Handball query

[Nij]

Yet another twist. The Q&A makes "unnatural position" always an offence. Law 12 Says it is usually an offence. So which is it?

They've given exactly one situation where they say it will be an offence.
They are not, at all, in any way, making every single case of unnatural position an offence.
It is still usually an offence, there still exist exceptions and edge cases, this is just not one of them.

 

[socal lurker]

Is it too early to start taking bets on whether this coming summer's tweaks to Law 12 make figuring out what is a handball offense easier or harder?

 

[one]

there still exist exceptions and edge cases, this is just not one of them.

I don't follow. This is not an expedition to it being an offence. With this addition (to what is already stated in law), it makes the all offences.

They are not, at all, in any way, making every single case of unnatural position an offence.
It is still usually an offence

With the addition above then, can you think of any case of "unnatural position" which is not an offence?

 

[one]

Is it too early to start taking bets on whether this coming summer's tweaks to Law 12 make figuring out what is a handball offense easier or harder?

It usually makes it easier. There are times when it is usually harder except for when it is easier.

 

[Nij]

I don't follow. This is not an expedition [sic. exception?] to it being an offence. With this addition (to what is already stated in law), it makes the all offences.

But, it just doesn't It says that the attacker kicking it into the defender's arm from close by, when the arm is in unnatural position, should be a DFK.
It doesn't say anything about teammates kicking it into the arm, nor about unexpected deflections or plays of the ball that are not kicks (which is a defined term, and does not include playing the ball with the shin or knee or higher) nor about, well, anything at all that is not an attacker kicking the ball into the defender's unnatural-position arm...

With the addition above then, can you think of any case of "unnatural position" which is not an offence?

Defender AA has lunged and makes a legitimate tackle, and ends up on their hands and knees with the ball nearby.
AA sees Defender BB about to kick it into their arm, so AA lifts their arms off the ground out of the way, making their silhouette larger but removing any direct obstacle from the ball's path. BB scuffs the kick, which bounces off AA's knee and into their raised arm.

The IFAB tweet has nothing to do with this situation, since it hasn't got an attacker involved and the ball is coming via a deflection off their own body, so we can go purely off the law text. There's been no effect worth mentioning on the attacking team here, and the defenders are in no different a position than they would be if AA had not been there when BB kicked it. We've already had one example of a high level referee call this fine, play on, in this very thread.

So, would you call this a handball offence under the laws as written? And if not, why would the tweet change that, when the only matching detail is that the ball hit someone's arm?

 

[one]

But, it just doesn't It says that the attacker kicking it into the defender's arm from close by, when the arm is in unnatural position, should be a DFK.
It doesn't say anything about teammates kicking it into the arm, nor about unexpected deflections or plays of the ball that are not kicks (which is a defined term, and does not include playing the ball with the shin or knee or higher) nor about, well, anything at all that is not an attacker kicking the ball into the defender's unnatural-position arm...


Defender AA has lunged and makes a legitimate tackle, and ends up on their hands and knees with the ball nearby.
AA sees Defender BB about to kick it into their arm, so AA lifts their arms off the ground out of the way, making their silhouette larger but removing any direct obstacle from the ball's path. BB scuffs the kick, which bounces off AA's knee and into their raised arm.

The IFAB tweet has nothing to do with this situation, since it hasn't got an attacker involved and the ball is coming via a deflection off their own body, so we can go purely off the law text. There's been no effect worth mentioning on the attacking team here, and the defenders are in no different a position than they would be if AA had not been there when BB kicked it. We've already had one example of a high level referee call this fine, play on, in this very thread.

So, would you call this a handball offence under the laws as written? And if not, why would the tweet change that, when the only matching detail is that the ball hit someone's arm?

Allow me to side track here. Exactly the same actions and reactions from AA. If another defender kicked the ball, it is not a 'deliberate' handball. But if an attacker kicked the ball, it is a 'deliberate handball'? That to me is not clarification, it is obfuscation.

To answer your question no I wouldn't call it a handball, but i also wouldn't call it a handball if an attacker had kicked it.

 

[Ganajin]

When it comes down to it, this is all referees' fault. Everyone moans about how complicated it has become; but when it was clean and simple it was chaos. Once, all we had to go on was "deliberate" or not. And referees kept giving handballs for totally accidental contacts because "well, they gained an advantage from it". There was absolutely zero consistency. So, yes, it is now complex and pernickety. And yes, we are to blame.

