They’ve messed with something and it’s creted unexpected consequences!
Make a decision
- Thread starter Yampy
- Start date
The Referee
Well-Known Member
(Yes, I was taking about the non-deliberate handball offense)
I think you are misreading this. "It is an offence if a player: gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm..." the rest are just additional conditions to be satisfied. It is the touching of the ball which is the offence (or to be precise the gaining possession/control) . The free kick is where the offence occurs.
(Edited after seeing JL's post to make more accurate)
That may be the intention but that's not how the law is written.
It is an offense to:
1. Touch the ball with the hand/arm and then,
2. Gain possession/control of the ball and then,
3. Create a goal-scoring opportunity or score a goal.
The intention may be that points 2 and 3 turns point 1 into an offense but that's not how the law is written. As the law is written, committing points 1, 2 and 3 is the offense; because committing point 3 'completes' the offense, that is where the free kick should be awarded.
Look, just make a decision, as a ref you’re always right... even when you are wrong! 
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Look, just make a decision, as a ref you’re always right... even when you are wrong!
I still think it is a shame that they removed "in the opinion of the referee" from the definitions of fouls in Law 12 . . . I know it is still lurking in Law 5, but not quite the same as being in the actual definition of fouls, err, offenses . . .
You're interpreting it wrong. The free kick is where the ball hits the arm, that has never been up for debate.
A lot of chaps on here using the phrase 'promising attack' in relation the HB criteria. Am I missing something? The laws require creation of a 'goal scoring opportunity'. Perhaps there is some interpretation I'm missing?
Regarding the OP, it poses a difficult question, but one solution might be to regard the player receiving the ball upfield as the one who has created the goal scoring opportunity... If that isnt possible to pull off I don't really see an issue with delaying the whistle - it seems to be what the law requires. Just be ready for a shoite-storm
Regarding the OP, it poses a difficult question, but one solution might be to regard the player receiving the ball upfield as the one who has created the goal scoring opportunity... If that isnt possible to pull off I don't really see an issue with delaying the whistle - it seems to be what the law requires. Just be ready for a shoite-storm
It's clearly a goal, I'm not having that a GSO has been created when the ball is kicked.
The OP is massively overstating how quickly the ball can get from hitting a defenders hand, to being in the opposing goal. Multiple touches and quite a few seconds (as well as more than 75 yards between incidents) is more than enough to have me consider the contact with a hand to have been in the previous phase, and therefore make it functionally irrelevant.
In addition, the touch of the hand itself did not actually crease a GSO. Even if we accept that the big hoof up the pitch can be both far, precise and quick enough to create the goal, the hand didn't create the GSO, so it's not a problem. If the player somehow managed to accidentally punch it 80 yards you might have a case, but we're leaving "unlikely" and drifting into "physically impossible" there for me.
The OP is massively overstating how quickly the ball can get from hitting a defenders hand, to being in the opposing goal. Multiple touches and quite a few seconds (as well as more than 75 yards between incidents) is more than enough to have me consider the contact with a hand to have been in the previous phase, and therefore make it functionally irrelevant.
In addition, the touch of the hand itself did not actually crease a GSO. Even if we accept that the big hoof up the pitch can be both far, precise and quick enough to create the goal, the hand didn't create the GSO, so it's not a problem. If the player somehow managed to accidentally punch it 80 yards you might have a case, but we're leaving "unlikely" and drifting into "physically impossible" there for me.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Nothing in the new Law 12 says anything about the hand creating the GSO. The Law says:
It is an offense if a player . . .
[2]gains possession/control of the ball after [1] it has touched their hand/arm and then:
• scores in the opponents’ goal
• [3]creates a goal-scoring opportunity
As written there is no spatial nor time limits on this provision. It's a test of three things:
1. did the ball touch a player's arm hand?
2. did that player gain possession or control?
3. did that player subsequently sore or great a GSO?
I recently was the trail AR in a game where a literal infraction clearly occurred but was not called: non-deliberate handling 40 yards out, player obtained control, player made a long pass that resulted in a goal. It never occurred to the R that it could be an infraction--and he opined that the new law only applies in the PA (which is clearly incorrect, but might not be a terrible rule to cabin this in).
We can debate the best parameters on this all we want, but ultimately IFAB has to clear this up.
one
RefChat Addict
Can you ask them to correct... I mean clear up the other laws also while you are at it. Start with the new goal kick and a few others ones mentioned on this forum
The Referee
Well-Known Member
What if they decide it's not permitted but shouldn't be penalised?
