Manchester United vs Middlesbrough
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Changed for 2021-2022. https://www.theifab.com/documents/?documentType=all&language=en&years=2022
Incorrectly, because Refs are bowing to what criticism they'll get, and not correctly applying the LOTG, and this is what's creating the controversy. Apply the Law correctly in the centre circle and it doesn't become a major issue when you apply it correctly in the PB - Refs are making a rod for their own back, including at the top level. There are videos on the IFAB page detailing what is/is not a handball offence - this type of handball (mis-control/ natural position for movement) is included and classed as not an offence in the PB or the centre circle.
Deliberate handling continues to plague the game. Referees rarely see players deliberately move the ball with their hand / arm and most are given based on the ball hitting the player and adjudged to be in an unnatural position that is making themselves bigger by arms being raised, away from the body etc. Rarely if ever is the arm movement intentional and to ask any player if he expected the ball to hit the arm most if not all would say no which is what the Boro player said. Yet that is not the only consideration unlike the hand to ball aka Maradonna, Thierry Henry etc. Also the silliness of these goal situations is that had the ball gone directly into the goal it would have been called as handling yet a second touch by a team mate within a second or so makes it 'okay'. That does not sit well particularly after what was said when this change was first made.
I'm pretty sure that if this happened to a defender that a penalty would have been awarded for the arm being away from the body in a raised position even if it was considered "natural".
This was given as a penalty kick
Is the position much different.
The problem for the game has been and continues to be that it is unclear to players what is going to be called or not. Another day this goal would be ruled out for handling.
I recall a FIFA instructor saying to a group of refs is that he hears all the time " I do not know what you guys are calling". All the effort IFAB has made to tidy handling up has only achieved one certainty and that is the goal scored directly with a hand which many refs probably would not have given anyway. David Elleray said that "Handball will always be a problem in the sense it will always be a subjective judgement. And unless we went to the extreme of the hockey foot rule, where any time the ball hits the foot it's an offence, that is the only way we can stop perceived inconsistencies.
"So handball is always going to be a journey to an ideal but we'll never get there because it's a subjective area. And we have to accept that. That is why applying the spirit is the most important aspect of the law."
The spirit of the game here tells me that the ball was going away from the attacker, that his raised arm away from his body making him bigger ensured the ball dropped advantageously to him to create the goal. Put it another way. If the DHB had been called there would be less questions raised.
FWIW I believe Anthony Taylor did not see it as the video I saw had a United player in his view line and it was left to Stuart Attwell on VAR. In the Hudson Odi penalty shout involving Chelsea and United last season when Stuart Attwell was brought across to look at the monitor he did not give that one either. For him to be brought across in the first place suggested that VAR at that time thought it was a penalty. Other referees said that they were giving it at the time due to the raised arm, unnatural position etc. I suspect SA has a very high bar on handling in these situations which is okay if every referee was on the same page but plainly they are not.
As an aside I got tired looking at Anthony Taylor on very single penalty kick going forward to instruct the goalkeepers on position. It became tiresome. How many times did he need to speak to the GKs.
I'm pretty sure that if this happened to a defender that a penalty would have been awarded for the arm being away from the body in a raised position even if it was considered "natural".
This was given as a penalty kick
Is the position much different.
The problem for the game has been and continues to be that it is unclear to players what is going to be called or not. Another day this goal would be ruled out for handling.
I recall a FIFA instructor saying to a group of refs is that he hears all the time " I do not know what you guys are calling". All the effort IFAB has made to tidy handling up has only achieved one certainty and that is the goal scored directly with a hand which many refs probably would not have given anyway. David Elleray said that "Handball will always be a problem in the sense it will always be a subjective judgement. And unless we went to the extreme of the hockey foot rule, where any time the ball hits the foot it's an offence, that is the only way we can stop perceived inconsistencies.
"So handball is always going to be a journey to an ideal but we'll never get there because it's a subjective area. And we have to accept that. That is why applying the spirit is the most important aspect of the law."
The spirit of the game here tells me that the ball was going away from the attacker, that his raised arm away from his body making him bigger ensured the ball dropped advantageously to him to create the goal. Put it another way. If the DHB had been called there would be less questions raised.
