The Ref Stop

Topical question

one

one

RefChat Addict
1. Fast moving ball 'accidentally' touches an attacker's hand on the penalty spot and heads towards goal but clearly going wide. Defender 3 yards away from attacker attempts to clear it, but it it's too fast and awkward height, bounce of of his knee (some may call this defensive rebound) and the ball goes into his own net. Goal or no goal?

2. Fast moving ball 'accidentally' touches an attacker's hand on the 6 yard line and heads towards centre circle. It rebounds from a defender back a yard away from attacker and goes into defender's net. Goal or no goal?
 
The Ref Stop
In the LotG, if you mouse over the 2020 handball law it says specifically it’s an offence if an accidental handball leadd to goslscoring opportunity for an attacking player.

So with the pedant hat on both of these are goals.

However, having such an important part of the law only in a tooltip makes me doubt that the law is written to cover either scenario in the OP.

If the ref can react quick enough to the handball I think in both cases you blow for the offence if you can as soon as you see the handball in the box, and before the ball is in the net. That is safe and smart refereeing with this ”dogs’ dinner” law!

If the ball is in the net then you are going to have to pick the bones out of managing this. I think the intent of the law is no goal in both cases. To the players and my assesor my rationale is: I stopped the game at the handball and then delayed my whistle.

However, I think you can also quite easily allow both goals based on the tooltip in the 2020 LotG.

(We are still on 2019 here so... er.. OMG)
 
santa sangria said:
In the LotG, if you mouse over the 2020 handball law it says specifically it’s an offence if an accidental handball leadd to goslscoring opportunity for an attacking player.
Click to expand...
Does it?
I'm not sure it does. It probably should, but it doesn't.
one said:
1. Fast moving ball 'accidentally' touches an attacker's hand on the penalty spot and heads towards goal but clearly going wide. Defender 3 yards away from attacker attempts to clear it, but it it's too fast and awkward height, bounce of of his knee (some may call this defensive rebound) and the ball goes into his own net. Goal or no goal?

2. Fast moving ball 'accidentally' touches an attacker's hand on the 6 yard line and heads towards centre circle. It rebounds from a defender back a yard away from attacker and goes into defender's net. Goal or no goal?
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Its interesting.
I'm split. On one hand I say as the law is written these would have to be ruled out!
The other part of me wants to start quoting spirit of the game, not every scenario is covered..... Referee makes decision based on the spirit of the game and what football expects, and it has become quite clear that football does not expect these goals to be disallowed.
Tricky question as always
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Yeah just wanted to point out the issues with the law change. I think it has become a norm that it takes a few round of changes before they get it right. They first introduce the concept which covers the common cases but then a lot of uncommon cases are not covered untill the happen in high profile games.

There are clarifications in 20-21 but they don't cover the OP cases. Hypethetically I allow them both but if there is huge protest from defenders and the attcker is not celebrating then that might be a different story. Either decision can be justified or argued against using lotg
 
For me, position of arm and that would need to be judged first before I could decide if I’m allowing it or not
 
JamesL said:
Does it?
I'm not sure it does. It probably should, but it doesn't
Click to expand...

It does.
On the IFAB website it is highlighted, and if you mouseover it shows as an overlay box and states ”Explanation: ...to another attacking player”.

Sorry I can’t copy/paste with my phone.
 
santa sangria said:
It does.
On the IFAB website it is highlighted, and if you mouseover it shows as an overlay box and states ”Explanation: ...to another attacking player”.

Sorry I can’t copy/paste with my phone.
Click to expand...
Got you. I know what u mean now. Problem with that is, as I always say, after this year (next for you) that text is lost and it is not in law.
So to emit such an important point from the actual law is pretty scandalous.
I can't say I am fully up to speed on 20/21 yet and haven't studied it too much. I will as start date for season becomes apparent.
But once again any new referee, with no idea the history of the law, will pick up the laws of the game from 21/22 and have no idea that the explanation for a change to a law, they wont know has changed requires them to go back to previous editions and study the history of the law.
It's flipping mental!!!!
 
