A&H

Inter vs Barcelona

Handballs?

  • Neither

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fati yes, Dumfries no

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Fati no, Dumfries yes

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Both

    Votes: 11 78.6%
  • Total voters
    14
A

ARF

RefChat Addict
Two handling incidents, one given and one not.

First one - ball crossed in, slight touch from Onana deflects ball onto Fati's hand rather than his head, and Pedri scores - goal disallowed after OFR
www.sport.es

The rule is clear: Pedri's goal against Inter should stand

Barcelona were robbed of a goal during the 1-0 Champions League defeat
www.sport.es www.sport.es

Second one - Dumfries jumps to head away a cross, balls misses his head and hits his arm - no OFR
https://twitter.com/x/status/1577546926798651392

Now, I'm going to assume that it's not an error in law by the VAR and referee in thinking that as the ball has touched Fati's hand just before Pedri scores then it must be disallowed - I'd expect a L7 to know that the law has changed, for Champions League officials to get that wrong would be utter incompetence. And IMO neither are deliberate handling.

That leaves making the body unnaturally bigger. Can you argue that the positions of the arms are justifiable by their body movement in both incidents? Absolutely. Can you also argue that by having their arms in those positions the players have risked being hit by the ball and being penalised for it? Absolutely. But I don't see how the VAR can flag one as a clear and obvious error but not the other - IMO either both are handling offences, or neither one is.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
alas, I can’t access the second one. I think handling is the expected call on the first one. It’s been pretty clear around the world that natural position doesn’t quite mean what it says, and in certain contexts, players are expected to have a ”preferred” natural position. And the preferred natural position is not next to the head while trying to head the ball. (And the ’arti le” is amusing in it focus solely on the inadvertent HB analysis, which so obviously had nothing to do with this call at all.
 
I agree with @JamesL IMO they are both handball offences as the position of the arms to me are not justifiable for the action of the players. i.e. arms out from body and up by head
 
Freddie Faulkner said:
I agree with @JamesL IMO they are both handball offences as the position of the arms to me are not justifiable for the action of the players. i.e. arms out from body and up by head
Click to expand...
But I’d say this is only true through the eyes of the LOTG. That is in fact a natural position for the arms to be in when jumping to head a ball. We just don’t accept it as natural because we expect players to do something different to not have their arms like that where it might get hit.

As an aside, the shifting language seems to create confusion among the various reasons formcallin/not calling HB. On one side, I had opponents calling for a handball where a player was running with his back to the ball, insisting it was “unnatural” because it was n’t close to his body—when there was no way he had any idea a ball would be badly kicked to where he was from behind. And on the other, I had players insisting it cou be a handball where a player deliberately contacted the ball with his arm, but teammates insisted that it can’t be a HB because it was held close to his body.
 
Both for me.

The first article references accidental leading to a goal should stand but of course the arm making the body bigger supersedes this
 
socal lurker said:
But I’d say this is only true through the eyes of the LOTG. That is in fact a natural position for the arms to be in when jumping to head a ball. We just don’t accept it as natural because we expect players to do something different to not have their arms like that where it might get hit.

As an aside, the shifting language seems to create confusion among the various reasons formcallin/not calling HB. On one side, I had opponents calling for a handball where a player was running with his back to the ball, insisting it was “unnatural” because it was n’t close to his body—when there was no way he had any idea a ball would be badly kicked to where he was from behind. And on the other, I had players insisting it cou be a handball where a player deliberately contacted the ball with his arm, but teammates insisted that it can’t be a HB because it was held close to his body.
Click to expand...

I can see you make a valid point here but in my opinion in both situations the player needs to understand that he takes a risk of being penalised for handball as the position of there arms IMO makes the body bigger.
 
Freddie Faulkner said:
I can see you make a valid point here but in my opinion in both situations the player needs to understand that he takes a risk of being penalised for handball as the position of there arms IMO makes the body bigger.
Click to expand...

yes, that is what the Game expects. But nothing in the language of Law 12 talks about taking risks. IFAB added the language about natural for what the player is doing, but my point is that even after that was added, it really isn’t what is called. The “natural” has a pretty heavy gloss for an expectation to do some unnatural things to avoid contact. I don’t know if there is a better way to write it, but it’s not particularly close to what we actually call.
 
socal lurker said:
yes, that is what the Game expects. But nothing in the language of Law 12 talks about taking risks. IFAB added the language about natural for what the player is doing, but my point is that even after that was added, it really isn’t what is called. The “natural” has a pretty heavy gloss for an expectation to do some unnatural things to avoid contact. I don’t know if there is a better way to write it, but it’s not particularly close to what we actually call.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that natural to us and natural position in the laws of the game are interpreted differently. as for taking risks law 12 does mention risk in this part.

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
Click to expand...
 
For the first one he has definitely given it for intentional handball as opposed to accidental handling immediately before a goal as he cautions him for it, or at least he has the card out when running back from the screen.

I agree though, if you give one you really have to give both. It was a lot more obvious that the ball hit the Barcelona's player's arm than it was the Inter one, but I am pretty sure it touched him arm.
 
RustyRef said:
For the first one he has definitely given it for intentional handball as opposed to accidental handling immediately before a goal as he cautions him for it, or at least he has the card out when running back from the screen.

I agree though, if you give one you really have to give both. It was a lot more obvious that the ball hit the Barcelona's player's arm than it was the Inter one, but I am pretty sure it touched him arm.
Click to expand...
He cautioned Xavi while doing the OFR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top