Ref4Me

Penalty or free kick

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
According to this from ifab it would appear that @Mr Dean is correct

View attachment 4987

This was the question:

View attachment 4988

I asked to clarify exactly if the part of the ball handled is outside of area then a direct free kick is awarded to which they replied "correct".

So position of the offence it is ☺️
I'm still confused. Unless there's some other email you're not showing us, your question was should a penalty kick be awarded.

If they replied that that was correct then they are agreeing with @one and myself, not with @Mr Dean.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I'm still confused. Unless there's some other email you're not showing us, your question was should a penalty kick be awarded.

If they replied that that was correct then they are agreeing with @one and myself, not with @Mr Dean.
Yes, further down. I posted my question twice rather than the answer.

They said

"The crucial factor is the location of the point of contact between the hand and the ball"

I asked so if the contact is with the part of the ball outside the area a DFK should be awarded and they said "correct"
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Hmm. That seems to be a recent change (if indeed it is accurate). I know it has been long taught (and as far as I know still is) that only the location of the ball mattered, not what part of the ball was touched. If this is what is actually meant in the Laws, it should be in the magic book. Does this also mean that we are supposed to call a DFK if the ball is on the PA line and the end of GK's finger touching the ball is just past the edge of the line? I'm going to want something more official than the email before I change how I look at this--if I ever have a play where I can discern this subtle distinction.

(The email interpretation would have been been particularly problematic before fouls could take place off the field. It would have meant that a defender standing on the goal line would not have committed an offense if he stopped the ball from crossing the goal line with his hand by only touching the part of the ball that had already crossed the goal line while part of the ball was still on or over the goal line.)
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Hmm. That seems to be a recent change (if indeed it is accurate). I know it has been long taught (and as far as I know still is) that only the location of the ball mattered, not what part of the ball was touched. If this is what is actually meant in the Laws, it should be in the magic book. Does this also mean that we are supposed to call a DFK if the ball is on the PA line and the end of GK's finger touching the ball is just past the edge of the line? I'm going to want something more official than the email before I change how I look at this--if I ever have a play where I can discern this subtle distinction.

(The email interpretation would have been been particularly problematic before fouls could take place off the field. It would have meant that a defender standing on the goal line would not have committed an offense if he stopped the ball from crossing the goal line with his hand by only touching the part of the ball that had already crossed the goal line while part of the ball was still on or over the goal line.)
Yes. I asked that question to re: GK. I think this changed when they put in free kicks are taken from the position of the offence, or put emphasis on that as a principle, and took out all the wierd variations less the except for list.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I think this changed when they put in free kicks are taken from the position of the offence, or put emphasis on that as a principle, and took out all the wierd variations less the except for list.
I'm not sure what you mean by this--the language about FKs being taken place from the position of the offense has been there for ages--was in my first Law Book from the '70s.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I'm not sure what you mean by this--the language about FKs being taken place from the position of the offense has been there for ages--was in my first Law Book from the '70s.
Yes. But I think they changed a load recently so that all offenses were consistently from position of offence.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Yes. But I think they changed a load recently so that all offenses were consistently from position of offence.
I'm not aware of any changes on this, with the possible exception of OS, which moved from location at time of touch to location at involvement. (Which in many ways was a belated recognition of the changes in the OS Law over time.)
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I'm not aware of any changes on this, with the possible exception of OS, which moved from location at time of touch to location at involvement. (Which in many ways was a belated recognition of the changes in the OS Law over time.)
Maybe I am mistaken. I thought there were some changes that changed the position of some restarts, some were position of ball etc. I'd have to back and look which I will do at some point to understand why I think that.

Regards this specific hb scenario. What the email from ifab suggests ties in with the wording, whether it was there in the 70s or not.

It doesn't make sense to me to effectively extend the PA based on position of the ball. I understand about the boundary belonging to the area, but in essence you'd be allowing a keeper to handle a ball over 30 cm outside the PA or awarding a penalty for an offence that took place that far away from the boundary, doesn't feel right, and given the LotG say nothing about the position of the ball being the offences location, im left to draw the conclusion as that's how it's supposed to be.

At a stretch you could say it isn't covered specifically in law, and then you are into what football expects, and I dont think football would expect a pen for handling that occurs outside of the PA boundary, nor would it expect a keeper to be able to handle the ball 1ft outside either.

Let's take it beyond HB, and say it is a tripping offence, the players edge of toe of his front foot is on the PA line, ball in PA l, and the contact of the foul is over a metre outside the PA on the rear foot/leg. We're giving a free kick here, despite the player effectively being in the PA, I dont see why a HB would be any different?
 
Last edited:

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
Logic can be argued in either way, IMO, and IFAB should just make it clear in the LOTG. (For those of us outside the VAR world, the distinction is more academic than practical, but with VAR, a game could turn on this interpretation--potentially even converting an outstanding goalkeeper play into a great FK for the other team and a send-off of the GK.)

