A&H

Liverpool HB-PK (v Leeds)

socal lurker said:
Does anyone have a clip of this that will work in the US? After all the discussion, I'd love to see the play.

Re the refwatch opinion, if ITOOTR the arm was in an unnatural position making him bigger, then handling is absolutely the right call. If, however, ITOOTR, the arm was simply above the shoulder and the knee/ball was a deliberate play, then he would be off the hook.

Another nuance: is the play that forgives above the shoulder handling the same as the play by a defender that resets OS? Or do we have separate definitions for those?

(I hate the new HB rules . . .)
Click to expand...

I did a search of "nbcsports.com liverpool leeds" and found several clips uploaded by NBC Sports. You shouldn't have to watch much of the videos, as the handling occurred in the first four minutes of the match.
 
The Referee Store
His arm is clearly in a position making himself bigger, i dont think thats up for debate, its the fact is to how the deflection changes things.
 
Do we all notice the change in the way we discuss Handball now? Many refs on this site accept that by the letter of the new Law this was handball, even though many here do think it's ridiculous that it should be. In the past, when it was left just to the opinion of the referee there was never any certainty...some refs saw it one way, some refs another. Now I completely disagree with everyone who saws the new Laws are unclear or hard to understand...it is simple: make your body bigger...it's an offence (even if it comes off you or a player close to you); raise your arms above the shoulders it's an offence (unless you deliberately played it first). This is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Now by all means argue that it is wrong, stupid, ridiculous, ruining the game...we can all have opinions for or against.. But let us stop hiding our dislike of a Law by making out it is badly written. It may be a bad Law (debatable) but it is totally clear.
 
Dan56 said:
Do we all notice the change in the way we discuss Handball now? Many refs on this site accept that by the letter of the new Law this was handball, even though many here do think it's ridiculous that it should be. In the past, when it was left just to the opinion of the referee there was never any certainty...some refs saw it one way, some refs another. Now I completely disagree with everyone who saws the new Laws are unclear or hard to understand...it is simple: make your body bigger...it's an offence (even if it comes off you or a player close to you); raise your arms above the shoulders it's an offence (unless you deliberately played it first). This is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Now by all means argue that it is wrong, stupid, ridiculous, ruining the game...we can all have opinions for or against.. But let us stop hiding our dislike of a Law by making out it is badly written. It may be a bad Law (debatable) but it is totally clear.
Click to expand...
It's usually clear 😉

(Before somebody points it out, I know)
 
When the law refers to the ball 'above/beyond' the shoulder, what does the 'beyond' bit mean? Does it mean any arm extended sideways from the body?What is the difference between that and 'making body unnaturally bigger'?
 
Let me know when you find out. I guess use of the '/' and the words "shoulder level" means they are the same.

For me the law is contradicting itself if the ball is played into the arm which has made them unnaturally bigger being extended above shoulder level. The first point says it's an offence, the second point says it is not.

Sorry I couldn't be of much help.
 
Last edited:
onthebrink said:
When the law refers to the ball 'above/beyond' the shoulder, what does the 'beyond' bit mean? Does it mean any arm extended sideways from the body?What is the difference between that and 'making body unnaturally bigger'?
Click to expand...
Well, there you go. If "beyond" can mean sideways, then how is that not "unnaturally bigger"? But one has a get-out and one doesn't (unless of course they did intend that "(unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)" was meant to apply to both conditions:
• the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Why would the "unless" apply to a position of the arms that is easier to avoid? No-one runs with their arms above their shoulder (except perhaps after scoring).
 
bloovee said:
Why would the "unless" apply to a position of the arms that is easier to avoid? No-one runs with their arms above their shoulder (except perhaps after scoring).
Click to expand...

I believe the carve out is thinking of a couple of scenarios (1) players who jump to head the ball and end up with an arm above the shoulder: if it hits the arm first, it's handling, but if the player is successful in heading the ball, and it then hits the arm, no offense, and (2) a sliding player: when sliding, the arm up is natural --just watch any American baseball game, where there is no incentive to have the arm up. It's just what happens. So, even though it is natural, it is still an offense, unless the player plays the ball first.
 
socal lurker said:
I believe the carve out is thinking of a couple of scenarios (1) players who jump to head the ball and end up with an arm above the shoulder: if it hits the arm first, it's handling, but if the player is successful in heading the ball, and it then hits the arm, no offense, and (2) a sliding player: when sliding, the arm up is natural --just watch any American baseball game, where there is no incentive to have the arm up. It's just what happens. So, even though it is natural, it is still an offense, unless the player plays the ball first.
Click to expand...
But that is not what it says though. It also covers when a player tries to control a long airial ball, but to make sure it doesn't bounce away from him after the first touch, puts both arms out and up to cover the rebound.

It's just another example of IFAB thinking something but saying something that either covers more than what they think or not all of it.
 
one said:
But that is not what it says though. It also covers when a player tries to control a long airial ball, but to make sure it doesn't bounce away from him after the first touch, puts both arms out and up to cover the rebound.

It's just another example of IFAB thinking something but saying something that either covers more than what they think or not all of it.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not one to complement the drafting skills of IFAB. But I was responding to the question about why it would be written the way it was. I think it is what I posted--but that doesn't mean I think it was well drafted. (Though it is better without the "usuallys" that initially made it utter nonsense.)

On your example, if ITOOTR the position of the arms made the player unnaturally bigger then I think that provision applies. I think the "above the shoulders" and its exemption applies when it is only because the arms are above the shoulder. Indeed, if ITOOTR, the arms are there for the purpose of blocking the ball, the handling is deliberate and we don't have to get into all the extra noise.
 
socal lurker said:
On your example, if ITOOTR the position of the arms made the player unnaturally bigger then I think that provision applies. I think the "above the shoulders" and its exemption applies when it is only because the arms are above the shoulder.
Click to expand...
Fair reasoning but that is your reasoning. Another referee could just take the second point saying it overrides the first. Really trying to point out with every tweak, they fix something but break something else.
 
one said:
with every tweak, they fix something but break something else.
Click to expand...

On this, we definitely agree. I remain bewildered that, with the amount of money in world soccer, they can't afford to hire a quality editor to help them word smith so that they say what they mean more often.
 
onthebrink said:
When the law refers to the ball 'above/beyond' the shoulder, what does the 'beyond' bit mean? Does it mean any arm extended sideways from the body?What is the difference between that and 'making body unnaturally bigger'?
Click to expand...
Belatedly....
"beyond" doesn't mean anything.

It's not in the French or German versions of the laws (Spanish has "mas alla").
 
There's some talk that PL Clubs met with PGMOL during the week and that the HB interpretation has been revised as a result
 
Big Cat said:
There's some talk that PL Clubs met with PGMOL during the week and that the HB interpretation has been revised as a result
Click to expand...
You mean england is going to apply it differently to the rest of the world?
 
one said:
You mean england is going to apply it differently to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...
Let's hope so. The EPL has exposed a serious flaw in the Law. The scrutiny over PKs and GKs off the line has ebbed and waned despite explicit wording in the book, so why should any other wording be taken for what it is?
 
Why should any country take anything in the lotg for what it is. Let's all have our own rules.

IFAB has screwed it up. Each going their own way screws it up even more. Haven't we learnt anything from how VAR went.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top