I don't see any reason for IFAB to get involved if we look at the context and apply common sense. It's fairly obvious why this change was made, but in case there's any doubt, let me quote from the IFAB explanation section that accompanies the law change:
The point of the change is to stop goals being created with the use of the hand. If the
hand wasn't instrumental in the creation of the goal, then we're back to the point where only deliberate HB should be penalised.
I've got no time for "as written" when it clearly contradicts the entire point of the rest of the law. It's clear what was trying to be achieved, it's clear that the goal in the OP doesn't match with what was trying to be outlawed, so the goal should stand.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I couldn't disagree more. When the clear and unambiguous language says something that is contrary to what is intended, that is @#$%@#$@# disaster. And common sense falls in lots of different directions. Another ref's common sense is going to say the player 40 yards away would not have had the ball to make the play but for the handling, so they gained a major advantage by having the ball to create the GSO. And next year (and the years after) when the reason is no longer in the magic book, we're going to continue to expect refs to use their own common sense to ignore the clear language written in the Law?
IFAB's contrary desires to on one hand write specific criteria while on the other babbling about making decisions based on what the game expects is creating a schizoid law book that makes less and less sense every year. If the expect referees to not apply the precise criteria they lay out in the Laws they should stop writing the damn things that way. If this provision had been written when IFAB believed in concepts not details, we'd have something like "If in the opinion of the referee contact with an attacker's arm or hand helps create a goal scoring opportunity, the referee shall award a free kick for a handling offense even if that handling was not deliberate." Instead, we get clear, specific criteria--and sense we shouldn't actually follow them because they don't say what was intended.
The Referee
Well-Known Member
Agree with this. Also, I believe the laws are considered 'well written' if someone without a football background can pick up the book and interpret the laws correctly.
I had an incident last week in an u21 game. Attacker plays the ball into a defenders arm and appeals for handball. the defenders arms were by his side and the ball was struck at him from about an inch away, no handball given. The defender then hoofs the ball away (he's well within his own half). Both opposition centre halves leave the high ball to each other and the striker nips in and scores.
Now there was no appeal from the team who conceded about the accidental handball leading to a goalscoring oppurtunity, only small complaints regarding the handball they didn't get. Fortunately for me there's no need for me to even consider ruling out the goal as no one on that pitch seems to understand the new law and nobody appeals. I'd be interested to know if anyone wouldve ruled the goal out in these circumstances? Is a 60 yard clearance from a defender who's accidentally made contact with the ball with his arm considered creating a goalscoring oppurtunity? I can make a decent argument either way I think?
Now there was no appeal from the team who conceded about the accidental handball leading to a goalscoring oppurtunity, only small complaints regarding the handball they didn't get. Fortunately for me there's no need for me to even consider ruling out the goal as no one on that pitch seems to understand the new law and nobody appeals. I'd be interested to know if anyone wouldve ruled the goal out in these circumstances? Is a 60 yard clearance from a defender who's accidentally made contact with the ball with his arm considered creating a goalscoring oppurtunity? I can make a decent argument either way I think?
The law appears ambiguous in this situation. However I feel it's natural justice that the non handball by the defender is where the attack phase stops. The handball can't be carried over. A new phase starts as the defender kicks the ball forward and the handball is irrelevant at that point. Anything else and you revert to a handball against a defender which wasn't handball in the original scenario.
I'm not for a second saying that the laws are written as well as they possibly could be - far from it. But by choosing to ignore the context and reasoning for the change, you're depriving yourself of vital information that will help you make the right decision.
The language is vague. You keep saying "as written" and things like that, but I and many others aren't interpreting the words in the same way as you seem to be, so there is no such thing as "clear language written in the Law" . We are unclear and cannot reach a consensus or be consistent across matches - unless we look at the context, understand why this law change exists and allow the goal because the law change was clearly not supposed to disallow the incredibly unlikely scenario laid out in the OP!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
You're putting words in my mouth and giving me positions I haven't taken. I have not once advocated ignoring context. On this issue or any other.
The language in Law 12 is pretty darn clear. It sets out exactly three things that have to be true for a handling offense. The only one that is arguably vague is creating an SGO. The problem is they wrote something specific, but none of us think that what they wrote is what they really mean.
Did I say it should be called in the OP? Gee. No I didn't. But we're never going to have a consensus that is consistent across matches when the language says one thing and the logic says something else. Pretending otherwise is fanciful.