A&H

Chelsea penalty...

The Referee Store
Europe
Make it up time... and then claim the UK are the only ones not consistent with the new book... that doesn't exist yet
 
I'm genuinely angry that this is given and the player gets a yellow card. I feel both decisions are incorrect in law.

I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."

It is a handball offense if the arm makes the player unnaturally bigger, regardless of any deflection. You can disagree with the R's opinion that the player's arm made him unnaturally bigger, but that is about judgment, not law. (Though I suppose the R could have thought it was deliberate, too, which would also be a question of judgment.

Presumably the caution is for SPAA. I think that gets overused on handling calls in the PA sometimes (OK, I actually think it gets overused a lot), but it seems to be an expectation in some places if there is a shot or cross that is handled that doesn't rise to DOGSO. Again, I think you are really questioning the R's judgment, not a legal error.
 
I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."

It is a handball offense if the arm makes the player unnaturally bigger, regardless of any deflection. You can disagree with the R's opinion that the player's arm made him unnaturally bigger, but that is about judgment, not law. (Though I suppose the R could have thought it was deliberate, too, which would also be a question of judgment.

Presumably the caution is for SPAA. I think that gets overused on handling calls in the PA sometimes (OK, I actually think it gets overused a lot), but it seems to be an expectation in some places if there is a shot or cross that is handled that doesn't rise to DOGSO. Again, I think you are really questioning the R's judgment, not a legal error.

Once you give the pen the action is not an attempt to nor does it stop a promising attack, therefore i think it's wrong in law.

The handball itself, the arm is horizontal and not above shoulder level, it also rebounds at very close range, again I'd say it's therefore wrong in law.
 
I don't think you can say the PK is "incorrect in law."

It is a handball offense if the arm makes the player unnaturally bigger, regardless of any deflection. You can disagree with the R's opinion that the player's arm made him unnaturally bigger, but that is about judgment, not law. (Though I suppose the R could have thought it was deliberate, too, which would also be a question of judgment.

Presumably the caution is for SPAA. I think that gets overused on handling calls in the PA sometimes (OK, I actually think it gets overused a lot), but it seems to be an expectation in some places if there is a shot or cross that is handled that doesn't rise to DOGSO. Again, I think you are really questioning the R's judgment, not a legal error.
Even though its a matter of judgment, there is no way that would be SPA. Blocking it with the foot is not the offence, handling after the block is. The ball is moving up and back at that time. If it didn't hit the hand it would end up either over goal line for a corner or near the corner flag with no one there. Last I check neither of those is a promising attack position with so many defenders present in the PA.

I have said this before, with the handball law, every 'fix' they are putting in now, breaks it even more that it was broken before.
 
Doesn't bullet point one cover this exact situation though?


Laws of the Game 2020/21 | Law 12 | Fouls and Misconduct

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
 
Doesn't bullet point one cover this exact situation though?


Laws of the Game 2020/21 | Law 12 | Fouls and Misconduct

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
Sure—as long as you ignore the “except for” provision.
Even though its a matter of judgment, there is no way that would be SPA. Blocking it with the foot is not the offence, handling after the block is. The ball is moving up and back at that time. If it didn't hit the hand it would end up either over goal line for a corner or near the corner flag with no one there. Last I check neither of those is a promising attack position with so many defenders present in the PA.

I have said this before, with the handball law, every 'fix' they are putting in now, breaks it even more that it was broken before.
I don’t really disagree with you. But I don’t find the caution here out of the mainstream at all. That makes me think it is being taught, which I think is unfortunate. (I would not be thinking about giving a caution if I called that handling.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
That's a pen for me. Arm is above/extended beyond the shoulder.
Not sure I'd go with a caution. Given the height of the ball when it makes contact I think it's a reasonable bet to assume the ball is landing somewhere near row Z.
 
Same old debate but for me you have to look at why handball was introduced and what does football want from the handball law. Its there to stop defenders deliberately handling the ball. The more they try and define deliberate the less deliberate handball becomes, which is the opposite of their intentions. Did the defender deliberately intend to handle the ball by flicking shot off his knee onto his arm? Absolutely not.

One consequence of VAR appears to be the sheer amount of penalties given. This might be perception and not reality, I dont know the stats. But games are increasingly decided by penalties that wouldn't have been penalties a few years ago. Does anybody want that? Cant remember the last time i watched a CL highlights package on a Tues/Weds night and didn't see penalties given for handball despite no intention from the defender to deliberately handle the ball.Look at how defenders are defending in the boxes these days. Hands behind their back, its ridiculous.
 
Yeah, I get why this "feels" controversial, but it's actually a textbook example of what is now definitely a penalty under the new laws. As soon as your arms go that high - for whatever reason - any contact with them is going to be a penalty most times now.