JamesL said:
Got you. I know what u mean now. Problem with that is, as I always say, after this year (next for you) that text is lost and it is not in law.
So to emit such an important point from the actual law is pretty scandalous.
I can't say I am fully up to speed on 20/21 yet and haven't studied it too much. I will as start date for season becomes apparent.
But once again any new referee, with no idea the history of the law, will pick up the laws of the game from 21/22 and have no idea that the explanation for a change to a law, they wont know has changed requires them to go back to previous editions and study the history of the law.
It's flipping mental!!!!
Click to expand...
Agreed, brother, or sister :)
 
Getting bogged down in the semantics of a law that frankly is confusing enough for referees, let alone players during a grass roots game just isn't my style. Rightly or wrongly, there's now a general perception amongst players, even at the lowest level, that any handball by an attacking player is immediately penalised, especially if it leads directly to a goal for that player's team.

If I saw the handball, and I think the players have too, then I'd be blowing for the "handball" and giving the defensive free kick, irrespective of whether or not the ball was already in the net. In both scenarios that is. Keep it simple I say. :)
 
Last edited:
Yes, I only officially did my course a few weeks ago, and then my association ran a seminar on the handball changes. Was basically taught 'any attacking handball' is a handball and blow the whistle straight away so you don't have any issues disallowing the goal.
 
Aside from the specific questions posed in the OP, I'm surprised to see so many advocate blowing early in general. Up until the point you're obliged to blow the whistle, why would you? As a general rule, the attacker has the right to play a further pass or have a shot saved and deflect to a teammate, either of which would negate the handball while the defender has the opportunity to tackle and start a quick break. In both cases, a quick whistle, based on a very tenuous reading of the laws will make the game worse.

Both of the questions in the OP should be disallowed in my opinion - but only when the ball crosses the line, not before.
 
Last edited:
Kes said:
Getting bogged down in the semantics of a law that frankly is confusing enough for referees, let alone players during a grass roots game just isn't my style. Rightly or wrongly, there's now a general perception amongst players, even at the lowest level, that any handball by an attacking player is immediately penalised, especially if it leads directly to a goal for that player's team.

If I saw the handball, and I think the players have too, then I'd be blowing for the "handball" and giving the defensive free kick, irrespective of whether or not the ball was already in the net. In both scenarios that is. Keep it simple I say. :)
Click to expand...
I have no issue with disallowing (or allowing) the OP cases. They are edge cases. But I disagree with disallowing a goal because an accidental attacking handball 'leads' directly to a goal. That is clearly not what the law says or wants. We don't penalise 'mine' because players expect it, why disallow a goal because of it?

Wrong expectations are generally created because referees apply the law wrongly. In this case it is being misapplied at the highest level and IFAB has been quick to respond to it.
 
WiisardNic said:
Yes, I only officially did my course a few weeks ago, and then my association ran a seminar on the handball changes. Was basically taught 'any attacking handball' is a handball and blow the whistle straight away so you don't have any issues disallowing the goal.
Click to expand...
That is plainly wrong and how 'myths' are created.
 
My logic is pretty close to that... but by "attacking handball" I think it makes sense to blow very quick for any accidental HB in the final third where the attacker is er... attacking.

IFAB have put us in this spot with this law and I think it's the best way to deal with it. If you don't blow it and there is a chance or goal after 1-2-3 touches or 2-5-8 seconds... if you haven't blown already... you are in a massive hole, any decision after the fact is an impossible sell to at least one of the teams but probably both!

Yes. it's wrong. But it's smart, no?
 
i dont agree with @santa sangria's approach on this...however 'safe' or smart refereeing can be a good path to follow when the situation calls for is.

if the players expect it or if it's going to lead to trouble a few seconds down the line, look after yourself, even if it's not strictly in line with the laws
 
Until the ball goes in the net, accidental handball is just that - an accidental contact with the hand and therefore not an offence. Stopping the game and penalising a team when no offence has been committed is not something I'll ever be comfortable deliberately doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top