The Ref Stop

Palace v Chelsea

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

P

Paul_10

RefChat Addict
I know the handball penalty incident has been discussed a touch in the City Wolves thread but I think it's warrants it's own thread as seemingly going by what Dale Johnson is saying, possibly the VAR has misinterpreted the law that led to the referee misinterpreted it aswell although perhaps the process of him making the decision itself perhaps needs questioning because according to Dale(or BBC Sport) the referee needed alot of persuading to give the penalty which I thought it was against VAR protocol, I thought it was more here's the evidence why it's wrong and the ref makes the decision from that(England was at at the screen for what seemed quite a long time).

Hopefully this gets shown on mic'd up as the communication could be interesting to listen too and see what Webb's views on it are.
 
The Ref Stop
I really hope I'm wrong, but it does feel like they might have misinterpreted the laws. Dale Johnson is reporting that Matt Donohue said it had to be a penalty because it stopped a goal bound shot, even though the hand was by his side, and that reluctantly Darren England agreed. That clearly isn't right, for it to be a penalty there has to be deliberate handling or the hand being in an unsupportable position for the action being performed. They'd only then look at deliberate / non-deliberate after giving a penalty to determine the colour of the card. The VAR audio will be interesting assuming we ever get to hear it.

Worryingly Dermot Gallagher also appears to have misinterpreted it as he said this on Ref Watch ...

"The law was changed in August 2024. It was felt that if a player stops the ball accidentally with his hand from going in the goal, it isn't about handball, it's about stopping a goal. That's the difference, it's a different part of the law. When you look at this incident from behind the goal, it is quite clear it is going in the goal. There is no doubt whatsoever it's going to be a goal. The goalkeeper is out."

And Andy Davies, who has taken over at ESPN and was an SG2 referee until last season, said this https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...manchester-city-wolves-chelsea-crystal-palace

But both are missing the point that the law change is in the sanctions (DOGSO) section of law 12, to get to that far there has to have been a handling offence. I think there was a debate on here at the time of the law change saying that the use of the word deliberate in different contexts would cause confusion.
 
I think this highlights how IFAB law makers/interpretation has made determining hand ball so difficult.

Our elite referees are confused, no hope for grass roots referees or non-referee stake holders.

If its deliberate hand ball it’s a penalty/red card if its non-deliberate then no penalty/no card.

IMO, an obvious star jump can have a red card, but any other hand ball where perpetrator has no opportunity to get their arm out the way is play on.
 
Well, that ship has sailed . . . .

“Unnaturally bigger” came to us originally as a way of identifying deliberate handling—why else was the arm there but for to deliberately take up space in hope the ball “accidentally” hit it? That was, IMO, a useful tool in identifying the “dark arts” used by players. I think recasting it into something separate from “deliberate” was a huge mistake by IFAB, which was just the last in a serious of mistakes made tinkering with Law 12. (Though in fairness I think where we are is less bad than where we were from the tinkering in the years just prior.)

Aside: when unnaturally bigger officially came in, I was doing a high school game and there was a nothing-there contact with an arm, and I called out “not deliberate, keep playing, as I had done for eons. Clue the knucklehead on the bench “oh, he doesn’t even know the rules! It doesn’t have to be deliberate!” I was sorely tempted to stop the game and ask if he was really so stupid he didn’t realize that was shorthand and I wasn’t about to call out “not deliberate and he wasn’t making himself unnaturally bigger, either!”
 
The stadium announcement apparently referenced accidental handball

The three types of hand ball;

accidental (only an offence when a goal is scored immediately) , non-deliberate (ie unnaturally bigger) and deliberate handball.
 
Bear with me for a long post.

If they are (mis)applying the DOGSO part of law then it is a really a poor misinterpretation (and therefore misapplication of) the law by a bunch of current and ex top flight referees. I wonder if Palace have grounds for appeal.

I have clipped the relevant part of law and enclosed in red lines. There are two parts in that paragraph that should prevent it from being misinterpreted that way.
  1. It says "by committing a non-deliberate handball offence" meaning some other part of law has to consider it and offence in the first place for this clause to apply. In other words the offence has to occur before this clause is even considered. It does not say "if DOGSO by a non-deliberate handball, is committing an offence".
  2. It says "and the referee awards a penalty kick," again, the PK has to be given in the first place by other means for this clause to apply. It does not say "the referee awards a penalty kick" to imply a non-deliberate handball on it's own warrants a penalty. Given this --------------misinterpretation then even if the handball was outside the area a penalty should be awarded.
---------------------
(EDIT)
What the laws says in terms of deduction logic:
DOG or DOGSO + Non-deliberate HB offence + PK ---> Caution

What they did:
DOG or DOGSO + Non-deliberate HB ---> Offence + PK + Caution

They moved "offence" and "PK" from being conditions to being conclusions which is plainly wrong.
-----------------------------

Lets assume they are right in that interpretation for a second. Then we should be able apply the same logic to the blue line enclosed section. It would mean any challenge (even fair ones) is an offence if it DOGO and a penalty should be awarded.