Also agree with the majority however, in that the caution is definitely unnecessary. You're all right to say that often, a yellow card is just given for any handball in the box without much thought going into it. In reality, a card should only be necessary when the HB stops a shot - red if it's likely to go in, yellow if it's likely to be saved or go narrowly wide. For a cross or a shot that's going comfortably wide, the penalty is enough of a punishment.
 
Yeah, I get why this "feels" controversial, but it's actually a textbook example of what is now definitely a penalty under the new laws. As soon as your arms go that high - for whatever reason - any contact with them is going to be a penalty most times now.

Also agree with the majority however, in that the caution is definitely unnecessary. You're all right to say that often, a yellow card is just given for any handball in the box without much thought going into it. In reality, a card should only be necessary when the HB stops a shot - red if it's likely to go in, yellow if it's likely to be saved or go narrowly wide. For a cross or a shot that's going comfortably wide, the penalty is enough of a punishment.

i think if it had hit him on his arm / hand which was outstretched i could go with that as it was slightly raised. it hits him on the elbow through which is not raised above shoulder level.

the image below is slightly before impact.

1604569292328.png
 
Last edited:
i think if it had hit him on his arm / hand which was outstartched i could go with that as it was slightly raised. it hits him on the elbow through which is not raised above shoulder level.

the image below is slightly before impact.

View attachment 4659
I saw this last night, went to re-watch the video to confirm what I thought, but the video had been removed, so had to go from memory....I'm always a little suspicious of 2D stills, but can appreciate your point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: es1
I saw the highlights and the left arm moves across and away the body into the path of the ball. Both arms are outstretched making himself bigger.

I can see why this was called a penalty and by extension the caution.

No problem with the penalty per se, although less comfortable with the caution.
 
When did this "oh it's handball and it was from a shot so - caution" nonsense start?

So I can pull your shirt off your back, the ref plays a crap advantage because you manage to pass the ball off.
But if I give a penalty for this incident you need a caution even though a penalty is a HUGE upgrade on the sh*t shot.
Explain this to me?!?
 
Yeah, I get why this "feels" controversial, but it's actually a textbook example of what is now definitely a penalty under the new laws. As soon as your arms go that high - for whatever reason - any contact with them is going to be a penalty most times now.

Also agree with the majority however, in that the caution is definitely unnecessary. You're all right to say that often, a yellow card is just given for any handball in the box without much thought going into it. In reality, a card should only be necessary when the HB stops a shot - red if it's likely to go in, yellow if it's likely to be saved or go narrowly wide. For a cross or a shot that's going comfortably wide, the penalty is enough of a punishment.

I understand the new reqording of the law and interpretation of it in European competition. I just totally disagree with it. I dont think the lawmakers and those who interpet them in the various competitions are looking at what the hand ball law is there for. Id argue that they are thinking about it too much and too literally.

Also, lawmakers occasionally seem to think more about the offense and less about the end result. With this handball interpretation, the end result is more penalties for handball offences and I dont think football fans/players/coaches/managers want this. Defenders often now try and defend by hiding their arms behind their backs because they're so distrustful of the new interpretation of the law. Who wants that?
 
When did this "oh it's handball and it was from a shot so - caution" nonsense start?

So I can pull your shirt off your back, the ref plays a crap advantage because you manage to pass the ball off.
But if I give a penalty for this incident you need a caution even though a penalty is a HUGE upgrade on the sh*t shot.
Explain this to me?!?
I don't think anyone on here is pushing for that?

It used to be the case that almost any penalty would come with an associated card - not through law, more through a lazy convention. That gradually went away for most offences, but seems to have stuck around for HB for some reason. It's an outdated approach, but is still often applied for some reason.
 
I don't think anyone on here is pushing for that?

It used to be the case that almost any penalty would come with an associated card - not through law, more through a lazy convention. That gradually went away for most offences, but seems to have stuck around for HB for some reason. It's an outdated approach, but is still often applied for some reason.

*only in UEFA/FIFA competitions

just recalling drogba giving away a penalty in the 2011 CL final for a nothing trip on the edge of the box, ref gives a card without a seconds hesitation.
 
*only in UEFA/FIFA competitions

just recalling drogba giving away a penalty in the 2011 CL final for a nothing trip on the edge of the box, ref gives a card without a seconds hesitation.
I think maybe it went away earlier in the UK, but I'm sure it used to be the case here as well if you go back enough.
 
The game is in such a mess and referees are selling their souls if adopting UEFA interpretations (of this nature), all in the name of promotion

@Ben448844 is right, I've seen some eye-watering stats on the number of games being decided by PKs (or Acts of God)
 
Back
Top