The Ref Stop

Wolves v Citee

Status
Not open for further replies.
The player stooped to header a ball which he thought might be coming his way. Arms perfectly for me where they should be for such an action.
It then transpires his team mate misses the ball, (number 2), and the ball hits the hand of the diving scorer.
The ball certainly hit his hand but I cannot see how the hand has hit the ball
The distance between him and his team mate is less than a yard, and the ball, for me, is unexpected, as he expects no2 to connect.
I would go as far as to say he cant even see the ball after it bypasses no2
The hand(s) are exactly where one would imagine them to be for a diving header
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7091.PNG
    IMG_7091.PNG
    4.9 MB · Views: 7
The Ref Stop
Natural position doesn't mean it ISN'T a foul though. He stooped to head the ball, had ample time to react, missed it and handled it. That's wholly on him. It was completely avoidable. He leapt out, put his hand in the path of the ball, and missed it with his head. Foul any day of the week. Is a foul today, was a foul 10 years ago.
I don't think you can really claim it was unexpected - if his actions were in line with expecting his teammate to head it, he wouldn't have gone for a diving header. So his actions were in line with the expectation of exactly what did happen.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Natural position doesn't mean it ISN'T a foul though. He stooped to head the ball, had ample time to react, missed it and handled it. That's wholly on him. It was completely avoidable. He leapt out, put his hand in the path of the ball, and missed it with his head. Foul any day of the week. Is a foul today, was a foul 10 years ago.
I don't think you can really claim it was unexpected - if his actions were in line with expecting his teammate to head it, he wouldn't have gone for a diving header. So his actions were in line with the expectation of exactly what did happen.
Click to expand...


Not for me, although I understand your thinking. I think if you or me try to handle that ball, we wont be able too, and I dont believe he could either. His hands are out for the diving header position/fall and they dont move to the ball, the ball moves to him
He is entitled to go for the diving header, next you be saying a gk cant dive for a ball which the centre half blocks at the last min, its good attacking play for me, to be ready should his team mate miss it (as unexpected that it was that his team mate missed it)
the only way he could have avoided this whole thing, is for him not to have gambled at a diving head on the off chance his pal misses the ball

And that would be pretty poor attacking play. Speculate to accumulate, follow in everything, ball hits hand, yes, does the hand hit the ball, I doubt its even possible without him balancing solely on just the other arm mid flight
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Natural position doesn't mean it ISN'T a foul though. He stooped to head the ball, had ample time to react, missed it and handled it. That's wholly on him. It was completely avoidable. He leapt out, put his hand in the path of the ball, and missed it with his head. Foul any day of the week. Is a foul today, was a foul 10 years ago.
I don't think you can really claim it was unexpected - if his actions were in line with expecting his teammate to head it, he wouldn't have gone for a diving header. So his actions were in line with the expectation of exactly what did happen.
Click to expand...

Are you for real?

Ample time to react? The ball misses his head.....how long does he have to react to that? Half a second?

So, he dived forwards, attempting to head the ball, then in the split second that the ball missed his head and traveled less than 12 inches, he moved his arm into the path of the ball?

Or, back in reality, he attempted a diving header, missed and had absolutely no chance of avoiding any further contact with the ball.....probably because no human alive could process and react to those in the timescales involved.....but you are so desperate to prove your point that you have temporarily lost the ability to think rationally and are being really rather silly?
 
Big Cat said:
I'm not disagreeing with you here. My argument earlier in the thread was more to do with HB exepectations from professional referees and I don't give many HB decisions myself if they don't match the criteria for deliberate. The problem with the term deliberate, is it infers a need to be mind readers to determine intent. I think words like careless, avoidable and unsporting are easier to interpret and judge
Click to expand...
Quite true - how do you know it wasn't deliberate? You're just giving benefit of the doubt to the team that wouldn't have scored but for a player doing something you're not supposed to do. True, you'd have to give a YC - but maybe it's USB anyway to punch a ball into goal and not admit it (even if you hadn't "meant" to do it). It is a bit like a dive isn't it?
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Not for me, although I understand your thinking. I think if you or me try to handle that ball, we wont be able too, and I dont believe he could either. His hands are out for the diving header position/fall and they dont move to the ball, the ball moves to him
He is entitled to go for the diving header, next you be saying a gk cant dive for a ball which the centre half blocks at the last min, its good attacking play for me, to be ready should his team mate miss it (as unexpected that it was that his team mate missed it)
the only way he could have avoided this whole thing, is for him not to have gambled at a diving head on the off chance his pal misses the ball

And that would be pretty poor attacking play. Speculate to accumulate, follow in everything, ball hits hand, yes, does the hand hit the ball, I doubt its even possible without him balancing solely on just the other arm mid flight
Click to expand...
Isn't this implying that there was some intent as in "making yourself big"? In any case, he probably missed the header because of the slight deflection by his teammate that put him offside.