For me, back to school SG referees. I expect this law to confuse every an day Joe but not SG referees. Either way I expect when these laws are introduced full-time referees are taught how to interpret them in one the many meetings they have.

Also disappointed the stadium announcement referred to it as accidental handball which is incorrect. Accidental handball is when an attacker handles it before scoring.

1769467587764.png
 
Last edited:
One other thing with this 'new interpretation". Would have they still given this penalty if the hands were tucked and locked behind the back but the ball hit the outside of the elbow? The interpretation says they should have but somehow I don't think they would have.
 
one said:
Bear with me for a long post.

If they are (mis)applying the DOGSO part of law then it is a really a poor misinterpretation (and therefore misapplication of) the law by a bunch of current and ex top flight referees. I wonder if Palace have grounds for appeal.

I have clipped the relevant part of law and enclosed in red lines. There are two parts in that paragraph that should prevent it from being misinterpreted that way.
  1. It says "by committing a non-deliberate handball offence" meaning some other part of law has to consider it and offence in the first place for this clause to apply. In other words the offence has to occur before this clause is even considered. It does not say "if DOGSO by a non-deliberate handball, is committing an offence".
  2. It says "and the referee awards a penalty kick," again, the PK has to be given in the first place by other means for this clause to apply. It does not say "the referee awards a penalty kick" to imply a non-deliberate handball on it's own warrants a penalty. Given this misinterpretation then even if the handball was outside the area a penalty should be awarded.
Lets assume they are right in that interpretation for a second. Then we should be able apply the same logic to the blue line enclosed section. It would mean any challenge (even fair ones) is an offence if it DOGO and a penalty should be awarded.

For me, back to school SG referees. I expect this law to confuse every an day Joe but not SG referees. Either way I expect when these laws are introduced full-time referees are taught how to interpret them in one the many meetings they have.

Also disappointed the stadium announcement referred to it as accidental handball which is incorrect. Accidental handball is when an attacker handles it before scoring.

View attachment 8514
Click to expand...
Again I come back to hoping they haven't misunderstood the law, but if they have I think it is probably career ending. Certainly for Darren England given he was at fault for the Spurs vs Liverpool VAR debacle and a lot of people in football thought he should have been fired outright for that. And for Matt Donohue it would be more a case of over before it had even started.

The cynical in me thinks we won't hear the audio from this. It wasn't really game changing like the Spurs vs Liverpool one, there hasn't been a lot of noise from Palace, so I can fully see this being buried. There's no way they'd want audio broadcast demonstrating that at least three of their officials don't know the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
RustyRef said:
I really hope I'm wrong, but it does feel like they might have misinterpreted the laws. Dale Johnson is reporting that Matt Donohue said it had to be a penalty because it stopped a goal bound shot, even though the hand was by his side, and that reluctantly Darren England agreed. That clearly isn't right, for it to be a penalty there has to be deliberate handling or the hand being in an unsupportable position for the action being performed. They'd only then look at deliberate / non-deliberate after giving a penalty to determine the colour of the card. The VAR audio will be interesting assuming we ever get to hear it.

Worryingly Dermot Gallagher also appears to have misinterpreted it as he said this on Ref Watch ...

"The law was changed in August 2024. It was felt that if a player stops the ball accidentally with his hand from going in the goal, it isn't about handball, it's about stopping a goal. That's the difference, it's a different part of the law. When you look at this incident from behind the goal, it is quite clear it is going in the goal. There is no doubt whatsoever it's going to be a goal. The goalkeeper is out."

And Andy Davies, who has taken over at ESPN and was an SG2 referee until last season, said this https://www.espn.co.uk/football/sto...manchester-city-wolves-chelsea-crystal-palace

But both are missing the point that the law change is in the sanctions (DOGSO) section of law 12, to get to that far there has to have been a handling offence. I think there was a debate on here at the time of the law change saying that the use of the word deliberate in different contexts would cause confusion.
Click to expand...
We actually received the same misinterpretation at CORE. I queried it and was shot down. I was pleased to see a PGMO video which supported my interpretation that it still has to be an offence

Interestingly I had a comment/question from a manager at the end of the game who asked this very question. He seemed happy with my explanation that it still needed to be an offence. But I was left wondering if he'd been on the end of a similar decision/explanation in a previous game.
 
I’ve only just caught up with this, but ever since CORE camp 2024 I’ve been a little uncertain on this… surprised it’s took this long to come up.
It seems there is a feeling among PGMO that, despite law not strictly clarifying it, since the law regarding accidental handball dogso was changed, an accidental case of a hand/arm stopping the ball entering the goal is to be penalised as accidental handball with a penalty and a caution.
Of course this also then begs the question that if this happened outside the area would it be a red card?
 
