The Ref Stop

Handball query

IJH13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Key phrase you missed in your edit was 'except for the above offences'

For me the handball offences are
- Deliberately touching
- Scoring following a handball
- Creating a goal scoring opportunity following a handball
- Scoring with hand
- Accidental/Close range where hand is making body unnaturally bigger
- Accidental/Close range where hand/arm is above shoulder height
 
The Ref Stop
afronaut81 said:
Key phrase you missed in your edit was 'except for the above offences'

For me the handball offences are
- Deliberately touching
- Scoring following a handball
- Creating a goal scoring opportunity following a handball
- Scoring with hand
- Accidental/Close range where hand is making body unnaturally bigger
- Accidental/Close range where hand/arm is above shoulder height
Click to expand...

I think this is analytically incorrect.

Except for the scoring/creating GSO exceptions, handball offenses are deliberate. The “usually” an “not usually” stuff is not exceptions to deliberate, but articulation of what IFAB means by deliberate.
 
I think IFAB etc. should clarify what happens when there is a deflection (own or opponent e.g. thigh, head etc.) and the ball then hits the defender’s hand, whether or not the hand is raised.

The Mina/Alli HB was one of these. VAR looked a long time for a deflection off Mina (or a foul).

There was also a great example in MLS episode 25 (ish?) where the defender is leaping and the ball bounces up from his outstretched thigh onto his outstretched arm. VAR wanted pen and focused on the arm position but the ref pointed to the thigh deflection as overriding and called no HB.

I think that was common sense. Unless it’s part of blocking a shot, I think defenders should get the benefit of the doubt with any unexpected ball. I wonder how IFAB or the associations are training this?
 
socal lurker said:
I think this is analytically incorrect.

Except for the scoring/creating GSO exceptions, handball offenses are deliberate. The “usually” an “not usually” stuff is not exceptions to deliberate, but articulation of what IFAB means by deliberate.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused again :confused::)
 
How about another scenario!. Defender has his arm in an unnatural position above his shoulder and the ball is hit directly against it from about 6 yards, so clearly a handball offence. But, this happens in the penalty area so it's a penalty. However, the ball would have gone in the net, so, Red card for DOG? (even though not an 'intentional action'), Yellow card? (for being daft enough to have his arm up), or just a penalty and no card?. .p.s. I was on the line the other end so didn't have to make the call!!
 
IJH13 said:
How about another scenario!. Defender has his arm in an unnatural position above his shoulder and the ball is hit directly against it from about 6 yards, so clearly a handball offence. But, this happens in the penalty area so it's a penalty. However, the ball would have gone in the net, so, Red card for DOG? (even though not an 'intentional action'), Yellow card? (for being daft enough to have his arm up), or just a penalty and no card?. .p.s. I was on the line the other end so didn't have to make the call!!
Click to expand...
This is how F.U.C.K.E.D. up the handball law has been made with stupid interpretation and tinkering......your scenario should be not handball because none of what you state makes it INTENTIONAL....


Rant over, I'll take a couple more pills to calm me down....
 
IJH13 said:
How about another scenario!. Defender has his arm in an unnatural position above his shoulder and the ball is hit directly against it from about 6 yards, so clearly a handball offence. But, this happens in the penalty area so it's a penalty. However, the ball would have gone in the net, so, Red card for DOG? (even though not an 'intentional action'), Yellow card? (for being daft enough to have his arm up), or just a penalty and no card?. .p.s. I was on the line the other end so didn't have to make the call!!
Click to expand...

DOGSO has nothing to do with intent to deny a goal. Just as a careless foul can lead to DOGSO, this would be DOGSO.

Keep in mind that in the logic of the game, this action--having the arm in an unnatural position--is deliberate: the arm is deliberately there where it can interfere with the ball. (The only non-deliberate hand balls are for attackers.)
 
socal lurker said:
I think this is analytically incorrect.

Except for the scoring/creating GSO exceptions, handball offenses are deliberate. The “usually” an “not usually” stuff is not exceptions to deliberate, but articulation of what IFAB means by deliberate.
Click to expand...
I've argued this point before:
1. Where does it say they are considerations for deliberate?
2. It specifically says that they include deflecting from another player who is close = not deliberate
 
Yeah, we've argued this before, so I'm not going to bother with my side of the textual argument again. IFAB can't draft worth a damn, which makes textual arguments maddening anyway. Pretty much everything there in the "usuallys" was already guidance on what deliberate meant (at least outside of the UK) before they were drafted into Law 12 in what is one of IFAB's least clarifying clarifications ever (though there is competition . . . ).
 
JH said:
I've argued this point before:
1. Where does it say they are considerations for deliberate?
2. It specifically says that they include deflecting from another player who is close = not deliberate
Click to expand...
It literally says..
It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the
hand/arm towards the ball

It then goes on to list what is usually an offence and what is not usually an offence. The mere fact this follows on from the opening statement suggests they are the considerations.
 
