A&H

Handball clarifications

one

one

RefChat Addict
Fount a neighbouring football association release this as part of their new laws teachings. How this new lotg clarification has had the opposite effect and confused everyone.

Screenshot_20200305-205316__01.jpg
 
The Referee Store
Bracketed part is most bizarre, implication being if it deflects off a body part and onto an arm raised above the shoulder then it's handball. Surely not what was intended!
 
one said:
"irrespective if the touch is deliberate" is just made up.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Goes back to the debate we've had about whether the "usually, etc." defines deliberate or creates exceptions to deliberate. (I'm in the define camp (as I believe you are), but its hardly crystal clear the way they wrote it.)
 
ChasTutorObserver said:
The passage shown is taken from this season's law updates, available on The FA's website.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to the page that's on? I've just had a quick look and I can't find anything exactly matching this wording. I did however find the following, which seems very similar to it in principle.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
  • [...]
  • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
Click to expand...
2019/20 Laws changes explained

Again, this does not match the wording of the actual law and even if you agree that this is what the law is supposed to mean, it still inexplicably leaves out the word 'usually.'
 
Last edited:
Because the law says usually, and that means with that condition (hand above shoulder), the are still times that it would not be handball if you use lotg. If you use the OP or the FA, then that condition is handball all the time with one exception only.
 
OK - now I understand your point. The LOTG state "usually" because they then follow it with a paragraph of "not usually" - the first set of examples are a handling offence unless one of the exceptions in the second set applies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
ChasTutorObserver said:
OK - now I understand your point. The LOTG state "usually" because they then follow it with a paragraph of "not usually" - the first set of examples are a handling offence unless one of the exceptions in the second set applies.
Click to expand...
Actually it's the other way around . The second set are (usually ) not handball unless the first set applies.
But the exceptions to the first or second set are not limited to the other set.

I have always said this is the most confusing clarification I have ever seen. (The term "confusing clarification" is confusing itself).

To give you a example, a player is lying on the ground injured with his hand covering his face and eyes unable to see anything (above shoulder). Not serious enough to stop play. An opponent gently roles the ball to touch the injured player's hand (not careless or reckless). This is not handball, it wasn't handball before or with the current law. But the FA wording or the OP makes it handball.
 
I suggest you apply the laws as published, which in the one-in-a-million case one has suggested would allow the referee to not penalise. The IFAB guide to changes is a synopsis designed to draw attention to those areas which have changed - the Laws of the Game 2019/20 are our "bible"
 
I've just noticed there is a link on that same page to a YouTube video where David Elleray discusses the handling offence law changes. He also says that making yourself bigger or raising the arm above the shoulder would make any contact between ball and hand an offence (and he doesn't say 'usually'). It's not stated in that exact section but the 'even if accidental' seems to be implied.

So I'm starting to think that is the way the IFAB sees it.

 
Why, oh why, can't IFAB hire one of those underpaid linguistics grad students out there to edit their language so that it says what they think it says?
 
socal lurker said:
Why, oh why, can't IFAB hire one of those underpaid linguistics grad students out there to edit their language so that it says what they think it says?
Click to expand...
It would not have helped in this case. I am pretty sure 'usually' (or not usually) was deliberately put in there to give the referee some discression on edge cases where it doesn't fit the defention like the one I mentioned above.

I think much of the problem is that not all the IFAB members can agree with something let alone the big football bodies that use those laws. And no one wants to give in on how it should be done. The handling of a 'trick' on new goal kick attests to that. So the big disconnect means we end up with something in law, but everyone would speak and implement what they wanted to go in the first place. Because they all think they know better and others don't.

Have a look at how EPL implemented VAR. The disagreement between FIFA and UEFA....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top