The Ref Stop

Handball query

HoofItYouDonkey

HoofItYouDonkey

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
New amendment...

it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

Does this mean that in the instance where the sort of footballer I referee on a Sunday, goes to control the ball and it bounces off his knee and hits his hand unintentionally is "play on"
 
The Ref Stop
You missed the "Except for the above offences..." part at the start, that refers to e.g.

gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm

and then:

••scores in the opponents’ goal

••creates a goal-scoring opportunity
 
Ok I did not make myself clear...
A player goes to control the ball and it bounces off his knee and hits his hand unintentionally is it handball or not...
 
No.......unless it then enters the net for a goal not including an own goal.........you couldn't write it could you but apparently IFAB have..........
 
...it's not normally an offence, unless it creates a goal, opportunity or (the other exceptions) if the player was using their arm/hand to make their body bigger, or if the hand/arm was above shoulder height.
 
santa sangria said:
...it's not normally an offence, unless it creates a goal, opportunity or (the other exceptions) if the player was using their arm/hand to make their body bigger, or if the hand/arm was above shoulder height.
Click to expand...
If it comes off the players own knee then making bigger or above shoulder height is irrelevant ........discuss......
 
Mintyref said:
If it comes off the players own knee then making bigger or above shoulder height is irrelevant ........discuss......
Click to expand...
Law is clear:
"Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches
a player’s hand/arm:
• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)"
etc.

Making bigger and above shoulder height are listed in the "above offences".

So, e.g. off the knee and onto hand above shoulder height = offence
 
Yet another poor wording. This could be interpreted as if a goal or GSO comes off it is an offence, otherwise it is not. What it actually means, is that if a goal or GSO comes off it, it is an offences. Otherwise it usually is not on offence but sometimes it can be. Just because the ball has bounced of a players head or body, it doesn't give them free reins to play it with their hands.
 
one said:
Yet another poor wording. This could be interpreted as if a goal or GSO comes off it is an offence, otherwise it is not. What it actually means, is that if a goal or GSO comes off it, it is an offences. Otherwise it usually is not on offence but sometimes it can be. Just because the ball has bounced of a players head or body, it doesn't give them free reins to play it with their hands.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but we are not talking about a deliberate hand ball, only an unintentional one. Therefore does all the making bigger etc. malarky really count?
 
one said:
Yet another poor wording. This could be interpreted as if a goal or GSO comes off it is an offence, otherwise it is not. What it actually means, is that if a goal or GSO comes off it, it is an offences. Otherwise it usually is not on offence but sometimes it can be. Just because the ball has bounced of a players head or body, it doesn't give them free reins to play it with their hands.
Click to expand...
Whilst it has added complexity to the handball law, I'm glad there is a recognition that the ball can inadvertently hit a player's hand when it first comes off another body part. Of course, if it bounces off their knee, say, and then they commit a clearly deliberate handball then it's still an offence. However on the vast majority of occasions the touch off another body part will make any subsequent handling NOT an offence .. and that seems fair
 
Just referring to the poor wording. We all know what they mean. For now anyway. Until someone misinterprets it.
 
one said:
Just referring to the poor wording. We all know what they mean. For now anyway. Until someone misinterprets it.
Click to expand...
I've said it previously, but for me the HB law has not really changed, they're just trying to put 'safe refereeing' into words
 
one said:
Just referring to the poor wording. We all know what they mean. For now anyway. Until someone misinterprets it.
Click to expand...

Who is "all"? I think that many of us believe we know what they mean, but the horrible wording means that a lot of refs at lower levels are going to have a lot of different interpretations.

Big Cat said:
I've said it previously, but for me the HB law has not really changed, they're just trying to put 'safe refereeing' into words
Click to expand...

Mostly agree--it's less of a change than many want to make it. The "usually" stuff is mostly consistent with what has been taught in many places--though I gather if actually applied would result in a few more handball offenses in England and a few fewer in South America. Those "usually" and "not usually" scenarios were (and still are) interpretations of what deliberate means.

But the attacker incidental hand ball offenses go a step farther. While it has been true that many referees got to "deliberate" much more quickly with a scoring attacker than with a defender, the new law makes even the purely incidental contact with an attacker's arm an offense.
 
I liked the way interpretations were presented in the past much better. For me it was much simpler.

In summary, it used to be a definition and considerations in simple form. If handball is deliberate it's an offence. And considerations for deliberateness
  • Hand to ball or ball to hand
  • Position of the hand in regards to the body, natural/unnatural
  • Distance to ball and reaction time
  • Etc
Then they tried to clarify things with supposedly clever wording of the considerations which made things worse. For example "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence". Does this mean position of the hand is important or not important in considerations? Different people interpret this differently.

Then again more clever wording and more confusion in 19/20. "It is usually an offence...", but that means sometimes its not an offence. And "it is not usually an offence..." but wait "except for when it is usually and offence". My head hurts when reading that section.

If they can't find a simple way of explaining it in the definition then they should go back to a simple list of considerations?
 
Last edited:
one said:
I liked the way interpretations were presented in the past much better. For me it was much simpler.

In summary, it used to be a definition and considerations in simple form. If handball is deliberate it's an offence. And considerations for deliberateness
  • Hand to ball or ball to hand
  • Position of the hand in regards to the body, natural/unnatural
  • Distance to ball and reaction time
  • Etc
Then they tried to clarify things with supposedly clever wording of the considerations which made things worse. For example "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence". Does this mean position of the hand is important or not important in considerations? Different people interpret this differently.

Then again more clever wording and more confusion in 19/20. "It is usually an offence...", but that means sometimes its not an offence. And "it is not usually an offence..." but wait "except for when it is usually and offence". My head hurts when reading that section.

If they can't find a simple way of explaining it in the definition then they should go back to a simple list of considerations?
Click to expand...
I do think you're doing the lawmakers a bit of disservice there. A simple list of considerations is fine - but it does leave it up to each individual referee how to interpret those considerations. And therefore, in a drive for consistency, each consideration is clarified a bit more, then a bit more and so on and so on...

I agree with you completely in that "it is usually an offense" etc is language that doesn't belong anywhere near a book that calls itself "laws". But it's not hard to see how we got to a point where it felt necessary.
 
I know this is an old thread but I'm still confused by this, the wording is awful but mainly because of the lack of punctuation between scenarios. If the ball bounces off a players knee and hits his hand (which IS making is body bigger), is it handball or not?even if he's not then creating a GSO etc

From the book:
it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
Presumably that means it is an offence if the hand has made the body bigger?
 
Last edited:
IJH13 said:
I know this is an old thread but I'm still confused by this, the wording is awful but mainly because of the lack of punctuation between scenarios. If the ball bounces off a players knee and hits his hand (which IS making is body bigger), is it handball or not?even if he's not then creating a GSO etc
Click to expand...

- Has touched the ball with hand/arm
- Hand/Arm is also making their body unnaturally bigger
Law describes this as 'usually' being an offence and applies even when has come off player's own foot/body

The word 'Usually' gives you enough wriggle room to judge the context of the play and decide either way and still defend the decision but the likelihood is the above scenario is going to be handball.
 
afronaut81 said:
- Has touched the ball with hand/arm
- Hand/Arm is also making their body unnaturally bigger
Law describes this as 'usually' being an offence and applies even when has come off player's own foot/body

The word 'Usually' gives you enough wriggle room to judge the context of the play and decide either way and still defend the decision but the likelihood is the above scenario is going to be handball.
Click to expand...

I agree, thanks for your view. I've amended my initial post to further highlight why it appears very misleading though, purely because they are in bullet points and could be interpreted as different scenarios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top