A&H

Handball Wording in law

one

one

RefChat Addict
I have discussed this in the past, prior or during the many changes of wording of the lotg. starting a new one after the FA Cup final handball generated some debate.

I see a clear gap between what football expects, what referees apply in practice and what is written in the laws.

The case of a handball being obviously deliberate (player openly intended to handle the ball) is not an issues. It's the cases where the hand strikes the ball (or vice verse) without an obvious or open intent is the one causing debate all the time. Using natural position as a criteria while helpful, does not cover many cases where football expects to go against the wording of the laws. I can make one positive and one negative example.

A defender attempting to block a cross from a few meters away and in a relatively stationary position should have a natural arm position by his sides, maybe slightly away from body. hands locked together behind his back is certainty not a natural position. As the ball comes at him he twists to avoid hurt which could cause the arm behind his back strike the ball. Given this is not a natural place for the arm, wording of the laws imply an offence but in practice, aligned with expectations, it is not given as handball.

An aerial ball coming from a long distance away. A player in a stationary position is attempting to chest it down. The natural arm position for this is open slightly below shoulder. If the ball hits say the forearm (not intended, just poor timing or skill), the wording of law means this is not handball, but in practice this is given aligned with expectations.

IMO, IFAB should remove the natural position clause out of law 12 and replace it with something like:

  • If a player attempts to avoid touching the ball with their hand/arm, a handball offence has not occurred if he is unsuccessful
  • If a player has the opportunity to avoid touching the ball with their hand/arm but does not avoid contact, a handball offence has occurred
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
one said:
I have discussed this in the past, prior or during the many changes of wording of the lotg. starting a new one after the FA Cup final handball generated some debate.

I see a clear gap between what football expects, what referees apply in practice and what is written in the laws.

The case of a handball being obviously deliberate (player openly intended to handle the ball) is not an issues. It's the cases where the hand strikes the ball (or vice verse) without an obvious or open intent is the one causing debate all the time. Using natural position as a criteria while helpful, does not cover many cases where football expects to go against the wording of the laws. I can make one positive and one negative example.

A defender attempting to block a cross from a few meters away and in a relatively stationary position should have a natural arm position by his sides, maybe slightly away from body. hands locked together behind his back is certainty not a natural position. As the ball comes at him he twists to avoid hurt which could cause the arm behind his back strike the ball. Given this is not a natural place for the arm, wording of the laws imply an offence but in practice, aligned with expectations, it is not given as handball.

An aerial ball coming from a long distance away. A player in a stationary position is attempting to chest it down. The natural arm position for this is open slightly below shoulder. If the ball hits say the forearm (not intended, just poor timing or skill), the wording of law means this is not handball, but in practice this is given aligned with expectations.

IMO, IFAB should remove the natural position clause out of law 12 and replace it with something like:

  • If a player attempts to avoid touching the ball with their hand/arm, a handball offence has not occurred if he is unsuccessful
  • If a player has the opportunity to avoid touching the ball with their hand/arm but does not avoid contact, a handball offence has not occurred
Click to expand...


I think you have an unwanted “not” in the second bullet?

i pretty much agree with you, which would essentially take us back a few years ago. “Unnatural position” grew up out of the idea that players were hiding deliberate handling by unnatural positions that created “accidental”handling that went unpunished. But the modern iteration has left that deliberate element completely out of the thought process and gone, IMO, completely out of control.
 
Of course, HB has always been contentious. Probably the most subjective thing to Referee at times
The use of the term 'unnatural position' has really backfired and made things worse though. In practice, it has little to do with natural/unnatural and that's where the controversy stems from
I think my main consideration has never changed that much, in that I tend to judge whether it was careless by the player. Could the player have avoided the HB? The position of the arm merely feeds into this consideration. That said, at this moment in time, if the arm is raised, as was that of Grealish, that's being interpreted as careless or avoidable by the player in question. However, that's very harsh (and wrong) in situations like yesterday's because the ball hitting his hand is just one of those unexpected things (although we have to give it cos they do on the tele)
 
Last edited:
I've had two situations this season where i have given a penalty for handball that, if i was just MY interpretation of "deliberate" i would not have given it.

The current law is still a mess and each time the lawmakers try to clarify it, it makes it harder to bother understand and use.
 