FWIW I believe Anthony Taylor did not see it as the video I saw had a United player in his view line and it was left to Stuart Attwell on VAR. In the Hudson Odi penalty shout involving Chelsea and United last season when Stuart Attwell was brought across to look at the monitor he did not give that one either. For him to be brought across in the first place suggested that VAR at that time thought it was a penalty. Other referees said that they were giving it at the time due to the raised arm, unnatural position etc. I suspect SA has a very high bar on handling in these situations which is okay if every referee was on the same page but plainly they are not.
As an aside I got tired looking at Anthony Taylor on very single penalty kick going forward to instruct the goalkeepers on position. It became tiresome. How many times did he need to speak to the GKs.
Watmore has no thought as to where his hand is. It's in an entirely natural position for balance and does not intentionally move towards the ball. However, the game expects players to move like penguins and the game expects Handball when the arm is extended away from the body. The game expects this to HB and even though I disagree with it, I'm giving this as HB 100% of the time, even in the middle of the park. Nobody has any clue as to what Shockley Park will make of any incident however
It's still a consideration like arm above shoulder, support arm on ground, ball from short distance, ect.
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I don’t believe he thought “hey, I’m going to move my arm to the ball to settle it”. But for me, he has moved his arm toward the ball and made contact. That’s in addition to his arm being in an unnatural position. For me, it’s a handling.
Definitely accidental.
I didn't realise the law had changed and 'leads to a goal' is no longer there.
I didn't realise the law had changed and 'leads to a goal' is no longer there.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I, even as a fellow Boro supporter, fully expected this to be ruled out and didn't even celebrate at the time.
Looking back and analyzing it now, I can see the argument that since it was (for me, almost certainly) accidental and it's a position that could be seen "as a consequence of [...] the player’s body movement for that specific situation," the goal was allowed to stand but my immediate reaction at the time was that it was going to be ruled out.
What I found interesting was that I have read/heard mentioned a couple of times since that an "official" explanation was apparently given that it was judged not to be an offence because the ball had come off the player's own body onto his hand, despite that particular clause no longer being part of the law.
As @Will_A pointed out, it was in the law last season so I'm wondering, is this one of those cases where we're still supposed to use the concepts from the older version of the laws because they are now considered to be part of the body of laws - and haven't really been directly contradicted by the latest version which if so, is something I really don't like. It means that in addition to knowing the current laws, you have to be familiar with what used to be in previous versions of the laws, before you can make a fully informed judgement call.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't think this is necessarily using a concept form older versions of law but just trying to justify why it wasn't considered deliberate. The reason just happens to be in an older version of law. The same reason could have been used 5 years ago and of course they would not have had a crystal ball.
I guess what I am saying is that just because it was removed from an older version does not make it an invalid reason for not being deliberate.
The laws now has two reasons for handling to be an offence, deliberate and unnatural position (not counting scoring a goal off it). There are no longer considerations given for what constitutes deliberate. Using a consideration from an older version for justifying deliberate or not (for example speed, distance...) still makes sense if done correctly. It does not mean to judge deliberate you have to know older versions.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
It’s long but yes, I follow and agree.
on first replay I thought handball and I was shocked there were not more replays to show the player more clearly.
Great result for the “neutral” though!
Studs making contact above the ankle isn't specifically mentioned in the laws. It's a consideration we're supposed to use (point of contact) when determining if a challenge was serious foul play. It's the same with the ball coming off the players own body. It can be used as a consideration on why something might not be a handball offense.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
@Peter Grove ref
‘What I found interesting was that I have read/heard mentioned a couple of times since that an "official" explanation was apparently given that it was judged not to be an offence because the ball had come off the player's own body onto his hand, despite that particular clause no longer being part of the law.’
It’s still referred to on the IFAB site for 21/22 slide 29 onwards.
www.theifab.com
‘What I found interesting was that I have read/heard mentioned a couple of times since that an "official" explanation was apparently given that it was judged not to be an offence because the ball had come off the player's own body onto his hand, despite that particular clause no longer being part of the law.’
It’s still referred to on the IFAB site for 21/22 slide 29 onwards.
Law changes | IFAB
www.theifab.com
It’s still referred to on the IFAB site for 21/22 slide 29 onwards.
Law changes | IFAB
And in UEFA's material for the last part of 2021.
Go into app, press ellipsis (3 dots) to switch edition to 2021/22, unless you do this your IFAB will quote old law.
After downloading the IFAB app it defaults to the 2020/21 laws, not 21/22 => it bit me a few months ago as well!