Handball - clear as mud?
- Thread starter El__Juez__
- Start date
Can a law ever be applied consistently if it involves a subjective element in interpreting what is and what isn’t “deliberate”?
is the right answer
RefRyanAus
Member
I would argue that most decisions involving the application of the LOTG involve a subjective element. We constantly search for consistency but many threads on this forum illustrate how hard it is to achieve that in practice. Although imperfect, Law 12 as it currently relates to handling of the ball is much improved from previous recent iterations IMO. For as long as referees are human there is going to be a subjective element to decision making and there is going to be controversy and outrage on Monday mornings. If we are honest… we thrive on this. I say… just go with it… the law will probably change again next year. Also, at the risk of being pedantic ‘deliberately’ touching the ball is only one of the considerations for hb. 
But this applies to every Law or Rule in every sport that ever existed. We always have to make subjective calls or interpret exactly what is meant by particular words (not just "deliberate"). Personally I think the IFAB have gone long way to smoothing out inconsistencies. I remember the days when a player in an offside position was only not called for an offence if he was "not interfering with play" . No guidance was given as to what exactly this might mean. Every sport has to deal with this kind of problem. More than that, it also applies to just about every law that any society has ever introduced: Just how "grievous" is GBH? It's all subjective.
Eh?Also, at the risk of being pedantic ‘deliberately’ touching the ball is only one of the considerations for hb.
Deliberate handball is an offence. It's not a consideration. If a player deliberately handles the ball there are no further considerations to take into account
The handball law has evolved into deliberate and non-Deliberate offences.
Before the biggest changes we have seen to the HB Law only Deliberate handballs were offences and there were considerations as to what made a handball a deliberate act.
We then moved to the world where we had deliberate and non deliberate.. Alongside Deliberate we had list of usually is and usually isn't and offence for non Deliberate handling. Then we had is and isn't and offence for non deliberate handling.
And now we have a circumstance that results in non deliberate handling being an offence alongside Deliberate always being an offence, the one thing that hasn't changed or evolved and remained consistent with the handball laws.
RefRyanAus
Member
Thanks James, I chose my words poorly. I should have referred to the different types of handling offence.
Any decision that relies on judging intent is always going to be contentious, and the only way to fix that is to say if it hits your hand or arm in any position it is an offence. Then it becomes black and white, but all that would happen there is attackers would try and kick the ball at defender's hands to try and get a penalty.
I've said this many times before, but this was always going to be the problem with VAR in football. It just isn't like most other sports where the decisions are usually black and white, aside from offside the decisions are mostly subjective. In cricket they have technology to tell the umpire if the ball was hitting the stumps, but no technology is ever going to tell football referees whether handling was intentional or contact from an opponent was enough to cause an attacker to fall over. Peter Walton says Maguire's arm was in a natural position for someone jumping, I don't agree, although I think it was potentially in the expected position for someone in a scrum of others players jostling for position. Several of us on here don't think TAA's was handball, but he does as do other members here. This is never going to get fixed in my opinion.
I've said this many times before, but this was always going to be the problem with VAR in football. It just isn't like most other sports where the decisions are usually black and white, aside from offside the decisions are mostly subjective. In cricket they have technology to tell the umpire if the ball was hitting the stumps, but no technology is ever going to tell football referees whether handling was intentional or contact from an opponent was enough to cause an attacker to fall over. Peter Walton says Maguire's arm was in a natural position for someone jumping, I don't agree, although I think it was potentially in the expected position for someone in a scrum of others players jostling for position. Several of us on here don't think TAA's was handball, but he does as do other members here. This is never going to get fixed in my opinion.
They do this is Hockey… hits your foot .. short corner / penalty corner .. hits your foot and stops a goal .. penalty flick card .. works quite well in my opinion
I can't profess to know anything about hockey, it was banned at my school as the sticks were classed as lethal weapons
But I would hazard a guess that a short corner / penalty corner leads to a goal a lot less than a penalty kick does in football?
I can't profess to know anything about hockey, it was banned at my school as the sticks were classed as lethal weapons
But I would hazard a guess that a short corner / penalty corner leads to a goal a lot less than a penalty kick does in football?
Yes - think corner injection to a player on the edge of a 16 ish yard area to get a shot away with 5 defenders and a goal keeper starting on the line then running at you
I disagree that it works well in hockey. Attackers smashing the ball at the feet of defenders is not very entertaining imo. I wouldn't want to see similar in football.
Good point .. it’s part of the game and you have a stick to defend yourself it’s often a skill to move it onto an opponents foot and likewise to avoid it hitting your foot. I agree that it would not work the same with handball in football