Handling the ball - the way forward

[one]

I had a similar thread a few months back and had put my thought there but I am now thinking of a simpler model.

Remove everything about defining handball from the book and replace it with this:

"It is an offence if a player touches the ball with their hand/arm when the player has the ability to prevent contact."

Let the referee decide the rest. We can call it Preventable handball. IMO it is much easier to decide if it was preventable than if it was deliberate.

 

[Grayson]

Or go with “if, in the opinion of the referee...”

 

[Mintyref]

So your replies would be how the law should be framed?

Give or take

 

[Ben448844]

In the opinion of the referee, was the handball offence deliberate?

Thats it, no further explanation of the law, no guidance, no nonsense about touching your hand/arm before a goal is scored etc. A simple one sentence law

 

[GraemeS]

I had a similar thread a few months back and had put my thought there but I am now thinking of a simpler model.

Remove everything about defining handball from the book and replace it with this:

"It is an offence if a player touches the ball with their hand/arm when the player has the ability to prevent contact."

Let the referee decide the rest. We can call it Preventable handball. IMO it is much easier to decide if it was preventable than if it was deliberate.

I've said the same with VAR - when" redrafting" these laws, you have to remember how we got to the situation we're in now. And in this case, the main issue is that it was previously left to the opinion of the referee and players (media, pundits etc) couldn't accept that a certain action might be an offence with referee 1 and absolutely fine to referee 2. Referees then ask for help with consistency, local FA's put on non-standardised training to help guide them and we end up with significant regional variations, and inconsistency still within that because not every referee goes to every training session.

So while I think introducing the idea of "preventable" over the badly-interpretated "deliberate" is a good improvement, I still think you need to be specific within that. If you can clearly define what preventable means, we might be onto a winner!

 

[zarathustra]

The problem is that by simplifying the wording in the laws you introduce inconsistency, I've seen referees who would give a free kick if the ball went within a foot of someone's arm, and I've seen referees who would only give a free kick if the player picked the ball up and ran 15 yards with it.

I believe all of the recent changes to the handball law were to try and remove some of the inconsistency by telling what is and is not an offence but also leaving enough room for referees to apply in the opinion of the referee.

perhaps some simplification of the wording, but I think broadly speaking the current law isn’t terrible.

 

[Mintyref]

That is exactly the problem here. The simple law, deliberate hand ball is an offence is really easy to understand. You're correct in that deliberate to some is not to another...so they clarified what they meant...then had to clarify the clarification, and on and on and infinitum..the easy way is to remove the initial problem....any hand ball is an offence.

Simples

 

[zarathustra]

That is exactly the problem here. The simple law, deliberate hand ball is an offence is really easy to understand. You're correct in that deliberate to some is not to another...so they clarified what they meant...then had to clarify the clarification, and on and on and infinitum..the easy way is to remove the initial problem....any hand ball is an offence.

Simples

That would be easier, you'd still have people complaining that it's not fair to penalise someone for an accidental hand ball etc.

I think this law is one of those where you'll never please everybody.

 

[santa sangria]

After 6 days this thread has run out of steam, with no-one yet brave enough to post what they think the law on handling should look like in 2020/2021 (and yes, James L, I know the IFAB version has been published)
Another thread (Wolves match) has mirrored this one, with a range of views expressed.
As a personal view, I don't support the idea of penalising a defender for a clearly accidental handball (e.g. hits the back of his arm while he is on the ground a metre from the kicker) and I just regret that the simplification of the laws three years ago has resulted in a lot of supplementary guidance that is not in the Laws book.
In my time (30 years, no time off for good behaviour) as a referee, the referee penalised if the handling was deliberate in his/her opinion. Some variances of opinion occurred but ITOOTR ruled!
The only addition needed is the 2020/2021 version of goal/immediate goal opportunity, which seems to make sense.
Only one post in this thread has earned a "Like" so far, with 24 hours to go of the original timetable.
Thoughts very welcome!

Big Cat also posted wording in post 5 that I am happy with in post 11.

