, by either the letter or the spirit of the law
 
Russell Jones said:
Overall, I firmly disagree, despite agreeing with most of what you say 😊. The ball absolutely hit the arm and the arm was clearly ‘away from the body’. However, the arm position felt entirely natural to me and totally justified by the body movement being undertaken. For anyone who views it similarly, this is 100% not a handball offence, by either the letter or the spirit of the law
Click to expand...
1760437891519.png

:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:




I jest - haven't actually even seen it!
 
The problem with the handball law has always been that it has had a point of determination that could be interpreted in a wide range of ways from referee to refere, region to region...

And that has not changed even with the current wording. That point of non-defined determination now is what is "considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger". This thread is a good example. We still have handballs given inconsistently.
 
one said:
The problem with the handball law has always been that it has had a point of determination that could be interpreted in a wide range of ways from referee to refere, region to region...

And that has not changed even with the current wording. That point of non-defined determination now is what is "considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger". This thread is a good example. We still have handballs given inconsistently.
Click to expand...
I think the qualifier on that is where it really gets subjective— “ when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.” In part because it is so subjective, and in part because we don’t entirely mean what the words say. We expect players to do things slightly unnatural to avoid the risk of the ball hitting the arm. (The sliding player being expected to keep the arm down a key example.) I think that what has really changed over the past decade or so is that instead of relying on ITOOTR.
we have been trying to pretend it can be made objective.
 
socal lurker said:
I think the qualifier on that is where it really gets subjective— “ when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.” In part because it is so subjective, and in part because we don’t entirely mean what the words say. We expect players to do things slightly unnatural to avoid the risk of the ball hitting the arm. (The sliding player being expected to keep the arm down a key example.) I think that what has really changed over the past decade or so is that instead of relying on ITOOTR.
we have been trying to pretend it can be made objective.
Click to expand...
Think this is a helpful elaboration. Interestingly, I think a great deal of the subjectivity regarding natural / justifiable comes from differing philosophical start points … UEFA seem to start from ‘it’s a handball offence unless you’ve clearly done everything possible to avoid the ball hitting your arm”, whereas the English game is now more ‘it’s not a handball offence unless you’ve clearly done something unnatural’. I feel this latter is far more in keeping with how the Law is actually written and also fits the Spirit of the game … only penalising players when they’ve actually done something “wrong”
 
Russell Jones said:
Think this is a helpful elaboration. Interestingly, I think a great deal of the subjectivity regarding natural / justifiable comes from differing philosophical start points … UEFA seem to start from ‘it’s a handball offence unless you’ve clearly done everything possible to avoid the ball hitting your arm”, whereas the English game is now more ‘it’s not a handball offence unless you’ve clearly done something unnatural’. I feel this latter is far more in keeping with how the Law is actually written and also fits the Spirit of the game … only penalising players when they’ve actually done something “wrong”
Click to expand...
I agree with the philosophical difference but have mixed feelings here. “Biggering” originated as a way of identifying deliberate handling that was well disguised—the arm was where it was deliberately to take up space. But the most recent Laws have separated out “biggering” as a non-deliberate offense, emphasized by the fact that mere “biggering” changes DOGSO in the PA to a caution instead of a send off. So while I personally lean towards more of the British view on where to draw lines, I think the UEFA view may be closer to where IFAB is and more what we will see in the WC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top