Deliberate Handball

[QuaverRef]

Had a situation in a game yesterday where a cross has been played into the box and floated over the goalkeepers head to the back post. It's out the strikers reach so he attempts a "diving header" which ultimately is him trying to put it in with his hand. He slaps the ball wide of the post, so I book him for unsporting behavior.

If he had scored, would it have been a red for the same reason a defender stopping it on the goal line with his hand, or would it still be a yellow?

 

[richard ramjane]

just a yellow for exactly what you cautioned for, USB
defender stopping on the goal line isnt dismissed for 'deliberate handball' but for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity by handling the ball

 

[Ryan4]

Had a situation in a game yesterday where a cross has been played into the box and floated over the goalkeepers head to the back post. It's out the strikers reach so he attempts a "diving header" which ultimately is him trying to put it in with his hand. He slaps the ball wide of the post, so I book him for unsporting behavior.

If he had scored, would it have been a red for the same reason a defender stopping it on the goal line with his hand, or would it still be a yellow?

Remember, law states that handball must be deliberate, therefore deliberate handball is not a question, just weather it was dogso, which this wasn't so it's a C1 for unsporting behaviour. Can only send off if it is dogso. Hope this helps

 

[Peter Grove]

Law 12 covers this quite succinctly:

There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player [...] handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful)

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Here's a big problem - the heading of 'deliberate handball'.
It's a tautology. 'handball' - a term we need to be avoiding, implies the foul of 'deliberately handles the ball'.
Too many referees and players think that 'deliberate handball' is cautionable while 'handball' is a foul. In short, there's the common misconception that a 'blatant' deliberate handling must be a caution. such as, the player on the ground who slaps the ball away with no attacker nearby, or the player jumping up to catch a ball to stop it going to the creek not realising he was on the field (yes, I've had player going mental over not booking a player for this!)
Referees using the term 'deliberate handball' reiterates this misconception - and way, way too many referees think that 'blatant' DHB is a caution. It isn't. DHB is only cautionable under a couple of specific circumstances.
The reason for the caution here isn't because it was a reach and a smack of the ball - it's because it was an attempt to score a goal.

 

[RustyRef]

Here's a big problem - the heading of 'deliberate handball'.
It's a tautology. 'handball' - a term we need to be avoiding, implies the foul of 'deliberately handles the ball'.
Too many referees and players think that 'deliberate handball' is cautionable while 'handball' is a foul. In short, there's the common misconception that a 'blatant' deliberate handling must be a caution. such as, the player on the ground who slaps the ball away with no attacker nearby, or the player jumping up to catch a ball to stop it going to the creek not realising he was on the field (yes, I've had player going mental over not booking a player for this!)
Referees using the term 'deliberate handball' reiterates this misconception - and way, way too many referees think that 'blatant' DHB is a caution. It isn't. DHB is only cautionable under a couple of specific circumstances.
The reason for the caution here isn't because it was a reach and a smack of the ball - it's because it was an attempt to score a goal.

Agree, some referees really struggle with this. I observed a referee this season who cautioned a player for jumping up and catching the ball as it went over his head and would have gone out for a throw in. After the game I asked him why and he said "because it was deliberate handball". So I asked him if it was an intentional attempt to break up a promising attack or to score a goal, and he said "of course it wasn't". So why have you cautioned then? Without the handball the opponents would have had a throw in inside their defensive third, whereas now they have a free kick. They haven't been denied anything, and rather have benefited from the opponent's actions.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

This.
It's the kind of nonsense that happens when referees don't bother to read the laws and think it's somehow ethical to take money under false pretences.

 

[Peter Grove]

Unfortunately (IMHO) the IFAB has muddied the waters here and has not done the refereeing community (or itself) any favours by using the term 'handball' in the 2016-17 edition of the Laws instead of the less ambiguous 'deliberately handling the ball' used in previous editions.

While in the main body of the law they stick to 'deliberate handball' there are several other places where they commit the cardinal sin (for me) of referring simply to 'handball' when what they really mean is 'deliberate handball' as in the following example from page 113: "Change of wording for handball so that not every handball is a YC"

To me that is just plain wrong - not every handball is even an offence, never mind a yellow card.

 

[Monotone Whistle]

I cautioned a player recently for a handball where he attempted to push the ball over an opponent (he would have then been clean through). He did this as the ball bounced up and was almost blind side of me. I was observed in that game and I explained the caution was for attempting to deceive the referee, and it was not his first offence and I could easily have justified PI instead. The observer was happy this was UB in the circumstances.

 

[Charlie Jones]

I cautioned a player recently for a handball where he attempted to push the ball over an opponent (he would have then been clean through). He did this as the ball bounced up and was almost blind side of me. I was observed in that game and I explained the caution was for attempting to deceive the referee, and it was not his first offence and I could easily have justified PI instead. The observer was happy this was UB in the circumstances.

after last night, I would have given you a 4.5 for application of law

 

[OIREF!]

It's the kind of nonsense that happens when referees don't bother to read the laws and think it's somehow ethical to take money under false pretences.

Agreed - with respect to the OP, where does the idea of a red card come from for scoring a goal by deliberately handling the ball?

 

[Peter Grove]

Agreed - with respect to the OP, where does the idea of a red card come from for scoring a goal by deliberately handling the ball?

According to him, by analogy to a player handling a ball to prevent a goal where it is a yellow card if the attempt fails but a red if it succeeds. So I can see a kind of internal logic to it, even if it's wrong in law.