socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Agree. That is a classic case of deliberately handling the ball.
I tend to agree with you, though I think there are plenty of Referees out there at many different levels whereby even if you took away the immediateness, they would penalise for handball - whether the arms are in a natural position or not. They would not likely consider the criteria under Law, even though they should. However, there will be some debate about ‘natural position’ viz reflex v deliberate action, though this is one reason why immediateness is included within the Laws. In one sense, it does seem harsh to allow the goal to be scored & has potential for the Referees Match Control to be placed at risk.I do find it interesting that when deciding ‘obviousness’ we have now been given 5 factors to consider but with ‘immediateness’ we are left to our own devices!
For what it’s worth, I’d see the OP as immediate. But the video is great as it forces a choice around immediacy as there’s no way that should be called a penalisable handball otherwise
I think many football stakeholders would agree with you .. it's fair to question whether a player should gain an advantage from the ball hitting their hand / arm. However, how I justify the current approach is to say that (ignoring the OP 'goal' exception) it is completely fair that we only penalise players who have done something wrong. As for 'complicated', I believe many referees, pundits, ,media, fans etc overcomplicate the current law.I still feel like, if we're going to have a complicated handball law with exceptions and considerations, the degree to which the arm touch advantages the team in question should be put in to law as a factor.
