Handball law suggestion

Hi all, I've just published this piece with my ideas for a modified approach to the handball law:

Time to try again on handball?​

The essence of it is for referees to pair an assessment of avoidability with an assessment of whether and to what an extent an advantage was gained from the handball.

This means complementing the existing approach with a fairness test, which is something I think a lot of people would welcome.

I'm very keen to hear your feedback on the suggestion!

Every attempt to solve handball complicates it, we now have the other complication that laws are being rewritten to suit VAR.

Nice idea but I'd cast this one away.

Thanks, Bester.

Yes I recognise over-complication as a danger and something many people are very much against, for good reasons. I don't really think this suggestion adds complexity though, and the idea is to produce fairer outcomes.

How do you think the law should work?

Interesting theory, but wouldn't that just put even more human interpretation into the mix. How long would it take to decide what the xG of the shot was, or what the percentile for avoidability was?

My opinion is still put it back to how it was 20 years ago, the referee just decides if he felt it was an intentional attempt or not. And yes, I realise that still relies on human interpretation but they've spent years trying to fix something that wasn't a huge problem, unarguably making it worse along the way, so why not just go back to how it was before the tinkering started? It wouldn't be perfect, but it couldn't really be any worse than it is now.

bester said:

Every attempt to solve handball complicates it,

Click to expand...

Including the solution we have today!

RustyRef said:

Interesting theory, but wouldn't that just put even more human interpretation into the mix. How long would it take to decide what the xG of the shot was, or what the percentile for avoidability was?

My opinion is still put it back to how it was 20 years ago, the referee just decides if he felt it was an intentional attempt or not. And yes, I realise that still relies on human interpretation but they've spent years trying to fix something that wasn't a huge problem, unarguably making it worse along the way, so why not just go back to how it was before the tinkering started? It wouldn't be perfect, but it couldn't really be any worse than it is now.

Click to expand...

What I really like about the current framing of the handball law (and yes, I know I’m in a minority!) is that you can basically distil it down to one simple and eminently fair question. Has the potential offender actually done anything wrong? If not, we play on, even if the accidental handball has given them (almost any) advantage, seeing it as simply the ‘rub of the green’. Most commonly, the thing done wrong is placing the offending body part in an unnatural position that artificially increases the player’s silhouette… less commonly a deliberate movement of that body part towards the ball.

I genuinely believe that if we stick with and continuously communicate the simple ethos that we are not in the business of penalising innocent players, sooner or later people will get it

Uh, that was the entire concept of "deliberate" (which was the same as "intentional" before it). Before IFAB thought they could make a magic checklist, determining if the player deliberately did something wrong was exactly what the Laws called for--in the opinion of the referee. And it was well understood that putting an arm someplace deliberately or letting the ball hit it was within the scope of deliberate. Indeed, it used to be a classic referee exam question about a defender playing the ball off an attacker's arm that went into the goal--as test of the referee's understanding that innocent contact is not an offense. (But of course that entirely innocent act has now been made an offense in IFAB's check box mentality.)

Wilson80 said:

Hi all, I've just published this piece with my ideas for a modified approach to the handball law:

Time to try again on handball?​

The essence of it is for referees to pair an assessment of avoidability with an assessment of whether and to what an extent an advantage was gained from the handball.

This means complementing the existing approach with a fairness test, which is something I think a lot of people would welcome.

I'm very keen to hear your feedback on the suggestion!

Click to expand...

For me the problem with the handball law has always been that it has been interpreted inconsistently at different levels and regions. The focus should be on consistency and simplicity is secondary.
We have had suggestions in the past. Here is mine, suggested years ago (which also uses avoidability)

Thread 'Handball - your proposed wording' https://refchat.co.uk/threads/handball-your-proposed-wording.13417/

Also a similar one suggested here

Post in thread 'Handball' https://refchat.co.uk/threads/handball.15118/post-169484

I might show as a newbie on here but have refereed for over 25 years at grassroots level, the problem with football is we already have a 3 tiered approach with decision making, I get it that down to funding you don't need goal line technology on a Sunday morning or VAR but as the game speeds up at grassroots (personally since 2005 when I started in open age, it has got quicker) that could be down to due more players being health conscious. When I started refereeing smoking in pubs and clubs was still allowed and most of the current generation (not all) of grassroots players haven't experienced going into a pub as a non-smoker for it to be full of cigarette smoke, anyway back on topic.

With the game getting quicker at all levels, I think the simpler the better, the current idea of non-natural hand position probably on balance the best compromise but if it was to be more black and white than grey, the other option which is an option in field hockey (for them any foot contact regardless if intentional or not is a foul) in football it would be any hand contact is a foul, although this would be easier to interpret it, it could be changed to indirect free kicks instead of direct and if a DOGSO offence I would like us to "steal" the idea of a penalty goal (instead of penalty try) so if an incident occurs it's a goal for the attacking team in a DOGSO situation and a yellow card rather than penalty and red card. Prime example of that was Suarez at the 2010 World Cup where he tipped it over the bar on the line with his hand, the referee sent him off and awarded the penalty and the penalty was saved, the only advantage Ghana had was playing against 10 men.