I think the definition of 'unnatural position' handball in the so called "football rules" is actually a huge improvement of the definition in the laws of the game:

A handball offence is when a player (except the goalkeeper in their own penalty area):
  • ...
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that makes their body unnaturally bigger and when that position is not the result of their body moving fairly as part of play

This seems to give the referee a bit more flexibility when judging what is "fair". This is the best way to do things because not every handball or potential handball situation is the same and the referee needs to judge it on a case by case basis. I also like the idea of the referee being the arbiter of 'fairness' rather than trying to make every handball situation a solely objective decision.
 
Tim Punter said:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...up-final-further-proves-absurdity-of-handball

Brilliant article here from one of the best football writers around. Jonathan Wilson. Have to agree with his analysis, as unlike some of the idiotic co-commentators on TV, (Carlton 'nobody knows the rules anymore' Cole being one of the worst), he explains really well that the current handball law is absurd and not helping the game or referees.
Click to expand...
Actually he doesn't, he is attacking the way the Law is interpreted, not the Law itself. Actually the Law is IMHO very well expressed. If we actually only gave handball offences when players were clearly making themselves "unnaturally bigger" (plus of course the deliberate ones and the ones that lead to goals) it would work very well. The problem is (and it even crops up in OP here) is that we keep talking about unnatural positions where the Law actually makes it clear that such a position must make the body a bigger target. Was Grealish making his body bigger in that position? Not a chance. In my games I turn down anything that is not a deliberate touch or a deliberate making the body bigger. I also inform the players why I am doing so. At a recent game I overheard a player saying "I like the way this ref calls handball....much fairer". The Law is fine as it is....it is not IFAB but FIFA that appears to encourage referees to interpret this in a confusing way.
 
Dan56 said:
In my games I turn down anything that is not a deliberate touch or a deliberate making the body bigger.
Click to expand...

So just for clarity, you are okay with accidentally/inadvertently making the body bigger?

I think this is more or less how I try to approach it, especially in the middle of the fop. I do tend to get a bit less lenient as I get in the penalty area though.
 
The whole concept of "handball" is of course borne out of the idea that it's "football" and that using your hands/arms is cheating.

It's a simple enough concept which has been made complicated by various caveats and scenarios added to the LOTG over the years.

If the IFAB were really committed to making it simpler to understand and interpret for all concerned, they'd simply remove all the guff from the LOTG and amend it to read something along the lines of "If, in the opinion of the referee the player intentionally/deliberately failed to prevent the ball from coming into contact with the hand arm, then a handball offence has been committed".

I mean, how difficult should that be?
 
Dan56 said:
Actually he doesn't, he is attacking the way the Law is interpreted, not the Law itself. Actually the Law is IMHO very well expressed. If we actually only gave handball offences when players were clearly making themselves "unnaturally bigger" (plus of course the deliberate ones and the ones that lead to goals) it would work very well. The problem is (and it even crops up in OP here) is that we keep talking about unnatural positions where the Law actually makes it clear that such a position must make the body a bigger target. Was Grealish making his body bigger in that position? Not a chance. In my games I turn down anything that is not a deliberate touch or a deliberate making the body bigger. I also inform the players why I am doing so. At a recent game I overheard a player saying "I like the way this ref calls handball....much fairer". The Law is fine as it is....it is not IFAB but FIFA that appears to encourage referees to interpret this in a confusing way.
Click to expand...
Grealish's body was 100% made bigger by the fact he extended his arm up there. I didn't think that aspect was in question at all?

The question around that incident was if the arm was in that position due to a natural movement or not. And regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, I think I can see why there are different opinions, it's very much in a position where it might be natural but also does seem to get to that position slightly unnaturally.

2 paragraphs in to that article, Wilson again uses an expression that I see loads when football players/pundits are talking about HB but that doesn't come into the way referees are expected to judge it: "He did not seek to gain an advantage." For me, what football expects is that handball should be punished when the handballing player/team materially benefits from the handball, but not when it's inconsequential.

I'm not totally sure how to turn this into written law, but I also think we'll never get to a point where handball is widely understood unless we factor this aspect into the law.
 
I had the thought that both 'unnaturally bigger' and 'scoring directly after accidental' handling should result in an indirect free kick. Then a direct free kick or penalty kick would only be awarded for deliberate handling as defined by how law was previously written (this can include where a player is deliberately making their body unnaturally bigger).
 