(I've not freeze framed it but I'm assuming he was offside - but if only his arm was in an offside position would you still allow the goal? He'd have scored with a part of his body that can be in an offside position because you can't score with that part of the body....)
 
bloovee said:
Isn't this implying that there was some intent as in "making yourself big"? In any case, he probably missed the header because of the slight deflection by his teammate that put him offside.

(I've not freeze framed it but I'm assuming he was offside - but if only his arm was in an offside position would you still allow the goal? He'd have scored with a part of his body that can be in an offside position because you can't score with that part of the body....)
Click to expand...


Might only be for me, but, he is mid diving header, picture perfect, and nothing to do with making himself bigger, his arms are really where they can only naturally be for the position he is taking up. That the ball then hits his hand is secondary for me
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Might only be for me, but, he is mid diving header, picture perfect, and nothing to do with making himself bigger, his arms are really where they can only naturally be for the position he is taking up. That the ball then hits his hand is secondary for me
Click to expand...

Then we're in a situation when any player can dive to head the ball knowing that if he misses it with his head he can legitimately use his hand to score - and the hand just happens accidentally to be where it needs to be to do that.

An additional problem with the secret rule change is that it should still be a cautionable offence, for an accidental action.

If you want a real rule change, then amend law 10:

A goal may not be scored if a ball that would not otherwise enter the goal hits an attacking player's hand and is deflected into the goal. The referee shall award a DFK (IDFK?) (GK?) to the defending team but should caution the player only if, in the referee's opinion, the action was deliberate.
(first draft...)

The "would not otherwise" allows leeway where (e.g.) the ball is deflected off a hand tight across the body.
 
bloovee said:
Then we're in a situation when any player can dive to head the ball knowing that if he misses it with his head he can legitimately use his hand to score - and the hand just happens accidentally to be where it needs to be to do that.

If you want a rule change, then amend law 10:

A goal may not be scored if a ball that would not otherwise enter the goal hits an attacking player's hand and is deflected into the goal. The referee shall award a DFK (IDFK?) to the defending team but should caution the player only if, in the referee's opinion, the action was deliberate.
(first draft...)

The "would not otherwise" allows leeway where (e.g.) the ball is deflected off a hand tight across the body.
Click to expand...
What about if a defender clears towards the half way line but an attacker standing 2 yards away with his back to the ball, strikes his arm and goes into which there was nothing the attacker could do as he wasnt even facing/looking at play?

To suggest any player can judge the flight of a ball so perfectly if that they miss the header and can position their arm perfectly to score is preposterous given that had he perfectly managed to judge the flight of the ball he would have headed it.

The only way you can legitimately handle the ball to score a goal is where the act is not deliberate movement of hand making contact with the ball so any deliberate act would still be penalised.
 
How about “a player may not score a goal in the opponent’s goal with any part of their arm/hand unless it is the GK from within his/her own penalty area. A player who deliberately scores... must be cautioned.”
 
JamesL said:
What about if a defender clears towards the half way line but an attacker standing 2 yards away with his back to the ball, strikes his arm and goes into which there was nothing the attacker could do as he wasnt even facing/looking at play?
Click to expand...
Under the new amendment to law 10, that's not a goal. In play elsewhere, it would still be play on.

Padfoot said:
How about ‘Stop whining player and get on with the game....’
Click to expand...
When they change the law, that's what you will have to say to the forward who's just accidentally punched the ball into the goal.
 
bloovee said:
Under the new amendment to law 10, that's not a goal. In play elsewhere, it would still be play
Click to expand...
Yes but your imaginary amendment is not fair in my example and thus forth against the spirit of the game.
 
JamesL said:
Yes but your imaginary amendment is not fair in my example and thus forth against the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...
Why is it not fair? You can't score a goal with your hand is surely in the spirit of the game, even if you didn't mean to do it.
 
bloovee said:
He'd have scored with a part of his body that can be in an offside position because you can't score with that part of the body....
Click to expand...
As I've already mentioned, that's not why the hands/arms are excluded from consideration in terms of judging offside position. The reason is given in the FAQ to Law 11 and it has nothing to do with which parts of the body can be used for scoring. See my earlier post # 136.
 
