What should IFAB include in a new handball law?
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
Don't change the law at all........just get rid of all the extra guidance. Absolutely fine as it is.
If I think it was intentional on the part of the outfield player touching the ball with hand or arm, free kick, if not play on.
If I think it was intentional on the part of the outfield player touching the ball with hand or arm, free kick, if not play on.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I’m perfectly capable of using my experience and judgement to guess whether an action was deliberate. But at the end of the day, however good I am, it will remain just that - a guess. It’s stupid to have a law that forces you to be a mind reader
I get the impression that the 'deliberate' part will remain, but there would be clarification to present examples of what consistutes a deliberate handling offence. So we might get something linked to the position of a defenders arm during a sliding tackle or a jump for a header, stuff like that.
And then, I think there will be movement in the direction of 'an accidental handball occurring as part of a deliberate attempt to play the ball, is considered a deliberate handball, but not a deliberate attempted handball.' (So, you wouldn't be cautioned for it.)
That would cover say, diving headers bouncing off the hand, and sliding tackles etc. But... Even that would still leave exceptions; Is it fair to punish say, if you kick the ball and it ricochets off your ankle and into your hand? So, I would assume there would be guidance as to whether there is an advantage or be gained or not; so any accidental handball leading to a goal would be ruled as a handball offence, probably.
I don't envy them going to the drawing board for this one really. But I'm interested in seeing what they do with it.
Here's the problem. We have the same laws for the top of the top that we do for grassroots and U11. Now we all know it's the same text, but we all apply it slightly different based on the age group and skill level. This discussion involving handling is probably the most visible "difference" in application between pros and grassroots. The reason we see the application of handling at the World Cup is because professional footballers are really good at making intentional acts look accidental. If the handling law was applied like it is on the local mudpatch, you'd quickly see a drastic increase in crosses and shots "accidentally" hitting an arm.
The problem is that these videos that show FIFA refs how they want the laws applied are twisting the wording of the laws to fit how they want it applied. Keep the handling law how it is (perhaps with small tweaks), but make a web site that shows video clips on how exactly top referees are instructed to call it. Take 20 to 30 clips from FIFA Futuro or the UEFA RAP videos and explain exactly why something is deliberate handling or not. At least then there is an official source of information that goes beyond a few sentences from law 12.
The problem is that these videos that show FIFA refs how they want the laws applied are twisting the wording of the laws to fit how they want it applied. Keep the handling law how it is (perhaps with small tweaks), but make a web site that shows video clips on how exactly top referees are instructed to call it. Take 20 to 30 clips from FIFA Futuro or the UEFA RAP videos and explain exactly why something is deliberate handling or not. At least then there is an official source of information that goes beyond a few sentences from law 12.
Blooming heck my post has been moderated.........a bit touchy feely aren't we?
What happened to free speech?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Unfortunately I think you are wrong.
The problem is that the laws as written do not accurately reflect how FIFA, UEFA, IFAB etc. are expecting referees to judge handball decisions.
There is an additional problem that "deliberate" as written in the laws does not mean "deliberate" as widely understood as a dictionary definition - this is an additional headache for the football family, not just referees.
There is an additional problem that the laws do not cover certain scenarios in enough detail, given the application of "law" on TV and myriad understanding of "deliberate".
You can keep blaming referees but I think you have this wrong.
The other thing is... IFAB have said they are going to improve it so I think it should be encouraged.
If seems like you joined a thread about writing a new handball law only to say... absolutely nothing. Thanks for that
But it's the same game.......very soon we end up with two versions, we could call them league and union!
How am I meant to know whether another human has done something intentionally? I CANNOT ever know for certain surely?
That is one thing I like about football, the rules being generally loose and covered by the 'spirit' of the game - I know some referees dislike this, but the principle is there in the introduction and in Law 5, plus the glossary, so it is in the book. Ideally, common sense would apply with the application of that factor, but obviously, even there we can find disagreement between people.
I would hate for football to go the way of cricket, which absolutely does try to cover every conceivable scenario and that becomes very unwieldy, and someone posted a diagram a few months back of a law related to hockey or something that was just eyes-glaze-over worthy.
Correct! ITOOTR..........just like almost everything else.
No, I think there’s a slight difference. With all other ITOOTR, we don’t judge intent.
But why not, we judge other esoteric matters
Just like golf (1100 pages). Golf & cricket are entirely different from football however. Golf is a dead ball game and cricket only has the ball in play for a small fraction of time. Football can't be officiated like either of these sportsThat is one thing I like about football, the rules being generally loose and covered by the 'spirit' of the game - I know some referees dislike this, but the principle is there in the introduction and in Law 5, plus the glossary, so it is in the book. Ideally, common sense would apply with the application of that factor, but obviously, even there we can find disagreement between people.
I would hate for football to go the way of cricket, which absolutely does try to cover every conceivable scenario and that becomes very unwieldy, and someone posted a diagram a few months back of a law related to hockey or something that was just eyes-glaze-over worthy.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
The difference being, only the player can 'know' if something is deliberate, putting referees at a disadvantage. Whereas, 'avoidable' (for example) is a judgement call, eliminating the disadvantage
I actually agree with you, but that isn't how the organisations are telling senior referees to deal with it. For example, they have videos showing players diving to block a shot and the ball hitting their arms as they land on the floor and are saying that should be a handling offence. It wasn't deliberate, intentional, or done consciously, yet they are saying that should be a penalty. If that is how they want people to referee then fine, but they need to make sure the laws are written in a way that supports that approach.
I accept that, but I just think the difference is that in other matters, we are judging it solely on what has happened. e.g. is this player offside or not? Esoteric at times, but there is a factual answer. With handball, the only player who really knows whether an offence has been committed is the player themselves.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wasn't under the impression that ITOOTR was in the wording for handling? Happy to be corrected
Disadvantage, how?
Your prepared to judge careless and make a decision on something else you cannot truly 'know'