RefereeX said:
I’ve only just caught up with this, but ever since CORE camp 2024 I’ve been a little uncertain on this… surprised it’s took this long to come up.
It seems there is a feeling among PGMO that, despite law not strictly clarifying it, since the law regarding accidental handball dogso was changed, an accidental case of a hand/arm stopping the ball entering the goal is to be penalised as accidental handball with a penalty and a caution.
Of course this also then begs the question that if this happened outside the area would it be a red card?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that PGMO do think it as I recall, and I've since left twitter so dont think I could get back to it they release a law changes video and it debunked the CORE misinterpretation. I also wrote to IFAB about it, would you believe:

Screenshot_20260127-064427.png

Screenshot_20260127-064404.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
RefereeX said:
I’ve only just caught up with this, but ever since CORE camp 2024 I’ve been a little uncertain on this… surprised it’s took this long to come up.
It seems there is a feeling among PGMO that, despite law not strictly clarifying it, since the law regarding accidental handball dogso was changed, an accidental case of a hand/arm stopping the ball entering the goal is to be penalised as accidental handball with a penalty and a caution.
Of course this also then begs the question that if this happened outside the area would it be a red card?
Click to expand...
In the laws language, "accidental handball" is one that the ball touches an attacker's before entering goal. If the ball touches a defender's hand, it is referred to as a non-deliberate handball. I am not sure if they have differentiated the terms deliberately but it is how it is worded. So the incident you are describing is a "non-deliberate handball" and not a "accidental handball".
 
JamesL said:
I'm not sure that PGMO do think it as I recall, and I've since left twitter so dont think I could get back to it they release a law changes video and it debunked the CORE misinterpretation. I also wrote to IFAB about it, would you believe:

View attachment 8520

View attachment 8519
Click to expand...
I did ask my coach for clarification though and he told me that it was felt unfair that an arm denies a goal and thus this has been advised…
All about as clear as mud…

Perhaps this is a misinterpretation/ split within PGMO itself…
 
one said:
In the laws language, "accidental handball" is one that the ball touches an attacker's before entering goal. If the ball touches a defender's hand, it is referred to as a non-deliberate handball. I am not sure if they have differentiated the terms deliberately but it is how it is worded. So the incident you are describing is a "non-deliberate handball" and not a "accidental handball".
Click to expand...
Understand what you’re saying but I’m referring to an accidental handball in a similar way, but not in law.
Body not unnaturally bigger, not deliberate, just strikes the arm
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
JamesL said:
I'm not sure that PGMO do think it as I recall, and I've since left twitter so dont think I could get back to it they release a law changes video and it debunked the CORE misinterpretation. I also wrote to IFAB about it, would you believe:

View attachment 8520

View attachment 8519
Click to expand...

Though from time to time IFAB give answers I don't agree with, this for me is pretty straight forward. The law clause is very clear on what is a condition/criteria and what is conclusion/consequence. And the handball being an offence is a condition and not a consequence.
 
RefereeX said:
I did ask my coach for clarification though and he told me that it was felt unfair that an arm denies a goal and thus this has been advised…
All about as clear as mud…

Perhaps this is a misinterpretation/ split within PGMO itself…
Click to expand...

That comes from not understand why a law was introduced (apart from misreading the phrasing of the law). Here is the explanation given by IFAB and it clearly intended to downgrade and existing offence rather than introducing a new one which previously was not an offence.

1769497018381.png
 
What I find the most disappointing is that the Laws of the Game were meant to be simplified for all to understand & although I believe IFAB had the right intention, they have just made the Laws for handball & offside overly unwieldy. Having said that, we do not want to go overly simplified eg if the ball hits an arm then it’s a handball - that would be even worse than what we have now & would just be unfair & wrong.
 
one said:
In the laws language, "accidental handball" is one that the ball touches an attacker's before entering goal. If the ball touches a defender's hand, it is referred to as a non-deliberate handball. I am not sure if they have differentiated the terms deliberately but it is how it is worded. So the incident you are describing is a "non-deliberate handball" and not a "accidental handball".
Click to expand...

“Accidental” doesn’t appear in the LOTG. Here, the R was clearly using the word “accidental” to refer to non-deliberate. Certainly would have been better if he said “this was a penalty because the arm made him unnaturally bigger. But because it was a non-deliberate HB, the player is cautioned instead of sent off.” I think we are really over interpreting to conclude the R misapplied the Law instead of made a judgment we just don’t agree with. I also suspect. But cannot support, that the Rs have been advised that where the ball was going to enter the goal, they should err on the side of the attacker in deciding if the defender was unnaturally bigger. (Kinda like we often used to do under the old Laws in evaluating whether an attacker had deliberately handled in the scoring of a goal.)
 
RustyRef said:
Again I come back to hoping they haven't misunderstood the law, but if they have I think it is probably career ending. Certainly for Darren England given he was at fault for the Spurs vs Liverpool VAR debacle and a lot of people in football thought he should have been fired outright for that. And for Matt Donohue it would be more a case of over before it had even started.

The cynical in me thinks we won't hear the audio from this. It wasn't really game changing like the Spurs vs Liverpool one, there hasn't been a lot of noise from Palace, so I can fully see this being buried. There's no way they'd want audio broadcast demonstrating that at least three of their officials don't know the laws.
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't go that far and I think how the laws are written has clearly caused some confusion even among former referees by the looks of it.

I got a suspicion you might be right on your second point though however whilst we may forget about it, Palace fans won't and PGMO always go on about transparency so they probably should play the audio, can't always play the ones Howard Webb agrees with, got to play the contentious ones aswell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top