 

[Nij]

Allow me to side track here. Exactly the same actions and reactions from AA. If another defender kicked the ball, it is not a 'deliberate' handball. But if an attacker kicked the ball, it is a 'deliberate handball'? That to me is not clarification, it is obfuscation.

To answer your question no I wouldn't call it a handball, but i also wouldn't call it a handball if an attacker had kicked it.

You don't seem to have lost the fixation on "deliberate" as if it's required for all handball offences and must be involved somehow when a handball offence occurs.

Both the law and the tweet make it clear that other actions, even if not deliberate, can be handball offences. Being deliberate is a sufficient but not necessary condition.

~~

1. It shouldn't matter who kicked the ball in the situation I presented above, because the handball is caused by a deflection off AA's own body, and after being played from close by, and after trying to avoid the handball in the first place. Clearly we agree that while it is usually an offence when the arm is in an unnatural position, it is possible to have a situation where it is not an offence.

2. It shouldn't matter who kicked the ball in the IFAB tweet situation either, because there is no "mitigating circumstance" - the handball is caused by the arm being in an unnatural position, there's no good reason for this, and it affects the game negatively to play on.
In contrast to 1. this is an example of when it is usually an offence. The tweet only mentions an attacker and gives an answer for this situation, but it does not follow that if it was a defender, it would be the opposite (that is, thinking "attacker --> offence, defender --> not offence" is not correct).

 

[JH]

Ahem...

I was right, deliberate is a separate offence from unnatural position and above shoulder, which do not have to be deliberate to be an offence.

 

[Russell Jones]

Despite their best efforts, it really does seem that the rewrite has not materially clarified the handball situation .

In my head, I think defensive (and most attacking) handballs are penalised only if they are either a) deliberate or b) caused by a deliberate, risky, action by the perpetrator, such as making their silhouette unnaturally wider and/or choosing to raise their arms above shoulder height.

Any takers for telling me why I've oversimplified things or missed any nuances?

 

[Big Cat]

Despite their best efforts, it really does seem that the rewrite has not materially clarified the handball situation .

In my head, I think defensive (and most attacking) handballs are penalised only if they are either a) deliberate or b) caused by a deliberate, risky, action by the perpetrator, such as making their silhouette unnaturally wider and/or choosing to raise their arms above shoulder height.

Any takers for telling me why I've oversimplified things or missed any nuances?

Is it true that coaches are advising, 'award any HB in the attacking third?' Nothing like a bit of 'regional-based' Law

 

[socal lurker]

Ahem...
View attachment 3929
I was right, deliberate is a separate offence from unnatural position and above shoulder, which do not have to be deliberate to be an offence.

Sort of. But what seems also clear from the email is that it is punished because the arm is deliberately there, and not punished if not deliberately there (e.g., because of contact with another person knocking off balance). And that's really the guidance that was out there on deliberate handling before this was added in--the unnatural position of the arm taking away space was the deliberate act that justified the offense even though the actual contact could be argued as accidental. Ultimately, as I said before, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it, as the standards are the standards either way and we need to apply them whether we like them or not.

 

[Nij]

Despite their best efforts, it really does seem that the rewrite has not materially clarified the handball situation .

In my head, I think defensive (and most attacking) handballs are penalised only if they are either a) deliberate or b) caused by a deliberate, risky, action by the perpetrator, such as making their silhouette unnaturally wider and/or choosing to raise their arms above shoulder height.

Any takers for telling me why I've oversimplified things or missed any nuances?

This places a condition of deliberation on things where deliberation is irrelevant. Whether the player put the arm in unnatural position by choice doesn't determine that it is or isn't an offence; one can deliberately extend the arm to prevent injury while falling and it is fine, for example.

 

[Russell Jones]

This places a condition of deliberation on things where deliberation is irrelevant. Whether the player put the arm in unnatural position by choice doesn't determine that it is or isn't an offence; one can deliberately extend the arm to prevent injury while falling and it is fine, for example.

Which is why I added in risky to the deliberate piece. Extending the arm to prevent injury is a normal motion and shouldn't be seen as a risky thing to do. Likewise, as recently clarified, if an arm is above shoulder level in an non deliberate way (eg because of contact with another player) then that's not penalised either.