A GK is able to handle the ball in the PA. The ball is in the PA if any part of the ball is on over the PA line, just as the ball is on the field if any part of the ball is on or over the TL or GL. That's the logic that supports the GK handling ability being based on solely the position of the ball. (And it is more practical as it is much easier to determine the majority of the time--do we really want to be trying to see how far out the hand is when the GK grabs a ball clearly on the PA line?) [Aside: the language on this has always been bad, as it refers to the GK in the PA, which could readily be interpreted as meaning if any part of the GK is in the PA the GK can use his hands on the ball regardless of the location of the ball--so far as I know, however, that has never been an interpretation.]

The logic is less obvious for the PK/DFK determination. But it parallels with the GK scenario, so it makes sense if they are coherent. And, as noted in my post above, for eons it was a necessary interpretation as handling could only occur on the field, so the offense had to be based on the ball location or a player could use hands behind the goal line to stop a goal and it could not be a PK as the offense would have occurred off the field and could not be handling. (I suspect this was important in the creation of the ball location being determinative.)

As I noted before, it may well be that IFAB now thinks we should be parsing the exact location of contact for both GK handling and PK/DFK determinations. But if that is really what they think, we need more than an email response to provide clarity on what the standard should be.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Logic can be argued in either way, IMO, and IFAB should just make it clear in the LOTG. (For those of us outside the VAR world, the distinction is more academic than practical, but with VAR, a game could turn on this interpretation--potentially even converting an outstanding goalkeeper play into a great FK for the other team and a send-off of the GK.)

A GK is able to handle the ball in the PA. The ball is in the PA if any part of the ball is on over the PA line, just as the ball is on the field if any part of the ball is on or over the TL or GL. That's the logic that supports the GK handling ability being based on solely the position of the ball. (And it is more practical as it is much easier to determine the majority of the time--do we really want to be trying to see how far out the hand is when the GK grabs a ball clearly on the PA line?) [Aside: the language on this has always been bad, as it refers to the GK in the PA, which could readily be interpreted as meaning if any part of the GK is in the PA the GK can use his hands on the ball regardless of the location of the ball--so far as I know, however, that has never been an interpretation.]

The logic is less obvious for the PK/DFK determination. But it parallels with the GK scenario, so it makes sense if they are coherent. And, as noted in my post above, for eons it was a necessary interpretation as handling could only occur on the field, so the offense had to be based on the ball location or a player could use hands behind the goal line to stop a goal and it could not be a PK as the offense would have occurred off the field and could not be handling. (I suspect this was important in the creation of the ball location being determinative.)

As I noted before, it may well be that IFAB now thinks we should be parsing the exact location of contact for both GK handling and PK/DFK determinations. But if that is really what they think, we need more than an email response to provide clarity on what the standard should be.
The handling ball outside FOP issue is fixed by offences outside field of play, ie a ball can't be handled when it is in play, but the handling can occur outside FOP, thus restart is from boundaey, or PK.

The law does not say a keeper can handle a ball that is in the PA.
It says about the keeper handling inside, and within the penalty area (granted this could be how I read it with my interpretation.)

Agree it is not as explicit as it ought to be, when is it? 🤣
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I though I already had my say on this but her I am again :). There are debates on way too many matters for my liking that the law doesn't make clear.

As I said, what is an offence for the OP is not in law, it's a convention and it has been taught that way at the highest level for as long as I remember. And I am fairly certain it has not changed recently.

And as I said, IFAB emails don't carry as much weight for me. I have stopped emailing them long ago since I received one that directly contradicted the law. On matters that are not clear like this one, ask the the same question in three months time (with the opposite bias, sorry James :), I think the legal term for it leading the witness ), you may get a different answer. There has been a few backflips on their social media Q and A as well.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
I though I already had my say on this but her I am again :). There are debates on way too many matters for my liking that the law doesn't make clear.

As I said, what is an offence for the OP is not in law, it's a convention and it has been taught that way at the highest level for as long as I remember. And I am fairly certain it has not changed recently.

And as I said, IFAB emails don't carry as much weight for me. I have stopped emailing them long ago since I received one that directly contradicted the law. On matters that are not clear like this one, ask the the same question in three months time (with the opposite bias, sorry James :), I think the legal term for it leading the witness ), you may get a different answer. There has been a few backflips on their social media Q and A as well.
I have no idea what conventions they teach at the top being a grassroots referee. We did a handball training session not too long back, it never came up, and I'd have been interested to see what our RDO said whom is a EFL referee.

I'd be interested to see if there was any material that supports the convention you mention.

As it stands currently, the interpretation in the email confirms my understanding and conforms with how the law is, currently, written.
 
Top