Burnley penalty v Wolves
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
- Status
The law change i read about recently is this definition of the armpit and the arms etc. I knew of this law change last season but when i saw the penalty given against Wolves this went against what i believe accidental was.
Reffing is already hard but asking refs to make more and more complex decisions is something beyond human.
Something as major as a penalty as opposed to a meaningless free kick on the half way line are very different decisions.
As a side note one or two people on this board are not very helpful and condescending in their tone. It's not a very nice quality.
Reffing is already hard but asking refs to make more and more complex decisions is something beyond human.
Something as major as a penalty as opposed to a meaningless free kick on the half way line are very different decisions.
As a side note one or two people on this board are not very helpful and condescending in their tone. It's not a very nice quality.
This may be a good idea but i do not own a smart phone. Mine just does calls and texts.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
The laws tell you what is and is not an offence when it comes to handling the ball, and it doesn't just have to be deliberate to be an offence.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Thanks for the video but i have seen that a while back and i also read that on a LOTG explanation sheet. It's the "unnatural" terminology that needs a definition.
When you jump for the ball your hands sometimes go a lot higher. Is that natural? For me that defines what happened on the Wolves v Burnley game. Does a penalty here go against the spirit of the game?
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
The Wolves players hands didn't just get higher, he stuck his elbow out towards the ball. That is not a natural movement when jumping for me.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I refereed at all levels from youth to professional clubs over a period of 30 years when the law stated that if a player handled deliberately in the opinion of the referee a dfk/penalty would be awarded.
This worked fine, with some differences in interpretation obviously going to happen as it was "itootr"
If the referee believes the player has made themselves bigger or raised hands/arms as described in the law, decision made - whether or not the players agree is immaterial.
But you obviously have Internet access. The only smart phone dependent is the app. Pdf, blogs, emails, refchat, all just online resources no need for a smart phone.
You can't plead ignorance because your county FA aren't spoon feeding you. You are technically self employed when refereeing, and therefore you are responsible for your own learning.
If a sparky came to your house and installed the older type of electrical cabling, would you accept if he said he hadn't seen that bit of training. You wouldn't, you'd expect him to be up to date with the latest regulations.
Same here, when you step onto the field, the players, clubs, spectators expect you to be up to date with law.
The law couldn't be any clearer now in my opinion, it may not be favourable, and we may not like it, but we can't really say its not clearer than it was.
LOTG moved away from intent along time ago, and handball I think was the only one that was behind in thst respect ie having to judge a deliberate (intentional) act.
Now we have, it's deliberate, that's when its obvious we know the player deliberately handled the ball eg save on goal line, and now there is set criteria for when a handball is punished and is not punished (when not deliberate) and law 5 still exists... In the opinion of the referee within the framework of the laws etc.
This particular incident, you can punish the piadm if you want. But it could also be argued that the wolves player was also piadm leading in with his elbow like that. If CW doesn't got for the overhead and instead attempts a header, and the wolves player clatter him with his elbow, it's an easy pen. And more than likely a sanction.
The law clearly says if the hand or arm is extended above Or BEYOND the shoulder its a hand ball. The arm is clearly extended beyond the shoulder. The unnatural bit isnt really what we are considering although you could argue he has made himself unnaturally bigger as well.
This is total ********.
Other sports require far more complex decisions, made at a far higher rate, on situations occuring at much higher pace than football typically involves.
You're being asked to choose between deliberate, unintended but unfair, or incidental and acceptable.
The laws are (despite the nitpicking that often occurs) very clear on where the black-and-white areas are, and the grey is small enough that you can handle it on ITOOTR.
Harden the hell up.
Whining about the tone of the help being provided while completely ignoring the content really doesn't endear you, especially given that your original complaint was that you didn't get enough help in the first place.
one
RefChat Addict
I think this is the one you are after. It's a slideshow with videos and explanations . https://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/
Slide forward to Law 12 for handball.
Some helpful input from those members I'd expect it from. Plenty of patronising unpleasant stuff from other members I'd expect it from
I have some sympathy @Kent Ref
I don't know why regional guidance on HB is needed. Just put the correct wording in the book and no need for additional guidance - disseminated inconsistently around the world
I have some sympathy @Kent Ref
I don't know why regional guidance on HB is needed. Just put the correct wording in the book and no need for additional guidance - disseminated inconsistently around the world
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
The correct wording is in the book already.
Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
- scores in the opponents’ goal
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
- the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
- directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
- directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
- if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
- when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
Whether you agree with it is an entirely different matter.
- Status