My opinion is a player should bear some responsibility when
  • the ball hits their hand and
  • their hand is away from their body even if in a natural position for their movement and
  • It is expected that the ball is likely to travel in their direction, even from a short distance.

This feeds into calling it careless in a post above. Basically you know the ball is likely coming your way and could hit your hand, take care so that it doesn't.

I have a feeling many others share the same view.
 
Mr Dean said:
I think the definition of 'unnatural position' handball in the so called "football rules" is actually a huge improvement of the definition in the laws of the game:

A handball offence is when a player (except the goalkeeper in their own penalty area):
  • ...
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that makes their body unnaturally bigger and when that position is not the result of their body moving fairly as part of play
Click to expand...

I agree that's better but I still think it could be improved further by just ommitting the whole "unnaturally bigger" phrase.

I think the IFAB is falling into the same trap here as it has done for years now with the offside law. Namely, it's sticking with the wording it used previously and just adding more stuff even though the old phraseology is no longer needed and/or is actually misleading people. (I refer of course to keeping the phrases "interfering with play," and "gaining an advantage" in Law 11 even though the wording would be better without them).

I would make it:

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it is in a position that is not the result of their body moving fairly as part of play
Click to expand...

I think the entire "making the body unnaturally bigger" phrase is simply superfluous.
 
Last edited:
Viridis1886 said:
So just for clarity, you are okay with accidentally/inadvertently making the body bigger?

I think this is more or less how I try to approach it, especially in the middle of the fop. I do tend to get a bit less lenient as I get in the penalty area though.
Click to expand...
That's how I do it as well - there needs to be some, in my opinion, conscious intent to make the body bigger. I judge it the same regardless of where it occurs on the field of play, penalty area or not.
 
Kes said:
The whole concept of "handball" is of course borne out of the idea that it's "football" and that using your hands/arms is cheating.

It's a simple enough concept which has been made complicated by various caveats and scenarios added to the LOTG over the years.

If the IFAB were really committed to making it simpler to understand and interpret for all concerned, they'd simply remove all the guff from the LOTG and amend it to read something along the lines of "If, in the opinion of the referee the player intentionally/deliberately failed to prevent the ball from coming into contact with the hand arm, then a handball offence has been committed".

I mean, how difficult should that be?
Click to expand...
Which is close to what it was until 2015/16 just with even less words, it simply said ...

handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

It was putting the onus very much on the referee to just decide if the handling was intentional or not. Just about every law was changed that season, and whilst most of the others have rationales listed for doing so, there is nothing listed for the additional of a new specific handling section in law 12. I'm pretty sure though it was because there had been a lot of grumbling about inconsistencies between what is and isn't punished. In reality though the constant changes since then have just led to more inconsistencies. There's no way Grealish would have been penalised under that law, yet he was under the current one, but we've seen others similar to Grealish's not be penalised.

I don't think we will ever get to a position where there is complete consistency across all referees at all levels as it is too subjective. This one would never have been seen without VAR, so perhaps the answer is to say that VAR ignores handling unless it was very blatant, i.e. a clear and obvious error. That doesn't currently happen with handling, they are picking up on things that it would be very difficult for a referee to see real time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
GraemeS said:
Grealish's body was 100% made bigger by the fact he extended his arm up there. I didn't think that aspect was in question at all?

The question around that incident was if the arm was in that position due to a natural movement or not. And regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, I think I can see why there are different opinions, it's very much in a position where it might be natural but also does seem to get to that position slightly unnaturally.

2 paragraphs in to that article, Wilson again uses an expression that I see loads when football players/pundits are talking about HB but that doesn't come into the way referees are expected to judge it: "He did not seek to gain an advantage." For me, what football expects is that handball should be punished when the handballing player/team materially benefits from the handball, but not when it's inconsequential.

I'm not totally sure how to turn this into written law, but I also think we'll never get to a point where handball is widely understood unless we factor this aspect into the law.
Click to expand...
Think you have hit the nail on the head here regarding this particular decision Graeme. It's a subjective call as to whether this incident is natural / unnatural for the body movement being undertaken, hence decent arguments either way. I'd agree with @RustyRef that the issue with this one is that it was only seen by VAR and then seen as a C&O error.

