So I was watching a video on handball violations and the person was including "and, because the shot was "goal bound," it is also a yellow card." These handball examples were certainly unintentional. Are any shot attempts that hit an arm in an unnatural position regardless of how subtle or unintentional a YC? The law says..."handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal." I'm not so sure these handballs are "attempts" to prevent a goal. My reading makes it sound like it needs to be deliberate to be a YC. Thoughts? Thank you in advance.
YCs for Handballs
- Thread starter NOVARef
- Start date
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Law 12 says "It is an
offence if a player:
The part about an unsuccessful attempt to stop tbe ball entering his/her team's goal is recognition that if they did deny the goal they would be sent off, so trying unsuccessfully to deny it deserves a caution.
offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
The part about an unsuccessful attempt to stop tbe ball entering his/her team's goal is recognition that if they did deny the goal they would be sent off, so trying unsuccessfully to deny it deserves a caution.
I agree. I'm not questioning what is or isn't a handball. I'm questioning whether or not the offense should be bookable or not. I'm asking...when is a handball a bookable and when is it not? Thanks
I quoted or at least what I thought I quoted was straight from the book under cautionable offenses for USB. So just to be clear...I'm not questioning what is and isn't an offense. What I'm asking is when is it a card and when is it not. Thanks.
one
RefChat Addict
I think you are referring to an unsuccessful handball DOGSO (meaning a goal is scored after applying advantage). It is a bookable offence. It is also bookable if it stops a promising attack.
The latter is a bit tricky to apply if it is a goal bound shot and a goal is not scored due to the offence. In most cases the promising attack is at its conclusion and the offence doesn't actually stop the attack. So it's either a red or nothing by strict application of wording of the law. Expectations however is a yellow.
The latter is a bit tricky to apply if it is a goal bound shot and a goal is not scored due to the offence. In most cases the promising attack is at its conclusion and the offence doesn't actually stop the attack. So it's either a red or nothing by strict application of wording of the law. Expectations however is a yellow.
Last edited:
Thanks. No, just imagine a defender in the box, closing down an attacker. The attacker is dribbling get's a shot off and the ball hits the defender in the hand. Lets say that it is certainly an offense and there are attackers and defenders around. The shot does have a chance to reach the keeper. But the shot hits the arm. Let's say we all agree that it's a handball and a PK. What this video said was..."and because the shot was goal bound, it's also a yellow card." So I'm trying to understand when handballs are YCs. Like I said...Under Cautions for USB, it says...
- handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
one
RefChat Addict
I edited my original post before you posted this. As I said, the commentary is more to expectations rather than the strict wording of the lotg. If it's me, I will stick with the wording and won't caution. It's Red or nothing. Unless I think there is a good chance the ball would have rebounded to another attacker with a chance on goal. In that case it's SPA.
Dino Ref
Well-Known Member
If it has stopped a promising attack or denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity you should issue a card according to the law.
I was told at a CORE meeting that If a shot is heading towards goal it's an easy sell.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The list of cautions also includes:
- handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
one
RefChat Addict
Is the attack still on thou after the shot is taken?
Consider the extreme case of there being no other attackers and many defenders around. After the shot is taken, attack is finished. It's either going in goal or being saved. Which means it's either a red or nothing.
The misapplication I am referring to here is the thought process of "it has denied a goal scoring opportunity, but not an obvious one so let's make it a yellow instead of red".
There is also the malpractice of giving a yellow just to sell the penalty decision easier and then having to come up with a reason for the yellow. This is also done frequently for non handball penalties.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I don't think it is a misapplication to sell the PK at all. I think the understanding is that for purposes of SPAA handling, a shot that is on (or mostly) on target but not not DOG remains a PA. IMHO this is one of the many places in the LOTG where overly parsing language doesn't get us where we need to be or where IFAB intended us to be.
And yet we were told at the 5-to-4 seminar that handling a goal bound shot cannot be SPA
If the HB was clearly deliberate, there's room for USB in terms of 'showing a lack of respect for the game' or some other 'shoe horned' USB criteria
So a ball travelling towards the goal is not a 'promising attack' in itself
But then we see a FIFA Ref showing a YC to a San Marino player for taking a bead of water off a ball that's going wide. All a load of b*ll*cks really
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Sigh. Gotta love consistency of messaging . . . I kinda don't care which way this falls, but I sure as heck would like it to be clear and official guidance. (And I thought it was clear guidance that a shot was to be cautioned as SPAA.
I prefer to keep it simple:
Was the ball 'obviously' going into the goal without the handball? -> red
Was there a promising attack stopped by a handball? -> yellow
Anywhere else on the field or an attacker scored immediately after it touched their hand? -> penalise, no sanction, move on
Never had any issues with this approach. Fact of the matter is even the players/coaches themselves are confused about what constitutes an offence and what doesn't. You can sell anything. Just be sure to stand up straight, chest out and remember less is more when it comes to opening our mouths. Keep it short and sweet.
Was the ball 'obviously' going into the goal without the handball? -> red
Was there a promising attack stopped by a handball? -> yellow
Anywhere else on the field or an attacker scored immediately after it touched their hand? -> penalise, no sanction, move on
Never had any issues with this approach. Fact of the matter is even the players/coaches themselves are confused about what constitutes an offence and what doesn't. You can sell anything. Just be sure to stand up straight, chest out and remember less is more when it comes to opening our mouths. Keep it short and sweet.
I just go with 'what the game expects' cos deciphering the lotg is for cryptologists (like ur good self)
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
My view is that if a shot is on its way towards the goal a promising attack is happening, in which case a caution is applicable.
In your extreme example, and with a weak shot going towards one of your many defenders, that would be the exception to prove the rule - no caution as not a SPA situation.
one
RefChat Addict
San Marino vs England handball penalty mentioned by BC is a perfect example. How did that 'stop' or even interfere with a promising attack? The attack was done at that point. The shot was the outcome of it. Unless you think it was an obvious goal or the ball was going to drop to another attacker (for a new attack) there was no need for a card there. The card was just to sell a decision which IMO was wrong.