JamesL said:
It literally says..
It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the
hand/arm towards the ball

It then goes on to list what is usually an offence and what is not usually an offence. The mere fact this follows on from the opening statement suggests they are the considerations.
Click to expand...
It doesn't directly follow on from that at all. "It is an offence if a player" and "It is usually an offence if a player" are completely separate sections that both have their own sub-bullet points and sub-sub-bullet points. If these were direct considerations for deliberate, they would be DIRECTLY under the deliberate bullet point.

Reading it again has made it even more clear that they probably aren't considerations:

"It is an offence if a player... deliberately touches the ball..."
"It is usually an offence if a player... touches the ball..." (No mention of deliberate)

Why wouldn't the word 'deliberately' precede a list of it's considerations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
JH said:
Why wouldn't the word 'deliberately' precede a list of it's considerations?
Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon now. You've seen enough rounds of IFAB's cryptic drafting to know you can't word parse their product that way and think you get a definitive answer. For years reading the text literally made it impossible to have an OS offense.

On one hand it's poor drafting that it is possible to even have this discussion. On the other, it doesn't matter a lot (other than, I would argue, that understanding that the point of the "usually" section is to capture nuance of the teachings on deliberate helps you understand the cryptic use of "usually" and "not usually" and helps remind you that the ultimate test is deliberate action if you are waffling on a call), as the guidance is what it is and we are supposed to follow it, whether we agree with it or not.
 
JH said:
It doesn't directly follow on from that at all. "It is an offence if a player" and "It is usually an offence if a player" are completely separate sections that both have their own sub-bullet points and sub-sub-bullet points. If these were direct considerations for deliberate, they would be DIRECTLY under the deliberate bullet point.

Reading it again has made it even more clear that they probably aren't considerations:

"It is an offence if a player... deliberately touches the ball..."
"It is usually an offence if a player... touches the ball..." (No mention of deliberate)

Why wouldn't the word 'deliberately' precede a list of it's considerations?
Click to expand...
Exactly. It makes sense as a list of separate levels of surety, but makes no sense as different levels of involved deliberation or black-and-white yes-no categorisation.

It is an offence if done deliberately or leads to a goal(scoring opportunity) - there is no exception, "yes, offence" every time.
It is usually an offence if done with unnatural position or above shoulder - most cases will be offences but there are some exceptions, contextual judgement needed but starting from "yes, offence".
It is not usually an offence if done directly from playing from close range or in natural position - most cases will be legitimate but there are some exceptions, contextual judgement needed but starting from "no, play on".
JamesL said:
It literally says..
It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the
hand/arm towards the ball

It then goes on to list what is usually an offence and what is not usually an offence. The mere fact this follows on from the opening statement suggests they are the considerations.
Click to expand...
You cannot read the first bullet point in a list as the opening statement, because it simply isn't. You need to let go of the idea that the "deliberate" phrase controls all the text following it.
If you check the indentation, you find the three statements ("is", "is usually", "is not usually") at the same level and the phrase with "deliberately" is at the next level down from that.
It makes no sense to read the lower-level phrase as controlling all three of the higher-level statements when it is placed underneath exactly one of them.
Rather, you must read the higher-level statement as controlling the lower-level phrase, meaning that it is (always, by definition) an offence when the handball is deliberate, not that it is deliberate when the handball is due to an unnatural position or raised arm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
Nij said:
Exactly. It makes sense as a list of separate levels of surety, but makes no sense as different levels of involved deliberation or black-and-white yes-no categorisation.

It is an offence if done deliberately or leads to a goal(scoring opportunity) - there is no exception, "yes, offence" every time.
It is usually an offence if done with unnatural position or above shoulder - most cases will be offences but there are some exceptions, contextual judgement needed but starting from "yes, offence".
It is not usually an offence if done directly from playing from close range or in natural position - most cases will be legitimate but there are some exceptions, contextual judgement needed but starting from "no, play on".

You cannot read the first bullet point in a list as the opening statement, because it simply isn't. You need to let go of the idea that the "deliberate" phrase controls all the text following it.
If you check the indentation, you find the three statements ("is", "is usually", "is not usually") at the same level and the phrase with "deliberately" is at the next level down from that.
It makes no sense to read the lower-level phrase as controlling all three of the higher-level statements when it is placed underneath exactly one of them.
Rather, you must read the higher-level statement as controlling the lower-level phrase, meaning that it is (always, by definition) an offence when the handball is deliberate, not that it is deliberate when the handball is due to an unnatural position or raised arm.
Click to expand...
Finally someone who understands what I'm saying!!
 
Yet another twist. The Q&A makes "unnatural position" always an offence. Law 12 Says it is usually an offence. So which is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top