A&H

What should IFAB include in a new handball law?

alexgr said:
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
Click to expand...



As i typed, thats my excuse and am sticking to it!

If we aint gonna take my opinion of it out there, whose should we use! Team mates goalie? Opponents left winger? Nope, will use mine!
 
The Referee Store
Mintyref said:
Disadvantage, how?
Your prepared to judge careless and make a decision on something else you cannot truly 'know'
Click to expand...
Only the player can truly know if an act was deliberate. So our judgement of intent is inferior to knowing
Careless being an antonym of deliberate, I see your point
But the use of one bad term doesn't justify the use of another
As Santa pointed out, the Law does not use the literal meaning of the word deliberate, so it's therefore the wrong word
 
Big Cat said:
Only the player can truly know if an act was deliberate. So our judgement of intent is inferior to knowing
Careless being an antonym of deliberate, I see your point
But the use of one bad term doesn't justify the use of another
As Santa pointed out, the Law does not use the literal meaning of the word deliberate, so it's therefore the wrong word
Click to expand...
Try telling that to a judge! The law does indeed use the literal meaning of deliberate. It's all the unnecessary guidance that tries to change the meaning.
 
Mintyref said:
Try telling that to a judge! The law does indeed use the literal meaning of deliberate. It's all the unnecessary guidance that tries to change the meaning.
Click to expand...
Again fair point, but i just think the word avoidable (other words are available!) is better than deliberate, because the former would need less of the latter's mystic guidance
It's good that the experienced refs on here keep us newbies grounded. It does influence my game and stops me from over-complicating things (on the pitch that is, but not on here!)
 
At least we managed 4 posts on topic before it went south...

Do you think the law should include something specific about the circumstances it's OK to score a goal with your arm/hand?
 
Ciley Myrus said:
As i typed, thats my excuse and am sticking to it!

If we aint gonna take my opinion of it out there, whose should we use! Team mates goalie? Opponents left winger? Nope, will use mine!
Click to expand...

No no I’m fully with you there, of course that’s how you should apply it! I’m just saying it’s a stupidly-worded law in the first place that would force you to apply it like that.
 
I'm increasingly getting sold on the idea of 'accidental handling that benefits the player or team must be penalised'.
Now, yes, I know that handling is such that it can be extremely difficult to spot if it's even occurred and this is introducing another problem, but at least it's replacing a highly subjective, ambiguous law with a more objective one. It may introduce a new challenge, but it removes another one and puts everyone on the same page. The ONLY think I don't like about it is how completely unavoidable ones are affected here.....player protecting himself in the wall and the ball is blasted into him. Heck, player lying on the ground and the ball is kicked into him.

Aside from that, I think that maybe accidental handling when a player has made a deliberate movement towards the ball would work - you know the ones where player tries to control the ball and it flicks up off the thigh onto the arm? And there's no consistency with referees there? This would provide clarity.


Overall, get rid of 'deliberate'. We're not mindreaders. Just call it 'careless'. That's how FIFA have been telling us to apply it for years anyway.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the fault lies with the senior referees being too spineless to turn and tell the organisations that they are stupid and refuse to officiate to such a ridiculous standard?

Unfortunately this just typifies why football is becoming a shadow of its former self. It will be a sterile anodyne game where all the luck and ‘rub of the green ‘ has been removed, officiated by employees of the competition who aren’t there to enforce the laws but only to keep the clubs, players, competition, and media paymasters happy.
 
Padfoot said:
So the fault lies with the senior referees being too spineless to turn and tell the organisations that they are stupid and refuse to officiate to such a ridiculous standard?

Unfortunately this just typifies why football is becoming a shadow of its former self. It will be a sterile anodyne game where all the luck and ‘rub of the green ‘ has been removed, officiated by employees of the competition who aren’t there to enforce the laws but only to keep the clubs, players, competition, and media paymasters happy.
Click to expand...

If you are a FIFA referee and they say they expect certain situations to be handball but you ignore their instructions you won't be a FIFA referee for much longer. Same applies for PGMOL, USFF, etc.

If you can't understand that then you don't understand how employment works, as that is what referees are these days, employees.
 
RustyRef said:
If you are a FIFA referee and they say they expect certain situations to be handball but you ignore their instructions you won't be a FIFA referee for much longer. Same applies for PGMOL, USFF, etc.

If you can't understand that then you don't understand how employment works, as that is what referees are these days, employees.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. They are no longer independent arbitrators of the game.....they are paid employees of organisations that have an agenda in which the fair and impartial application of the LOTG are way down the list.
Which means that those employees have to sacrifice their integrity in order to stay employed.

In fact the corruption runs so deep that the laws are changed to suit the paymasters rather than out of any desire to improve the game.
 
Padfoot said:
Precisely my point. They are no longer independent arbitrators of the game.....they are paid employees of organisations that have an agenda in which the fair and impartial application of the LOTG are way down the list.
Which means that those employees have to sacrifice their integrity in order to stay employed.

In fact the corruption runs so deep that the laws are changed to suit the paymasters rather than out of any desire to improve the game.
Click to expand...
Deep, very deep, but very true Mr P.....
 
The invention of the Premiership took referees from, well, match officials, to actors, characters in the big bucks game.
Since 92 the rules have not been the same,(application of) and wont be the same anytime soon!
 
Padfoot said:
Precisely my point. They are no longer independent arbitrators of the game.....they are paid employees of organisations that have an agenda in which the fair and impartial application of the LOTG are way down the list.
Which means that those employees have to sacrifice their integrity in order to stay employed.

In fact the corruption runs so deep that the laws are changed to suit the paymasters rather than out of any desire to improve the game.
Click to expand...
Precisely a point I made during the World Cup. Never before had i seen the commercial side of the game influence officiating so blatently
 
JH said:
If, in the opinion of the referee, the player could have prevented the ball making contact with their arm or hand but failed to do so, they should be penalised for handball.

Something along the lines of prevention.

Then there's just one question to ask yourself - could they have prevented it? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

The problem with prevention is that there will always be a scenario where prevention could've occurred.

The current law is a good one, the IFAB guidelines and "what football expects" etc is unnecessary and confusing.

The Wolves goal stands as it wasn't deliberate handball under the LOTG. Handball was not deliberate and therefore nothing else should be considered imo, and that's from a City fan that's for more than 30 years.
 
santa sangria said:
The trolling is boring. If you want to drone on, go to the off topic, or start one. The topic was quite clear.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think my stated opinion is ‘trolling’?

Perhaps because you don’t have a reasoned argument against it, so have decided to try to counter it ad hominem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top