A&H

TOT V NEW (not another one)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Despite how much I hate it. Nailed on handball offence.
Does football expect handball here, really? brenda.png
 
The Referee Store
I don’t like it but in line with the laws, I actually agreed with that one being given.
 
I thought Carragher's co-commentary was excellent. Absolutely scathing of FIFA/IFAB
Disgusting outcome. They are spoiling football... I don't care one iota that NUFC got a point
 
Last edited:
I can't agree that that's in line with the laws. He jumps for the ball, he misses it. His arms have to go sonewhere to balance his fall. He's a yard or so from it with his back to it. No chance am I giving that.

The law is abysmal. Fans hate it. Players hate it. Get it sorted now ifab. You can't make handball a black and white issue.
 
I can't agree that that's in line with the laws. He jumps for the ball, he misses it. His arms have to go sonewhere to balance his fall. He's a yard or so from it with his back to it. No chance am I giving that.

The law is abysmal. Fans hate it. Players hate it. Get it sorted now ifab. You can't make handball a black and white issue.

It is in line with the laws, that can't really be argued. Yes, the law is extremely harsh on defenders, but as I said in a different topic that would have been given in most other countries for several seasons. I can remember seeing a major one from a recent season where exactly the same happened and a penalty was given, just can't remember what game it was.

People are just going to have to get used to it as it won't be changing, certainly not until next season anyway.
 
I feel for the Match Officials... that said, Mike Dean has been giving HB for anything over shoulder height for many years
They love the HB Law in Europe so I fear the worst. Pure luck... Acts of God. More goals and controversy though, so 24/7 News Channels lapping it up. That's all that matters
 
It is in line with the laws, that can't really be argued. Yes, the law is extremely harsh on defenders, but as I said in a different topic that would have been given in most other countries for several seasons. I can remember seeing a major one from a recent season where exactly the same happened and a penalty was given, just can't remember what game it was.

People are just going to have to get used to it as it won't be changing, certainly not until next season anyway.

I guess attackers would equally argue they feel harshly done by when the ball has brushed their hand and it's been disallowed.

I think with VAR used across the world you have to have a universal application and consistency, and I think we are now getting there. It's completely different to what we've been used to but essentially now if it hits your hand it's likely to be given unless your hand is literally tucked into your body, etc. so players and everyone else will just have to adjust. I'm ok with that.
 
Did he make his body unnaturally bigger whilst jumping? Note that Andy Carroll done exactly the same thing too (arms out) when jumping for the ball.
Was the header from Carroll too close that Dier had no chance of avoiding it despite not even looking at it? Not saying Carroll aimed at him, but it is literally impossible for Dier to avoid it.

The handball law, one bit (in bold) confuses me with their wording.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity


  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • 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)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:


  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

Does that mean all above applies if it touches a players hand/arm directly from head or body of another close player (in this case it is a handball against Dier) or is it not an offence based on point 2 for the exceptions which is exactly what happened?
 
I guess attackers would equally argue they feel harshly done by when the ball has brushed their hand and it's been disallowed.

I think with VAR used across the world you have to have a universal application and consistency, and I think we are now getting there. It's completely different to what we've been used to but essentially now if it hits your hand it's likely to be given unless your hand is literally tucked into your body, etc. so players and everyone else will just have to adjust. I'm ok with that.
There's two points being made here, One is the debate of whether these decisions are correct in Law
However, I don't care about the former, because the above debate is eclipsed by the fact that this is all very damaging to the ethos of sport, which is fundamentally based on determining a fair outcome and a deserved winner. The game has been sliding into an utter mess for quite a few years. The new generation of spectators don't really know any different and seem to enjoy the pantomime, but those of us who've lived through better days are turning our backs in disgust
 
Did he make his body unnaturally bigger whilst jumping? Note that Andy Carroll done exactly the same thing too (arms out) when jumping for the ball.
Was the header from Carroll too close that Dier had no chance of avoiding it despite not even looking at it? Not saying Carroll aimed at him, but it is literally impossible for Dier to avoid it.

The handball law, one bit (in bold) confuses me with their wording.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity


  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • 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)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:


  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

Does that mean all above applies if it touches a players hand/arm directly from head or body of another close player (in this case it is a handball against Dier) or is it not an offence based on point 2 for the exceptions which is exactly what happened?
The is not an offence only applies of the above is not true.
In this case diets arm is above the shoulder, the pout which strikes the arm is above the shoulder.
It's a handball offence. Intended as written.
If I recall this type of scenario was one of the scenarios that FIFA gave as should be punished. It was a pique one.
@RustyRef i feel like the example you are thinking of may have been a Newcastle player, Ameobi perhaps?
Perhaps not Google search says no.. But I can think of a similar one where ball was headed from behind defender and strikes arm. Was given at the time iirc
 
When is says "if the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level" is it explicit somewhere that the part of the arm in question is the point where contact is made with the ball? Or are we assuming that?

It's not an unreasonable assumption, I'd just like to know if that is clarified somewhere?
 
What minute of the game was the OP?

By the way I think I figured out the new natural position of the arms

Screenshot_20200928-013818~2.jpg
 
The whole handball law is a complete rathole whatever way you decide to word it.

In a nutshell, you either have to make it a completely factual decision, which means that there will be cases where a player is unlucky and the decision is harsh, however what that should drive is a level of consistency in decision making.

The other option is to go back to making it more subjective, if you do that you have to recognise that there will be inconsistencies from decision to decision as its subjective.

IFAB has tried to take the subjectivity out of the decision making process and that's where we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
We often talk about what football wants. Well its overwhelmingly obvious that football (in this country anyway) does not want handball to be enforced in the way that it is now.
 
The is not an offence only applies of the above is not true.
In this case diets arm is above the shoulder, the pout which strikes the arm is above the shoulder.
It's a handball offence. Intended as written.
If I recall this type of scenario was one of the scenarios that FIFA gave as should be punished. It was a pique one.
@RustyRef i feel like the example you are thinking of may have been a Newcastle player, Ameobi perhaps?
Perhaps not Google search says no.. But I can think of a similar one where ball was headed from behind defender and strikes arm. Was given at the time iirc

I'm sure it was a Champions League game so definitely not Newcastle ... :)

From memory it was given against an English team and there was uproar as it would never have been given in England, but can't for the life of me remember the details. It will come back to me at some point (then I'll forget it again before I write it down ....!)
 
The new law is not moral and does not respect the spirit of the game. I hope FIFA change this at the end of the season. I'm happy with "in the opinion of the referee".

Wake up FIFA and whoever voted for this change.
 
I think it's 'arrogance' in many ways to think this is going to change any time soon. This isn't a new handball interpretation across the world, the Premier League is just late to the party. It was applied in the 2018 World Cup and the 18/19 Champions League for instance so it's been in place for over two years.

Most of 'football' spent the whole of last season saying there needed to be consistency and why was the PL doing things different to the rest of the world? But when it comes ot handball it seems 'We want consistency and common sense' really just means 'we want everyone in the world to do it the way we think it should be done'.
 
I'm sure it was a Champions League game so definitely not Newcastle ... :)

From memory it was given against an English team and there was uproar as it would never have been given in England, but can't for the life of me remember the details. It will come back to me at some point (then I'll forget it again before I write it down ....!)

Until you said “against an English side” I was thinking the penalty given to Man Utd vs PSG deep in stoppage time season before last.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top