One line from the LOTG you wish EVERYONE knew...…..
- Thread starter PinnerPaul
- Start date
But that is just wrong. Why has he got his hands in the air when facing a throw in, there are no reasons for them to be up there so that makes it intentional handling.
Does it?? He’s brought his hands towards a ball that isnt there and may not even get there! Massive leap of faith in guessing that he intentionally handled something in the future. I thought the Shat Lass was the new Doctor!
one
RefChat Addict
I am not sure if you actually believe this or you are trying to stir up the pot. But there is one thing I can say. Kids, if you are reading this, don't try this at home (as a referee). If you do and there is an ensuing goal, make sure either you can handle riots or you are the fastest runner on the ground
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Players make choices. And there are consequences to those choices. Choosing to behave in a way that either guarantees the ball will hit your hand / arm or materially increases the chance of it doing so is a deliberate act.
The clearest way to illustrate this point is the scenario where the ball is hit 50 yards and a player remains stationary in order to allow the ball to hit his hand, rather than shift a little in order to control it on his chest. Whilst this is "ball to hand" it is still handball because of the conscious choice the player has made.
The logic of choosing to put your hands in an unnatural position that increases the chance of the ball hitting your hand/arm is exactly the same.
And rest assured, I come from a place where I still turn down the VAST majority of handball appeals because it's clear to me that the coming together of ball and hand is a complete accident.
The clearest way to illustrate this point is the scenario where the ball is hit 50 yards and a player remains stationary in order to allow the ball to hit his hand, rather than shift a little in order to control it on his chest. Whilst this is "ball to hand" it is still handball because of the conscious choice the player has made.
The logic of choosing to put your hands in an unnatural position that increases the chance of the ball hitting your hand/arm is exactly the same.
And rest assured, I come from a place where I still turn down the VAST majority of handball appeals because it's clear to me that the coming together of ball and hand is a complete accident.
Its an increased chance then, I thought handballs had to be absolutely 100% deliberate ?
On this basis, players in a defensive wall ought to stretch their arms in the air and remain perfectly still
Save the bother with all that jumping malarkey
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Handballs have to be absolutely 100% a deliberate act (in the opinion of the referee)
To make himself bigger or to deliberately handle a ball that wasn’t there at that point and purely by chance an attacker randomly struck a ball towards it?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
If it's purely by chance and random then what, pray, is the whole point of his choice to make himself bigger in the first place??
The extension of your logic is that, at a defensive wall, all the players could jump with their hands above their heads ... if the ball struck their hand then this would be 'random'. In which case all those referees on the telly and down at the parks, who are assiduously warning players in the wall to keep their hands down, are all part of some weird IFAB conspiracy
I was talking about a specific bit of defending at very close quarters, with a defender making himself bigger, you've expanded that far beyond that to a free kick to make your point a tad more valid.
I think a common mistake of referees is to think of "deliberate handball" as an intention to handle. When in fact the its a deliberate act of making contact with the hand or arm, which to me takes away the need for intent, it can be any act that is deliberate that results in handling.
So, the whole making yourself bigger is more likely a handball as this is a deliberate act that makes contact with ball or hand.
In other news, isnt this the one line from the laws of the game thread?
So, the whole making yourself bigger is more likely a handball as this is a deliberate act that makes contact with ball or hand.
In other news, isnt this the one line from the laws of the game thread?
James, I think a lawyer would rip that last post to bits if you read the actual law and not your summation!! As I said earlier, this part of the law is a massive grey area and always assuming deliberate handball is definetly shaky ground IMO...
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
Handling the ball
The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
Handling the ball
The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
And what has anything you just posted got in contradiction to my post?
The last bit you bolded is quite possibly the most meaningless sentence in the whole book. I think it was added to stop refs who were spouting the unnatural position nonsense. In real terms it says the position of the arm may or may not be a factor. It basically says use all the tools. The fact that there has to be considerations only serves to strengthen the argument that more than intent should be considered.
The last bit you bolded is quite possibly the most meaningless sentence in the whole book. I think it was added to stop refs who were spouting the unnatural position nonsense. In real terms it says the position of the arm may or may not be a factor. It basically says use all the tools. The fact that there has to be considerations only serves to strengthen the argument that more than intent should be considered.
Abeverley
Well-Known Member
I think that seeing as a ref forum can’t agree on when and when not to give handball it’s perhaps not surprising that players, coaches and spectators get confused etc.
On Sunday I had a three way collision between goalkeeper, defender and forward in the box. All three stayed down.
I blew immediately and once all up and fine I restarted with a dropped ball (no fouls committed between them). I had shouts from the crowd saying stuff like ‘how is that a dropped ball’ etc. You just wanna shout at them lol.
The girls (open age development teams, good standard) accepted my decision and got on with it.
On Sunday I had a three way collision between goalkeeper, defender and forward in the box. All three stayed down.
I blew immediately and once all up and fine I restarted with a dropped ball (no fouls committed between them). I had shouts from the crowd saying stuff like ‘how is that a dropped ball’ etc. You just wanna shout at them lol.
The girls (open age development teams, good standard) accepted my decision and got on with it.
Brilliant, totally ignore the bit you don't agree with and go with the guessing the intent bit as gospel, where does it say that exactly??
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
I think a common mistake of referees is to think of "deliberate handball" as an intention to handle. When in fact the its a deliberate act of making contact with the hand or arm, which to me takes away the need for intent, it can be any act that is deliberate that results in handling.
So, the whole making yourself bigger is more likely a handball as this is a deliberate act that makes contact with ball or hand.
In other news, isnt this the one line from the laws of the game thread?
Indeed - as rather gone off the point of my OP - never mind, its an interesting discussion!
