The Ref Stop

The correct decision over the right decision.

M

matty639

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Another incident last night, again as an assistant which the ref had no view of. I'm down towards the corner flag and the box is crowded. Ball gets cleared by blues and takes a deflection off another player which loops it out towards me. Reds are attacking and the winger shields against the full back in the likely position that the ball will drop. Red player is looking up for the ball as it's coming from behind him and he can't see it.

It comes down very fast and the red player is still shielding against the blue full back with his arms out when the ball lands fast in front of him, takes a wicked bounce and spins straight up and hits his hand. Red player is still looking up until it hits his hand and he clicks that its now next to him. Blue team scream for hand ball and I shake my head as I didn't think it was a delibrate hand ball. Red then typically crosses whilst blues are protesting and the other quick thinking red striker jumps and powers a header into the net making blues go doubly mental.

Speaking with the assessor he asked my view and understood it but then asked me if on reflection that was it the right choice. The red player did handball it but not delibrately and has gained a massive advantage in doing so, as it landed right at his feet for him to then cross. Had I waved for handball I doubt i'd have had any protests as almost to a man they stopped when it happened so would have been an easy sell. Red manager even said at the end he thought it was handball. The fracas that resulted from the decision meant the blue manager was sent from the duggout and quite a few blue players went in the book for dissent.

So whats your opinions, is there ever a case where you know in law your decision was correct but on a game management style wasn't right if you know what I mean.
 
The Ref Stop
Although like you say you don't think the handball was deliberate. You said his arm was in an unnatural position, from which he gained an obvious advantage which would be easier to sell to the one player (red) that to the whole of the Blues.
 
I was told never do anything unexpected. Although you were correct, it was unexpected. I would have judged player reactions and the advantage that could be caused by this and played it save by flagging for a free kick - the referee needs your help there.

Others may disagree with.
 
I'm afraid I am going to say it sounds like hand ball to me. The receiving player has made himself 'bigger' by holding out his arms and as a result, has controlled the ball with his arm - intentionally or not.

I think I would probably have blown and given hand ball.
 
Going by what you have all said and that it says the following in laws of the game?

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
• 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 infringement

All three are of the points are pertinent here.
 
Attacking third - unless the player's hand is down by his side and there is absolutely nothing he can do to avoid handling the ball, give the foul. Manage the game. You should be thinking about the consequences of not giving the free kick (in this case a coach removal and several "cheap" cautions). If you blow the foul then there is likely to be a bit of disagreement but general acceptance as it did hit the player's hand, and the game is still in your back pocket. Although, the incident described sounds like there is scope enough to give the foul based solely on position of the hand.

I've learned this the hard way. It's important to take what learning points you can from the incident. Just remember, people remember goals which come from decisions not to stop the game, not when the game is stopped and attacks are broken down.

However, there is a very slim tightrope to be walked between the art of perfect man-management and the precision in applying the laws of the game. Experience is the only way to gain an insight into handling this.
 
This was a handball. The player was in a terribly unnatural position and making himself bigger. Guilty.
 
Imagine if he was on the goal line, a shot was coming in, and he spread his arms out ready to take the ball on his chest. The ball bounces funny, and skips up and hits his hand/arm which allows him to clear it.

What would you give then?
 
He still put himself in an unnatural position and made himself bigger with his arms. Penalty and DOGSO.
 
As a newly qualified referee, I will be honest and say I don't think I would have given the handball in that situation either. I would be expecting the player to use his arms to shield the ball and it doesn't sound like there was intent to handle the ball.

But the comments have be good to provide things to consider when in a similar situation.

Would the opponents have been screaming for handball if the ball had spun off his hands for a throw-in or hand fallen in their favour!!
 
Why do people keep talking about hands and unnatural position. I dislike it now that in professional football players feel they have to clamp their arms to their body in fear of conceding a pen or free kick. That is not natural. The laws clearly state that its the movement of the hand towards the ball not the ball towards the hand. So in an instance where you quote, if the player remains still when the ball skews off unexpected then it can't be hand ball as he hasn't deliberately attempted to handball it. If he makes a movement towards the ball as he realises it won't come to his chest then yes, handball, pen and a DOGSO.
 