The 'did not seek to gain an advantage' piece you mention is more problematic for me. We are all completely used to the idea that 'intent' is not the defining factor when penalising challenges or deciding on the sanctions for them (just last weekend I sent off a defender for a clearly accidental careless trip that was DOGSO ... barely a murmur from the defending team). I just see the current handball law as exactly the same. If interpreted as per the wording, then a player will (and should) be penalised when the ball strikes their hand / arm and it's in an unnatural position for their body movement ... their intent in having their arm there is irrelevant, as is the change to the outcome of the play. Your suggestion of only punishing it when it's 'consequential' is attractive on the surface ... however it simply opens up other bizarre scenarios eg the ball hitting a clearly deliberately outstretched arm but no material consequence as the ball would have simply gone out of play had it missed the arm ....

Overall, I think the search for the 'Holy Grail' solution to handball is a fool's errand. Further constant tinkering to this law will achieve little or nothing other than to further confuse people. Way better IMO to simply stick with what we've got and work hard to drive consistency within and across Leagues by ongoing communication and education to illustrate how it can best be applied.
 
Last edited:
Oh absolutely, I have no idea how to go about defining the law around consequences. And there are obviously loads of niche edge-cases where that could end in weird results. Although actually, I think the example you give is specifically one that doesn't read as inconsequential! Ball that would have gone out of play but instead is kept in by an arm? Textbook "feels like HB" for me!

That's the thing - consequences are clearly a huge part of what the lay-person "feels" should define HB, and I don't think we'll find an acceptable conclusion without at least acknowledging that. The attacking HB aspect of the law already kind of acknowledges the fact that some incidents feel like HB just because of where the ball then goes regardless of intent, so it's there in the law already, just done very clumsily.

I'd like caveats to that law to allow referees to ignore attacking HB if the balls trajectory and final destination are unaffected (to stop goals being disallowed for flicking a fingertip when they were going in anyway), but I think the HB law would generally be improved if referees are empowered to not give HB's if the end result is the same as it would have been without the HB. You just have to be cautious not to over-apply that leeway.
 
I think I’ve simplified it - at least as codified law. Still room for interpretation/ in the opinion of the referee but here goes:

Handball is punished by a direct free kick or penalty kick if in a player’s own penalty area (except for the goalkeeper in their own penalty area) if a player uses their hand or arm to:

- Block or attempt to block a shot at goal by an opponent (unless the ball enters the goal in which case a goal is awarded).

- Prevent an opponent gaining or retaining possession of the ball.

- Gains, retains, or attempts to gain or retain possession of the ball.

- Prevents or attempts to prevent the ball going out of play.

A direct free kick is also awarded if a player scores or attempts to score in the opponents goal after the ball has touched their hand or arm.

No natural/unnatural positions, or any of the other big question marks. Also eliminates the “kick it at a players arm” argument.

Of course there will still be debate over decisions, but ultimately it cuts the grey areas down to a binary choice. Did that action do one of the above? Yes or no?
 
Tealeaf said:
I think I’ve simplified it - at least as codified law. Still room for interpretation/ in the opinion of the referee but here goes:

Handball is punished by a direct free kick or penalty kick if in a player’s own penalty area (except for the goalkeeper in their own penalty area) if a player uses their hand or arm to:

- Block or attempt to block a shot at goal by an opponent (unless the ball enters the goal in which case a goal is awarded).

- Prevent an opponent gaining or retaining possession of the ball.

- Gains, retains, or attempts to gain or retain possession of the ball.

- Prevents or attempts to prevent the ball going out of play.

A direct free kick is also awarded if a player scores or attempts to score in the opponents goal after the ball has touched their hand or arm.

No natural/unnatural positions, or any of the other big question marks. Also eliminates the “kick it at a players arm” argument.

Of course there will still be debate over decisions, but ultimately it cuts the grey areas down to a binary choice. Did that action do one of the above? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Interesting - not so much whether the handling was deliberate or avoidable, but an outcome based approach which would, I assume, be strict as to simply whether the ball hit the arm or not.

It would stop the garbage over offences where the ball barely brushes a finger. Still, could lead to players driving the ball at defenders arms in the PA in the hope that one of the boxes is ticked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top