The Ref Stop

Handball

The Ref Stop
Jackson said:
I don't see why accidental handball should be penalised at all.
Click to expand...
For decades it wasn't. IFAB decided that "football expects" that an attacker not score as a result of handling, even if accidental. So they added a rule. This has been consistent with the micro tinkering that IFAB has been doing over the past decade or so.
Refollie said:
Only IFAB would need a 76-page document to explain what handball is
Click to expand...
Well, if you are going to tilt at the windmill and try to get 100% consistency, what else can you do? Keep in mind that the tinkering over the past several years was specifically designed to break down differences in what was considered "deliberate" handling, including some very strong regional differences in interpretation.

Not that VAR is the root of all evil, and I wouldn't say it is purely about the implementation of VAR, but if you are going to pretend that handling is so objective that every handling call can be decided and any variance is a clear error, then you need to nail down all the possibilities at least in your training for the professional refs who are going to be revisiting important handball calls by VAR on a regular basis. (We've been seeing that it doesn't work to pretend subjective decisions are objective, but IFAB still wants that to be the way the world works.
 
Jackson said:
It doesn't make sense to me that a goal can be prevented by accidental handball but not scored by a similar action.
Click to expand...
Or the inequity between DOGSO-HB and Scoring-HB USB (considered deliberate)
I hate this sort of inconsistency. IFAB unaware that symmetry is a fundamental aspect of The Universe
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
Or the inequity between DOGSO-HB and Scoring-HB USB (considered deliberate)
I hate this sort of inconsistency. IFAB unaware that symmetry is a fundamental aspect of The Universe
Click to expand...
There is a difference on DOGSO and attempting to score: on DOGSO, the calling of the foul often doesn't "cure" the denied opportunity, but calling the HB on the attacker fully takes away the goal scoring opportunity.
 
one said:
Agree on the difference but it is small. Calling of the foul often  does cure the denied opportunity, and then some in means of a send off.
Click to expand...

For a DOGSO outside the PA, the FK rarely is as good as the OGSO. (Hence the difference on PK DOGSO.)
 
socal lurker said:
For a DOGSO outside the PA, the FK rarely is as good as the OGSO. (Hence the difference on PK DOGSO.)
Click to expand...
How often is a DOGSO handball outside the PA though? 😊 I'd say more than 7 out of 10 DOGSO HB restarts end up in the back of the net.

I don't like an accidental handbill being given because of the outcome. If so then the sent off player in dogso HB should come back if a goal is scored as the outcome of the restart. A discussion we have had before.
 
one said:
I don't like an accidental handbill being given because of the outcome. If so then the sent off player in dogso HB should come back if a goal is scored as the outcome of the restart. A discussion we have had before.
Click to expand...

I wasn't a fan of it being added either, but even before it was added, professional referees tended to find those deliberate anyway when a goal was scored as a result. In any event, the accidental handball by attackers doesn't get near my top 10 list of things IFAB should fix . . .
 
one said:
How often is a DOGSO handball outside the PA though? 😊 I'd say more than 7 out of 10 DOGSO HB restarts end up in the back of the net.

I don't like an accidental handbill being given because of the outcome. If so then the sent off player in dogso HB should come back if a goal is scored as the outcome of the restart. A discussion we have had before.
Click to expand...
Accidental handball wouldn't mean a sending - off, though.
 
Jackson said:
Accidental handball wouldn't mean a sending - off, though.
Click to expand...
Yes it would if it was an offence i.e. made the body unnaturally bigger when not a justifiable consequence of the movement AND denied an OGSO.
 
Yes, l know that and l just hope that referees take the body movement into consideration. I didn't see much of it last season when they had the advantage of VAR.
 
I take the view that if the "offending" player gains an advantage from the handball then I will give the free kick. The only exception being "ball to hand" where the player has no way to avoid the contact.
 
CapeTownRef said:
I take the view that if the "offending" player gains an advantage from the handball then I will give the free kick. The only exception being "ball to hand" where the player has no way to avoid the contact.
Click to expand...
Why would you do that?
 
Because it is common sense. If I interpret that the handball is deliberate or that the player gains an unfair advantage, then I award the FK. Accidental handball where a player simply cannot avoid being struck on the arm/hand should not be punished as I believe it ios not in the spirit of the game. I have found that a quick and loud verbal reply to an appeal for hands such as "ball to hand" or "not interested, play on" resolves the matter instantly.
 
CapeTownRef said:
Because it is common sense. If I interpret that the handball is deliberate or that the player gains an unfair advantage, then I award the FK. Accidental handball where a player simply cannot avoid being struck on the arm/hand should not be punished as I believe it ios not in the spirit of the game. I have found that a quick and loud verbal reply to an appeal for hands such as "ball to hand" or "not interested, play on" resolves the matter instantly.
Click to expand...
But where in law is there anything about an unfair advantage save for a goal scored directly from a hand, deliberately or otherwise?

If the handball is not deliberate, not a result of them making their body unnaturally bigger then consequence (eg advantage gained) is not a consideration and would be wrong in law to penalise it.
 
A goal scored directly from a hand is an unfair advantage and, therefore, should be penalised. If a player handballs it and it drops directly to a teammate who scores, then I will award the FK as I believe it is not in the spirit of the game. I have had absolutely no problems with teams where such a situation occurs.
 
CapeTownRef said:
Because it is common sense. If I interpret that the handball is deliberate or that the player gains an unfair advantage, then I award the FK. Accidental handball where a player simply cannot avoid being struck on the arm/hand should not be punished as I believe it ios not in the spirit of the game. I have found that a quick and loud verbal reply to an appeal for hands such as "ball to hand" or "not interested, play on" resolves the matter instantly.
Click to expand...
You may see it as common sense. However given the large number of referees worldwide (or even in a local area) others will view it differently. That's why, as James says, this is one of those areas where it's in everyone's interest for officials to simply apply the law as it's written. Giving a handball simply because a player (in your opinion) 'gains an unfair advantage' is simply incorrect in law and a major cause of why players scream for handball all the time

And the scenario you describe above (accidental handball dropping at the feet of another attacker) has been specifically ruled as legal in the last change to the handball law :wall:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top