The Ref Stop

Handball law suggestion

Wilson80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, I believe that UEFA do not aim to implement the spirit or the letter of the current law as it is written. Instead, they often penalise entirely natural positions of the arm simply because an advantage has been gained.
Conversely, over the past two seasons, PGMO have moved to an interpretation that is broadly in line with the law .. albeit with the occasional decision that is in conflict, as you’d somewhat expect in the course of hundreds of matches across a season.

Overall, confusion often arises because of the serious misconception that there is just one “natural” body silhouette, when, in reality, there are a multitude of natural positions for the arms, depending on the action / body movement being undertaken
 
The Ref Stop
Wilson80 said:
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)
Click to expand...
The relevant statistics can be produced instantly at the very top levels if the game, but not when the Dog & Duck are playing the Horse & Groom on a Sunday morning at Hackney Marshes.

I might be falling into the obvious trap of remembering the past as being better, but I can't remember there being this much controversy around handballs before they started tinkering. And I'm not going back to days before games were televised live.
 
RustyRef said:
The relevant statistics can be produced instantly at the very top levels if the game, but not when the Dog & Duck are playing the Horse & Groom on a Sunday morning at Hackney Marshes.

I might be falling into the obvious trap of remembering the past as being better, but I can't remember there being this much controversy around handballs before they started tinkering. And I'm not going back to days before games were televised live.
Click to expand...
Yes for sure. The idea was to use those statistical indicators at the top of the pro game when VAR is available. Otherwise, the suggestion is the law would ask refs at all levels to consider both avoidability and advantage gained.
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...
I like this!:

"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."

Indeed, it seems there's a pretty fundamental disagreement there! No phrasing will eliminate such difference of opinion of course; just maybe reduce the amount of debate.

Re the Mbeumo hypotheticals: If a defender handballed it in the PA and gained a significant advantage, then it may well be given as a penalty. It's obviously very tricky stuff—especially if deflections off the body are involved. But the view I'm putting forward is that if the handball prevents the ball going to an attacker in a dangerous position, and indeed allows the defender to control the ball and clear it, then it should be a penalty.

Outside the box, if a largely unavoidable handball results in a player gaining an advantage by controlling the ball, it should be a direct free kick, as it would be if it goes to a teammate. If it ricochets to nobody in particular, or to the opposition, then play on.
 
one said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of corse there are different expectations the rules are completely different. That is what we are discussing here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top