The Ref Stop

Handball law suggestion

Wilson80

Wilson80

New Member
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!

(Also please do subscribe to It's the Laws of the Game, Stupid!)
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
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.
 
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.
 
Should be like hockey. If it hits your hand in the area - corner accidental or not. If it’s stops an obvious goal - penalty.

In hockey (albeit with feet) it is a skill to defend without getting the ball pushed onto your feet. Likewise it is a skill when attacking to try and push the ball onto the defenders feet to win a corner.
 
Oh because everyone arguing if it hit someone’s head or hand is a great watch as well. I didn’t think I needed to point this out but obviously people try to score a goal more than they try to hit someone’s hand as the reward is greater.
 
Redref34 said:
Oh because everyone arguing if it hit someone’s head or hand is a great watch as well. I didn’t think I needed to point this out but obviously people try to score a goal more than they try to hit someone’s hand as the reward is greater.
Click to expand...
You would get a situation when the ball is out wide that attackers will practice trying to kick the ball at defenders hands. Not for me.
 
Football being a different sport to hocky has different expectations. A player deliberate and blatantly handling the ball to stop an attack compared to an accidental hanball from another player, both having the same outcome is not what football wants.
 
Russell Jones said:
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 😀
Click to expand...
Hi Russell, are you of the view then that some of the penalty decisions mentioned in my article are a case of misinterpretation of the law? Or do you think that e.g. Bayern's Davies 'did something wrong' when the cross hit his hand (after deflecting off his body)?

As I see it, the big current problem with the way the law is written is that there is a huge amount of disagreement—including among referees and football authorities—about when the body has been made unnecessarily bigger.
 
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...
Hi RustyRef, I personally don't think it's feasible to avoid interpretation (which is why VAR often doesn't help in this and similar situaitions). But yes referees would be asked to assess whether and to what degree an advantage was gained in addition to considering how avoidable the handball was.

My understanding is the relevant statistics could be produced all-but instantaneously.

If referees were asked to assess intent without the "unnaturally bigger" phrasing (or similar), wouldn't that lead to even more debate and so lack of clarity than there is now? How would referees achieve consistency on when a handball was intentional or not? (My understanding is that we're talking about a broad interpretation of 'intentional' that includes when the arm was deliberately put in a position where the ball might hit it)
 
one said:
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
Click to expand...
Hi, very interesting, thanks!

How would the revised wording of the law you suggest in that other thread deal with the, e.g., Mbeumo incident?

It's incidents such as that which make me believe it's necessary to also have law instruct referees to consider whether and to what extent an advantage was gained.
 
A difficult area but one that I have felt has always been dealt with personally by way of gut feeling 🤷🏻‍♂️ and more often than not by a shout of “Play on, it just hit their arm! “

Perhaps it’s just easier at grassroots level? No need to be so forensic in your decision making process.
 
Wilson80 said:
Hi, very interesting, thanks!

How would the revised wording of the law you suggest in that other thread deal with the, e.g., Mbeumo incident?

It's incidents such as that which make me believe it's necessary to also have law instruct referees to consider whether and to what extent an advantage was gained.
Click to expand...
I was going to mention this in my first post but in my opinion gaining an advantage should not be a consideration in handball. If we use it for handball then where do we stop? Tackles, offside (when player in offside position gains positional advantage but doesnt interfere however that positional advantage helps him score a goal on in the next phase), etc.

I think what you think is fair is for the goal in Mbeumo incident to be disallowed. What I think is fair is for it to stand. My wording suggestion, if interpreted the way I intend would see the goal stand.

Having said that no wording would be completely closed to interpretation and have complete consistency.

Which side of the advantage gain would the Mbeumo incident fall if it was in his PA and made him clear the ball from a promissing attack, or just outside his PA, or middle of the field? The point I am making is that while your suggestion of using advantage gained works well in the Mbeumo incident there would be other ones that will be debatable or may even have undesirable outcomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top