While I agree that it is unnatural to stand with your arms clamped to your sides, how would you deal with a defender that is stood on the goal line with his legs apart and arms straight out to the side like a star fish? The arms aren't moving, yet the shot strikes him on the arm and goes out of play. Not a handball?
 
That again is different as nobody stands like that unless you are deliberately attempting to make yourself a bigger target/barrier so as to prevent a goal. It's the same as when you see players jump in front of someone making a cross as they know what's coming and stick their arms out to try and stop, just some are more crafty than others at doing it.
 
matty639 said:
...... just some are more crafty than others at doing it.
Click to expand...
JT used to get away with it loads when blocking a cross.

We were shown a demonstration at a coaching night, wereby a 'model' was asked to stand with his arms hanging loose, and we were told that this is the 'natural position' for the arms when a player is standing still, but to give some leeway put a tennis ball in each armpit and keep the elbows straight - this is an 'acceptable shape' for a defending player to make when blocking a shot or cross UNLESS he has time to move his arm out of the path of the ball.

Obviously, when sliding, running or jumping the 'natural' position of the arms is a little different, BUT anything above shoulder height or more than a foot or so away from the body is usually handball UNLESS there was no time for the defender to move his arm out of the way.

The key point being, although the LOTG says 'definate movement of the hand to ball' there is a case were the offending player, while not moving arm towards ball, can leave the arm where it is and allow the ball to strike it. This should be considered handball except in cases where the ball was travelling too fast, or was hit from too close for them to move the arm out of the way as he has, in effect, intended it.

So, by intentionally making himself a bigger target using the arms, or, by leaving the arm where it is when they could have moved it out of the way, is a deliberate action and therefore hand ball.

Simples ........
 
MattyontheWhistle said:
JT used to get away with it loads when blocking a cross.

We were shown a demonstration at a coaching night, wereby a 'model' was asked to stand with his arms hanging loose, and we were told that this is the 'natural position' for the arms when a player is standing still, but to give some leeway put a tennis ball in each armpit and keep the elbows straight - this is an 'acceptable shape' for a defending player to make when blocking a shot or cross UNLESS he has time to move his arm out of the path of the ball.

Obviously, when sliding, running or jumping the 'natural' position of the arms is a little different, BUT anything above shoulder height or more than a foot or so away from the body is usually handball UNLESS there was no time for the defender to move his arm out of the way.

The key point being, although the LOTG says 'definate movement of the hand to ball' there is a case were the offending player, while not moving arm towards ball, can leave the arm where it is and allow the ball to strike it. This should be considered handball except in cases where the ball was travelling too fast, or was hit from too close for them to move the arm out of the way as he has, in effect, intended it.

So, by intentionally making himself a bigger target using the arms, or, by leaving the arm where it is when they could have moved it out of the way, is a deliberate action and therefore hand ball.

Simples ........
Click to expand...

I agree completely, however in the example given in the first post I would argue that this ISN'T handball. The player is making himself bigger to shield the ball from the opponent, not to try and deliberately trap the ball with his hand. He hasn't deliberately made contact with the ball, nor made himself bigger in order to control the ball. The ball has bounced up quickly and at an unexpected angle, and struck him on his hand before he could move it. Therefore for me this ISN'T handball.

If this happened in the middle of the park, and no goal resulted, then this wouldn't have even caused a problem. But I guess thats the problem with the handball law as it is:
(a) the players/managers and pundits don't have a clue what it is
(b) 'deliberate' is open to interpretation of the ref.
 
Yup 'deliberate' can be moving the arm to the ball, OR not moving the arm to avoid the ball, whether he had chance to move the arm out of the way is down to the referee's judgement.

However, as the arms have no place in the game, the attacker can't use his arms to shield the ball. Preventing the defender from challenging by using his arms should also be an offence. Not easy to sell though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top