A&H

Handball possible with arm against body?

J79

Active Member
(Not a referee, just an amateur, so apologies for possibly sounding unaware of rules or guidelines)

Situation : A player holds his arms against his body (maybe even with his hands behind his body), basically using this to make his body "broader". He makes a movement with his upper body towards the ball, trying to reach it, and the ball hits his arm.

Is it a handball?

Based only on the FIFA Laws of the Game, one would say yes ("deliberate act of making contact with the ball with the hand or arm"), but journalists and pundits seem to use the rule "arm against body = no handball".
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
It depends where the ball comes from. If he leans into it, even if his arm is pinned by his side, then that is handball. Whereas if he stands still and the ball hits his arm then it is much less likely to be handball, especially if the ball is moving and speed and / or has only travelled a short distance.
 
Thanks. Yeah, case would be leaning into it, trying to reach the ball (for example intercepting a through ball or blocking a cross into the penalty area), knowing you could touch the ball with your arm and kind of thinking: "if it in the end hits my chest, all the better". You regularly see it, but it's almost never given.
 
We think between "ball to hand" or "hand to ball"...if you lean into it you are bringing your 'hand' to the ball and it's a deliberate handball.

In my experince (and one today) most players want every handball called against the opposing team even if hands are tucked in and the ball hits the hands with the player having no ability to move them...we're not calling that.
 
I agree that "hand to ball/ball to hand" rule simply should be used here too.

It just seems generally (and wrongly) accepted that this doesn't need to be applied if the arm is held against the body, as if your arm suddenly becomes part of your chest/stomach then.
 
However it's entirely possible to put your arms in front of your chest - so if players were truly making an effort to avoid their arms getting hit, they'd do that?

What you describe definitely sounds like handball to me, especially the leaning in part.
 
I had one today where the attacker had a ball driven at him from about 10 yards and his hands were by his side. It struck his right arm and I penalised for handball. Reason? He had plenty of time to move his arm away from the ball ... I get out of the way from less distance when the ball is hit at me , therefore to avoid handball he can too
 
  • Like
Reactions: J79
Agreed, putting your arms in front of your chest seems the most "sincere" way to avoid a handball.
 
I had one today where the attacker had a ball driven at him from about 10 yards and his hands were by his side. It struck his right arm and I penalised for handball. Reason? He had plenty of time to move his arm away from the ball ... I get out of the way from less distance when the ball is hit at me , therefore to avoid handball he can too

Did he move his arm towards the ball? If a player's arm is by his side I won't usually consider this handball. Where's he supposed to put his arm? Just my opinion.
 
Basically, if a player makes a decision to permit the ball to strike the arm then it's a foul.

an example may be standing in front of goal and a shot is taken from 30 yards out, stands still and lets the ball strike his arm down by his side. That's a foul.

Attempting to play the ball and having it strike your arm instead is probably a foul.

sometimes we see a player turning side-on to (for some reason) let the ball strike the arm down by the side of the body. That's a foul.

but say, for instance, you're going into a challenge, arms right down by your side and ball is kicked from very close range. Given it's a natural position for the arms and there's no chance to react (ie you couldn't reasonably expect the player to avoid contact between arm and ball), that would typically be no foul.

Clear as mud :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: J79
I think (surprisingly enough) that the law is totally on point here when it says that, "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement."

Which logically, means that it also doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't. So those that say (as you mentioned) that "arm against body = no handball" are wrong. As other replies have said, this is where the other factors (ball to hand or hand to ball and unexpected ball) come into play.
 
Did he move his arm towards the ball? If a player's arm is by his side I won't usually consider this handball. Where's he supposed to put his arm? Just my opinion.

his arm didnt move toward the ball, but by the same token it didnt move away from it either , which he could easily have done... he had plenty of time to do so but made no effort at all.
 
Situation : A player holds his arms against his body (maybe even with his hands behind his body), basically using this to make his body "broader". He makes a movement with his upper body towards the ball, trying to reach it, and the ball hits his arm.
I witnessed something very similar whilst watching a local amateur match last season. A defender jumped and although his arm was by his side it was obvious from the way he jumped that he was using his arm to block the ball. It was one of those weird situations where something unusual happened and everyone was waiting to see what the referee did. As it was in front of goal the referee awarded a penalty and sent off the defender which was correct in my opinion.
 
Your point in the original posting regarding pundits and journalists is valid.

Whilst experienced in their profession they often don't understand the laws of the game but when they stand up in tv or write newspaper cloumns which is seen or read by many they all buy into it. When us refs then apply the laws of the game correctly everyone doubts us because some moron on tv tells everyone what they want to and they believe them.
 
I witnessed something very similar whilst watching a local amateur match last season. A defender jumped and although his arm was by his side it was obvious from the way he jumped that he was using his arm to block the ball. It was one of those weird situations where something unusual happened and everyone was waiting to see what the referee did. As it was in front of goal the referee awarded a penalty and sent off the defender which was correct in my opinion.
Yes, sometimes you also see a defender, who expects a cross, jumping, turning his side/back to the attacker and bringing his arms together at one side of his body, trying to cover that area (and kind of preparing the excuse of "I was trying to avoid the ball hitting my chest/face" or "Can't be deliberate because I turned away my head and I couldn't see the ball coming").
 
Your point in the original posting regarding pundits and journalists is valid.

Whilst experienced in their profession they often don't understand the laws of the game but when they stand up in tv or write newspaper cloumns which is seen or read by many they all buy into it. When us refs then apply the laws of the game correctly everyone doubts us because some moron on tv tells everyone what they want to and they believe them.
Yes, and "everyone" here can also include the players, who hear those comments since they're kids and end up convinced it's the truth. Most can't be bothered to even read once a year the "lawss of the game" of the sports that gives them an income.

Most annoying common mistake by journalists: "defender touched the ball first (so can't be a foul/yellow)".
 
Back
Top