One line from the LOTG you wish EVERYONE knew...…..

[JamesL]

Brilliant, totally ignore the bit you don't agree with and go with the guessing the intent bit as gospel, where does it say that exactly??

Imo, if the lotg wanted deliberate to mean as intentional, then quite simply it would say handles the ball deliberately. Why elaborate if it is that simple.
But, it doesn't. It says a deliberate act of making contact with the hand or ball... consider these things. So thats what I do. I consider the act the player has made and if that act was deliberate and if that act that was deliberate made contact with the ball using the hand or arm.
I also consider the list of considerations when deciding if a handball offence has occurred.
Just because a player "didnt mean to" handle does not immediately absolve them of a handling offence.

 

[Big Cat]

'Avoidable' is the correct consideration imo, all things taken into account

 

[JH]

'Avoidable' is the correct consideration imo, all things taken into account

Avoidable would be a welcome addition to the considerations for me

 

[one]

'Avoidable' is the correct consideration imo, all things taken into account

It would open a whole new can of worms but I agree that it's a more accurate word than deliberate.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

It would open a whole new can of worms but I agree that it's a more accurate word than deliberate.

Nothing wrong with deliberate (ITOOTR) IMO, its all this un-natural position stuff thats silly, at times where are the arms supposed to be, you cant jump or do anything meaningful with your arms tucked behind your back. Avoidable is really very subjective too!!

 

[one]

James, I think a lawyer would rip that last post to bits if you read the actual law and not your summation!! As I said earlier, this part of the law is a massive grey area and always assuming deliberate handball is definetly shaky ground IMO...

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
Handling the ball
The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

I think a lawyer would also be able to tell you that your are misinterpreting the consideration about the position of the hand as well as mistaking the word 'consideration' for 'criteria'.

 

[Russell Jones]

Nothing wrong with deliberate (ITOOTR) IMO, its all this un-natural position stuff thats silly, at times where are the arms supposed to be, you cant jump or do anything meaningful with your arms tucked behind your back. Avoidable is really very subjective too!!

Finally, something we can agree on . Totally with you that we see too many handballs given on occasions when hands are away from the body as part of a totally natural movement .. running, jumping etc. For me though, doesn't negate the usefulness of 'un-natural position' per se, just means that it has been implemented in too broad and 'blunt' a way.

 

[Richard smith]

But that is just wrong. Why has he got his hands in the air when facing a throw in, there are no reasons for them to be up there so that makes it intentional handling.

Intentional Handball --- punishable with A caution surely

 

[JamesL]

Intentional Handball --- punishable with A caution surely

Not neccessarily...

 

[Abeverley]

Every handball is intentional. Has to be, or else it isn’t handball.

 

[Ben448844]

I give very few handballs. "Unnatural position is an odd one in certain circumstances". Using the blocked cross example, when you're defending and you're stretching to stop the cross with your leg, your arms automatically come out for balance, particularly your front arm which goes the same way as your leg when you stretch to block a cross. In that sense it's a completely natural position for the hand to be in, Not unnatural as it's often portrayed.

The law is a very difficult to have uniformity and it's easy to use the guidelines to both sell your handball decision and not give it ie," unnatural position so it's a handball", you can also say "not intentional,hand never went towards the ball" and not give it.

Whatever the circumstance, you can usually sell it one way or another. The only handballs I give regularly are the ones where the ball has travelled a long way before hitting the hand ala Lacazette, or when everyone stops after it's hit someone's hand because it's already been sold for you.

 

[one]

Actually the word the law uses is deliberate. There has to be a deliberate act in there. If the direct intent is to handle the ball or not has been the subject of debate since @Sheffields Finest discovered the internet.
Edit:

 

[JamesL]

Every handball is intentional. Has to be, or else it isn’t handball.

Also not neccessarily..

Handball law does not ask you to judge intent... only to judge if a deliberate act of the hand or arm making contact with the ball has occurred. Which, whilst similar is a very subtle difference in shat yoh are being asked to apply. E.g. a deliberate handball offence can occur without the player intending to...

Do I detect a theme on this forum at thr moment? ... hopefully ifab totally overhaul handball and make it less complicated

 

[Abeverley]

Also not neccessarily..

Handball law does not ask you to judge intent... only to judge if a deliberate act of the hand or arm making contact with the ball has occurred. Which, whilst similar is a very subtle difference in shat yoh are being asked to apply. E.g. a deliberate handball offence can occur without the player intending to...

Do I detect a theme on this forum at thr moment? ... hopefully ifab totally overhaul handball and make it less complicated

I know what you’re saying. I should have used the word deliberate. In my mind it’s similar to a deliberate act by a defender which resets offside. In a way.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Actually the word the law uses is deliberate. There has to be a deliberate act in there. If the direct intent is to handle the ball or not has been the subject of debate since @Sheffields Finest discovered the internet.
Edit:

Great to see our former convicts putting their new found freedoms to good use! Healthy debate should be encouraged....

 

[bester]

Also not neccessarily..

Handball law does not ask you to judge intent... only to judge if a deliberate act of the hand or arm making contact with the ball has occurred. Which, whilst similar is a very subtle difference in shat yoh are being asked to apply. E.g. a deliberate handball offence can occur without the player intending to...

Do I detect a theme on this forum at thr moment? ... hopefully ifab totally overhaul handball and make it less complicated

Dermot Gallacher said on ref watch yesterday that it’s not deliberate handball if you’re trying to protect your face.

 

[JamesL]

Dermot Gallacher said on ref watch yesterday that it’s not deliberate handball if you’re trying to protect your face.

Dermott Gallagher is a plank

 

[Richard smith]

Not neccessarily...

Care to elaborate

 

[Mintyref]

Actually the word the law uses is deliberate. There has to be a deliberate act in there. If the direct intent is to handle the ball or not has been the subject of debate since @Sheffields Finest discovered the internet.
Edit:

No @Sheffields Finest has been debating this since the advent of the penny black....

 

[JamesL]

Care to elaborate

There are only 3 handball scenarios that mandate a caution..
Handball to stop/interfere with a promising attack
Attempt to score a goal, successful or not
Unsuccessful attempt to stop a goal.


So, intentional or deliberate handball not neccessarily have to be a caution.