Deliberate Handball

[JH]

"There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for
unsporting behaviour including if a player:

• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack... in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is
successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal"

I feel like its a common occurrence at every level to see blatant handball (that doesn't meet the above criteria) punished with a caution, but this is incorrect in law, is it not?

 

[Peter Grove]

It depends what you mean by 'blatant handball' - that phrase was quite often used in the past to refer to exactly the practice of handling to stop a promising attack.

If you just mean a 'normal,' deliberate handball then a caution is not required.

This used to be written into the laws specifically, with the following wording:

Referees are reminded that deliberately handling the ball is normally punished only by a direct free kick or penalty kick if the offence occurred inside the penalty area. A caution or dismissal is not normally required.

Although this wording no longer appears, I think its principle still applies.

 

[one]

Firstly, the conditions you listed are 'mandatory' cautions and unsporting behaviour is not limited to those. In other words the law does not say other circumstances of handball must not be cautioned. The referee can caution them if he deems them to be acts of unsporting behaviour. For example if a player uses his hand deliberately (and blatantly as you put it) with the intent to hand-pass the ball to a team mate who is in a very obvious goal scoring position, then the referee may choose to caution him for unsporting behaviour.

Secondly the incident in the video is not an unsporting act of deliberate handball for me and seems to be a harsh caution specially for a second yellow. Could it possibly be for dissent for the spray he got after he called the handball offence?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I feel like its a common occurrence at every level to see blatant handball (that doesn't meet the above criteria) punished with a caution, but this is incorrect in law, is it not?

I know what you mean. I see too many referees incorrectly applying this - and too many players expecting it.
Couple of examples:-
- Player goes to ground thinking but from a legal challenge. In frustration he slaps the ball away or grabs the ball. This is 'blatant' but isn't necessarily a caution (often the opponent has already lost possession anyway, so unless you consider it to be dissent there's no reason to card)
- I've had a few situations where a player, thinking they're off the field, jumps up to catch a ball going out so it doesn't go too far - only to realise they're still on. This is completely blatant and I've had players going off their nut asking for a card here, but a card here is absurd.
I can't see any deliberate handling in this video, but that could be because the video itself isn't the best at showing it. The argument could also be made that the push in the back is the reason for handling it....
He actually cops a clear 2 handed push in the back. He probably should have had a penalty!!

Secondly the incident in the video is not an unsporting act of deliberate handball for me and seems to be a harsh caution specially for a second yellow. Could it possibly be for dissent for the spray he got after he called the handball offence?

#4 was the player losing his mind (and IMO should have been booked), but he wasn't the one who handled it.

 

[RustyRef]

Funny you should say that, as I saw an observation report criticising the referee for not cautioning a player who caught the ball before it had gone out of play for a throw, thinking it had. I told him to appeal it as that was incorrect in law, the observer's response was that it was a mandatory caution. How on earth, far from benefiting from the act, the act by the player turned a throw-in to his team into a direct free kick to the opponents. If that was a tactical act then the player wins the award for most stupid player ever ..! The appeal was successful.

 

[RobOda]

Oh cool, I didn't know you could appeal stuff in the observation reports.

 

[RustyRef]

Oh cool, I didn't know you could appeal stuff in the observation reports.

At levels 7 to 5 you can only do so if the observer is incorrect in law and / or the grade or mark doesn't match the written text. Saying that a handball in such a scenario is a mandatory caution is clearly incorrect in law.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Funny you should say that, as I saw an observation report criticising the referee for not cautioning a player who caught the ball before it had gone out of play for a throw, thinking it had. I told him to appeal it as that was incorrect in law, the observer's response was that it was a mandatory caution. How on earth, far from benefiting from the act, the act by the player turned a throw-in to his team into a direct free kick to the opponents. If that was a tactical act then the player wins the award for most stupid player ever ..! The appeal was successful.

Yep, that's yet another 'observer' that has absolutely no idea what they're doing. The impact idiots like that have on the game and the quality of refereeing at all levels is, IMO, highly understated.