Just take out the goal scoring opportunity bit so we can get back to safe refereeing without more dreaded VAR interventionsIt is the complexity that I am not happy with. E.g., current wording has points which are usually not offences with the except of some other points (which are usually offences) and those other point have their on exceptions. Having three levels of indentation has a similar complexity for me.
My version (note my considerations are consistent with DOGSO considerations in format):
View attachment 3858
If by recycle you mean it has the same meaning then yours is but different wording then yours is not.Yours is a recreation, I recycle the current text. I like the simplicity of yours but deliberate and unnatural/above shoulder are separate things, it doesn't have to be deliberate for those. Furthermore, 'above shoulder' has a caveat of: unless the player deliberately plays the ball onto their hand/arm.
Either of our texts would work better than what we have now, mine took 10 mins to write, I expect yours didn't take long either.
What do you mean?If by recycle you mean it has the same meaning then yours is but different wording then yours is not.
Many/some cases in your text are black and white and leave no discretion to the referee. The current text (and mine) leaves some discretion to the referee.
Except when supporting the body in the way mentioned or deliberately playing it onto the hand/arm, it is always an offence?Sorry I jumbled up my wording there. What I meant to say is that you have actually changed the content and applying a somewhat different set of 'rules'.
For example in a case if hand is above shoulder level and he hadn't played the ball before, your wording means it is ALWAYS an offence. LOTG wording means it sometimes isn't an offence. See the difference?
I disagree. The 'usually' lingo is there to give the referee some leeway on deciding it for themselves if it actually is deliberate as the laws can't anticipate every single scenario with a catch all statement.Except when supporting the body in the way mentioned or deliberately playing it onto the hand/arm, it is always an offence?
The 'usually' lingo is there because they've added extra conditions, which I have put next to the offences, making 'usually' redundant.
Again, deliberate doesn't directly apply to unnatural position. It doesn't say: 'deliberate HB is an offence and you need to consider unnatural position', it says: 'deliberate HB is an offence, unnatural position is an offence (except X,Y,Z, including X,Y,Z - hence 'usually an offence')I disagree. The 'usually' lingo is there to give the referee some leeway on deciding it for themselves if it actually is deliberate as the laws can't anticipate every single scenario with a catch all statement.
How about:
"It is an offence if a player touches the ball with their hand / arm" Nice and simple
I personally am not a fan of the defender and attacker being punished differently. I get why the law was introduced, as it is utter chaos when an attacker scores from an accidental handball and we don't want to see game changing soft penalties. But I don't like the same thing being an offence / not an offence depending on if you're attacking or not.
For me, it's become an utter farce.
Yes, it does. As @socal lurker says, the "usually" stuff is part of defining deliberate. The primary and overriding part of the law is that it is an offence if a player:Again, deliberate doesn't directly apply to unnatural position.
deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
You honestly think players are good enough to target hitting the ball at someone's hand / arm?! Perhaps if they're only a few feet away and at the highest level, but more than a few feet and below the PL, then it would be totally redundant to try and hit someone's arm / hand. My team is in L2 and they can't even hit the effing goal from 10 yards, let alone a small target like the hand!!If you really want a farce, make any contact with an arm an offense. Then we create a huge incentive to target arms and concoct FKs. Totally antithetical to the SOTG.
I think Sterling did just this for the second TAA HB on Sunday. It would be a nightmare all the way down the pyramid IMHO.You honestly think players are good enough to target hitting the ball at someone's hand / arm?! Perhaps if they're only a few feet away and at the highest level, but more than a few feet and below the PL, then it would be totally redundant to try and hit someone's arm / hand. My team is in L2 and they can't even hit the effing goal from 10 yards, let alone a small target like the hand!!
As I said....I seriously doubt that is going to cause issues down the pyramid. And more issues than the current law?!Perhaps if they're only a few feet away and at the highest level
Deliberate is a completely separate bullet point to unnatural/above shoulder, they do not come under it as a consideration, so where are you getting this from?Yes, it does. As @socal lurker says, the "usually" stuff is part of defining deliberate. The primary and overriding part of the law is that it is an offence if a player:
Apart from the specific exceptions whereby accidental handling creating a goal/goal scoring opportunity is an offence, everything else is subservient to the "deliberately touches" clause.
What it's saying is that when, for example, "the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger" it's usually (but not always) an indication that it was deliberate.
Deliberate is a completely separate bullet point to unnatural/above shoulder, they do not come under it as a consideration, so where are you getting this from?
Not to mention that unnatural/above shoulder specifically applies even after a close deflection - how can that be deliberate?
"having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a ‘natural’ position and a
player is ‘taking a risk’ by having the hand/arm in that position, including
when sliding" - again, 'taking a risk' doesn't imply they are deliberately handling, it implies that they will be punished if the ball touches their upstretched arm no matter if it is a close deflection or not, as law states.