Peter Grove said:
As I've already mentioned, that's not why the hands/arms are excluded from consideration in terms of judging offside position. The reason is given in the FAQ to Law 11 and it has nothing to do with which parts of the body can be used for scoring. See my earlier post # 136.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I've missed something here - but I thought the major revision of the laws was meant to incorporate stuff like the old Q&A, so why do we have a pile of new FAQ? The old Q&A could change interpretations from one year to the next, and I suspect this "reason" for not including hands and arms was not the original reason. It wouldn't be the first time a rule change was followed by an interpretation nothing to do with the original change in the laws.
 
zarathustra said:
But if it isn’t a deliberate act then surely it is against the spirit of the game to punish a player for something over which they have no control
Click to expand...
Don't they? He deliberately played at the ball and misjudged it. The attacker is 100% in control of this one, he just mucked it up.

Ciley Myrus said:
Not for me, although I understand your thinking. I think if you or me try to handle that ball, we wont be able too, and I dont believe he could either. His hands are out for the diving header position/fall and they dont move to the ball, the ball moves to him
He is entitled to go for the diving header, next you be saying a gk cant dive for a ball which the centre half blocks at the last min, its good attacking play for me, to be ready should his team mate miss it (as unexpected that it was that his team mate missed it)
the only way he could have avoided this whole thing, is for him not to have gambled at a diving head on the off chance his pal misses the ball

And that would be pretty poor attacking play. Speculate to accumulate, follow in everything, ball hits hand, yes, does the hand hit the ball, I doubt its even possible without him balancing solely on just the other arm mid flight
Click to expand...
His arms move to the ball in the sense that he was the one who put his arms into the path of the ball, as opposed to the ball copping a late deflection. Of course he's entitled to go for a diving header, I'm not trying to say he can't - trying to put words in my mouth isn't helping your argument. But being entitled to go for the ball doesn't mean you're not accountable if you get it wrong. As he did. Not disputing his arms are in a natural position, but 'natural position' doesn't categorically mean no offence has occurred

You say the only way he could have avoided it was to not try for the diving header. Well, no. He could have avoided it by timing his dive a little better. Not quite getting there with a desperate lunge doesn't make it okay to handle it as a backup. We're not talking about something completely avoidable here.

If the other attacker got a touch, moving the trajectory of the ball forwards then that would be fine because it's the touch that he has no chance to react to. But here, the path of the ball was predictable, he just mistimed it or couldn't get there in time.
 
bloovee said:
I suspect this "reason" for not including hands and arms was not the original reason. It wouldn't be the first time a rule change was followed by an interpretation nothing to do with the original change in the laws.
Click to expand...
Why do you 'suspect' this? I can see no reason for such a suspicion. The IFAB has only ever given one explanation for this part of the law and it has not changed since it was first introduced. I don't see how the reason a law was introduced can change. The reason something was introduced remains the reason why it was introduced even if circumstances change later.

The only thing I can see, that is confusing the issue here is this urban myth that has grown up, saying that the reason why the arms are not considered is because they can't be used for scoring. Since according to the law that isn't true and never was, ever since this clause was introduced, I see no reason to suspect it to have been the reason.
 
Peter Grove said:
Why do you 'suspect' this? I can see no reason for such a suspicion. The IFAB has only ever given one explanation for this part of the law and it has not changed since it was first introduced. I don't see how the reason a law was introduced can change. The reason something was introduced remains the reason why it was introduced even if circumstances change later.

The only thing I can see, that is confusing the issue here is this urban myth that has grown up, saying that the reason why the arms are not considered is because they can't be used for scoring. Since according to the law that isn't true and never was, ever since this clause was introduced, I see no reason to suspect it to have been the reason.
Click to expand...
The explanation was not in the law when the wording first excluded hands and arms. I'm saying the reason now given has only been provided years later. USSF had this ten years ago:
USSF answer (October 1, 2008):
The Law is quite clear about this. Any part of the body that can LEGALLY play the ball is considered when the referee looks for offside. That excludes the hands and arms, as they cannot legally play the ball. The same is true of the hands and arms of the opposing players.

I'd never heard this "new" rationale until this FAQ came up with it and I see no evidence that the "help the AR" argument was why hands and arms were excluded in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top