 

[Mr Dean]

My tuppence worth: sanction all contact between hand/arm and ball but reduce the punishment. So the law would be worded something like:

- It is an indirect free kick offence for a player to touch the ball with their hand or arm unless that contact was obviously deliberate in which case a direct free kick offence is committed.


Introducing the word obviously should narrow the grey area (we almost always agree on DOGSO offences).

 

[es1]

My tuppence worth: sanction all contact between hand/arm and ball but reduce the punishment. So the law would be worded something like:

- It is an indirect free kick offence for a player to touch the ball with their hand or arm unless that contact was obviously deliberate in which case a direct free kick offence is committed.


Introducing the word obviously should narrow the grey area (we almost always agree on DOGSO offences).

Don't hate the principal but you need to define what constitutes an obvious handball

 

[socal lurker]

My tuppence worth: sanction all contact between hand/arm and ball but reduce the punishment. So the law would be worded something like:

- It is an indirect free kick offence for a player to touch the ball with their hand or arm unless that contact was obviously deliberate in which case a direct free kick offence is committed.


Introducing the word obviously should narrow the grey area (we almost always agree on DOGSO offences).

That creates two new problems. First, the pressure on the ref to decide IFK or DFK. Second, you’re creating many more very difficult IFKs in the PA—and they are going to be additionally tense because the attacking team is mad they didn’t get the PA. Creative, but impractical.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Many thanks for some thought-provoking responses, and for handling failure to agree in an adult manner(!)
I will send a summary of the expressed views to our IFAB representative, in the hope they can be considered for 2021-2022 inclusion.
Stay safe, and get fit!

 

[jofusref]

bring back the handball law when i passed my referee exam 1993 intentional, deliberate,, it wasnt broke so no need to complicate things

 

[GraemeS]

bring back the handball law when i passed my referee exam 1993 intentional, deliberate,, it wasnt broke so no need to complicate things

The problem is, this bit was absolutely not considered true. Different referees and different countries applied the same law and got different results - so it "needed" fixing and that's how we got where we are today. If you want to go back to that law, you need to justify how we won't just end up going round that circle again in 5 years time.

 

[Murri O]

Maybe leave it at 'deliberate' and add 'any contact with the hand/arm that leads to an advantage'.

Carve out an exception for 'ball to hand' where it's impossible to get out of the way.

 

[Mintyref]

The problem is, this bit was absolutely not considered true. Different referees and different countries applied the same law and got different results - so it "needed" fixing and that's how we got where we are today. If you want to go back to that law, you need to justify how we won't just end up going round that circle again in 5 years time.

The law did not, I repeat not, need fixing, it was the referees that needed behaviour correction.....

 

[GraemeS]

The law did not, I repeat not, need fixing, it was the referees that needed behaviour correction.....

I see your point, but I worry you're drifting too close to have key law concepts only explained via errata, FAQ's and circulars. Not all of which will be read by every referee.

If something is key to how a sport works, it needs to be in the core rules (in this case, the LOTG). You wouldn't leave the fact that a team should only have up to 11 players out of the LOTG and expect it to only be passed around via training and memos.

 

[Mintyref]

I see your point, but I worry you're drifting too close to have key law concepts only explained via errata, FAQ's and circulars. Not all of which will be read by every referee.

If something is key to how a sport works, it needs to be in the core rules (in this case, the LOTG). You wouldn't leave the fact that a team should only have up to 11 players out of the LOTG and expect it to only be passed around via training and memos.

I hear what you say but the law did not need explanation, was it in the opinion of the referee deliberate? Simple binary choice here, if yes foul and free kick, if not play on.
The trouble was never, the lotg, it was always the errata, as it were, trying to fix a falsely perceived problem all because football expects (see previous comments about 'football's and sentient beings....)

 

[GraemeS]

I hear what you say but the law did not need explanation, was it in the opinion of the referee deliberate? Simple binary choice here, if yes foul and free kick, if not play on.
The trouble was never, the lotg, it was always the errata, as it were, trying to fix a falsely perceived problem all because football expects (see previous comments about 'football's and sentient beings....)

IFAB (claim to) want a consistent game that's played the same across the world. Without some indication of what we're supposed to consider deliberate, how do you create that consistency?