A&H

Hand Ball - Grrr

HoofItYouDonkey

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I have done two games since the restart and both have been dogged by issues with hand ball.
The pitches in Kent are bone hard, the ball is bouncing about all over the place and poor footballers, I am getting all sorts of grief and loss of match control over constantly disputed hand balls.
The law seems so grey and open to different players interpretation, I really hope that an attempt is made by IFAB to make it all clearer.
Anyone else having similar issues?
 
The Referee Store
I have done two games since the restart and both have been dogged by issues with hand ball.
The pitches in Kent are bone hard, the ball is bouncing about all over the place and poor footballers, I am getting all sorts of grief and loss of match control over constantly disputed hand balls.
The law seems so grey and open to different players interpretation, I really hope that an attempt is made by IFAB to make it all clearer.
Anyone else having similar issues?

A wise ref said to me a couple of years ago when all this madness with handball law began: "If in doubt - referee handball as you've always done". 😉👍
 
The law seems so grey and open to different players interpretation, I really hope that an attempt is made by IFAB to make it all clearer.
They have made an attempt for 21-22 which is much better IMO. There are no exceptions (well 'except' for one, sort of) and no exceptions to exceptions.
 
Hmm...
"a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

I think this is going to lead to loads of confusion and inconsistency. Actually, if someone briefed me to come with a tweak to the handball law to cause more controversy and get more column inches, I think this is pretty good!
 
Hmm...
"a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

I think this is going to lead to loads of confusion and inconsistency. Actually, if someone briefed me to come with a tweak to the handball law to cause more controversy and get more column inches, I think this is pretty good!

yes, but...

I think this is better than what we’ve had. It takes us more to judgment, and explains what “unnaturally“ bigger means. The goal is clearly not call hand ball against truly inadvertent handling while at the same time punishing those who have their arm somewhere to steal space. I think this is really capturing those plays that were called deliberate on that ground before all the tinkering. They realized the “menu” model doesn’t work. Perfect consistency is impossible on handball unless we got to an “any contact” model. Going back-ish is a good thing.
 
We had online handball training today - 90 of us - and watching through 20 odd clips. Yes, it was better than I expected. Great guy presenting. Super clear.

There are some things that were good - obvs the law is now much shorter, easier to remember. The tough ones were those involving jumping for the ball and contact with other players. An arm comes out, perhaps unnecessarily, but perhaps caused by balance, jumping or another player. Before we had above shoulder height as a guide, now we don't. And TBH I totally disagreed with one of the decisions - not a great sign.

There are a couple of issues still:
Accidental handball assist is now OK, good. But there is the same problem as offside with "immediate" - a goal "immediately after" a handball. This is not defined and this is a gaping hole.

On one hand you can now just wait to see if the attacker scores after an accidental handball. But there's also now the loophole - it won't be long for an attacker dribbles round the GK after an accidental handball, and squares it for a team mate for an open goal;)

The idea of "justifiable" I think is way too open. At least we've just been given a very strict interpretation - basically arms away from the body is probably not justifiable. But that's not what the law says. I think the wording of the law is pointless: "position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation." This just does not explain anything. We are basically being instructed to decide based on the last few years of experience - not what it says in the law. Because what it says in the law is daft . because you can twist it to serve any purpose.

The worse bit is "By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised" - not that this impacted the training, but just because this is totally inconsistent with the LotG and seems really odd that it made it in. If you commit an offence you might be penalised? Or if you don't commit an offence you might be penalised anyway? Really?


My feeling after today is that HB should be totally different. If it's deliberate ITOTR then DFK/PK, if it's technical/accidental/unknown IDFK. There. So, I' bring "intent" back. Before you say "we can't read players' minds" ...welll... I think we can infer that more easily than what is justifiable based on a specific situation. ANYTHING is justifiable!
 
My feeling after today is that HB should be totally different. If it's deliberate ITOTR then DFK/PK, if it's technical/accidental/unknown IDFK. There. So, I' bring "intent" back. Before you say "we can't read players' minds" ...welll... I think we can infer that more easily than what is justifiable based on a specific situation. ANYTHING is justifiable!
Well, deliberate remains in there, so we’re already doing that.

IMO, you’re making the “ biggering” concept more complicated than it is, and I think using history helps us. This making oneself bigger concept came into the Game initially as a tool to aid referees in identifying deliberate actions that were being disguised as accidents—players putting their arm somewhere to block space in the hope the ball would “accidentally“ hit it. IFAB’s poor drafting skills notwithstanding, I think that is still the core concept here, and we look at the language through that lens. The “justifiable“ language, I think, is really no more than saying that the R has to consider what the player is doing to evaluate whether the position is “natural“ or not—where your arms “belong” is different if you are running, turning, jumping, sliding, falling, or standing still. So it’s all about judgment by the R. (And I actually think this is not too difficult for those of us who ref without VAR--it’s nothing more than our opinion based on experience as to whether that incidental connection with the arm was the result of biggering. I think it’s much harder with VAR—once you watch in slow mo, nothing looks natural. For me, except for the attacker handling, in practical application the new handball rule is the same as what we had before they went sideways trying to over define everything.
 
Distance the ball travels and whether the hand moves towards the ball. They should've left it because this criteria accounts for 'careless'
The rule changes I've seen since qualifying suggest too may cooks in the IFAB kitchen and not enough chefs
 
Distance the ball travels and whether the hand moves towards the ball. They should've left it because this criteria accounts for 'careless'
The rule changes I've seen since qualifying suggest too may cooks in the IFAB kitchen and not enough chefs
long before the recent screwing around with language that permitted non-deliberate handling to be an offense, both of those concepts were taught as part of how we determine what is deliberate. I think those absolutely remain as clues for the referee today— it they are clues, not absolutes: my hand may be moving towards the ball for reasons wholly unrelated to where the ball is, and in the right context, I can deliberately handle a ball from close range (typically by bigger ing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Distance the ball travels and whether the hand moves towards the ball. They should've left it because this criteria accounts for 'careless'
The rule changes I've seen since qualifying suggest too may cooks in the IFAB kitchen and not enough chefs
Nothing to stop you considering them. I would suggest using them as consideration and not criteria. There are many things you consider in making a decision which are not in the laws of the game. FIFA consideration document has 300 or so consideration, many of which are not in the lotg.

At the moment, especially for handball, the less they put in the lotg the less chance of them confusing everyone. For example moving hands towards ball followed the word 'icluding', the meaning of which was long debated. Was it, for it to be deliberate it had to include moving hand towards ball, or was it just an example of it.
 
The less text in the book the better, agree with that. However, I'd rather have those very few considerations in the book than for them to be classroom 'interpretations'
I'm immediately grimacing with 'unnaturally bigger' because (in terms of intent) that concept really only exists in the minds of Referees because no defender would consciously do this (in the PA) because of the 'penalty'
Locally significant teachings (and complexity) are clearly failing to improve the overall standard of Refereeing, so I'd argue for minimal wording (in the book) and except that only those words count for anything
 
Last edited:
Back
Top