A&H

Chelsea penalty...

I think the level of respect in the game for elite referees has really gone south since VAR came about
The EPL formerly had (at least) some referees who were generally held in reasonably high regard, but those days are over because of stuff like this
 
The Referee Store
I think its a penalty under the handball law we have. I don't believe it's a caution BUT at least UEFA have been consistent in giving just about every HB in the box as a caution - remember the second yellow shown in the Ajax v Chelsea game last year? A RBL player got one last night for a HB in the area - I think its wrong but at least consistent and open about it.
 
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 It's an outdated approach, but is still often applied for some reason.
It went away because the law was changed to stop it. IFAB were clear one of the reasons to limit SPA-PK was because many yellows were being issued incorrectly.

I imagine there is more chance of them making clear these penalty handball yellows shouldn't be awarded than actually tweaking what they define as handball.
 
Looks like there's alot of pressure being applied to change the handball law/interpretation from the UEFA President this afternoon.
 
*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.

It was literally the defintion of a careless challenge! Can you imagine if it had been his 2nd??
Def a problem with foreign refs having to be seen to be doing stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
I think FIFA or UEFA have instructed that any handball in the area is automatically stopping a promising attack as every one given has led to a caution.
 
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?
The history of the changes was an effort at uniformity. (I'd say a failed effort, but I digress....) England was at one extreme of the spectrum (nothing is deliberate, play on!) and I think S. America (of course it was deliberate--wouldn't have touched him if it wasn't) was the other. The committee literally sat around a video monitor debating what should be an offense. Frequently there was a blatant split when looking at a clip--all the English/Europeans said clearly not an offense and all the south american reps said it was clearly an offense. What they came up with was a compromise. I suspect that just as folks in Europe and the US (particularly England) are saying that the new handball law is creating offenses that shouldn't be there, over in SA, they are moaning about non-calls that always would have been an offense in the past.

They have also said that the goal was to eliminate defenders having to play unnaturally (e.g., with arms behind their backs) to avoid getting called for PKs. (Even before the changes we clearly saw PK calls that were totally unavoidable being called.) But I certainly don't think they were successful in that objective.

I do think that they thought that by better defining the criteria they were making it more possible for defenders to manage their actions and be able to avoid getting called for handling. But I don't think they succeeded at all in that.
 
The history of the changes was an effort at uniformity. (I'd say a failed effort, but I digress....) England was at one extreme of the spectrum (nothing is deliberate, play on!) and I think S. America (of course it was deliberate--wouldn't have touched him if it wasn't) was the other. The committee literally sat around a video monitor debating what should be an offense. Frequently there was a blatant split when looking at a clip--all the English/Europeans said clearly not an offense and all the south american reps said it was clearly an offense. What they came up with was a compromise. I suspect that just as folks in Europe and the US (particularly England) are saying that the new handball law is creating offenses that shouldn't be there, over in SA, they are moaning about non-calls that always would have been an offense in the past.

They have also said that the goal was to eliminate defenders having to play unnaturally (e.g., with arms behind their backs) to avoid getting called for PKs. (Even before the changes we clearly saw PK calls that were totally unavoidable being called.) But I certainly don't think they were successful in that objective.

I do think that they thought that by better defining the criteria they were making it more possible for defenders to manage their actions and be able to avoid getting called for handling. But I don't think they succeeded at all in that.
If philosophy is that far apart, breakaway may be the only solution
I for one, don't give a monkeys about S American football, nor do I expect them to tell us how to run our game
 
That ought to make it easy for World Cup referees then...
Yes, of course. But then UK refs already markedly change their game for the Champions League
Breakaway has to better than the existing situation in which everyone (except some referees) is deeply dissatisfied with refereeing
 
Appreciate the explanation there and it does make me think about this with a little bit more objectivity from a global perspective. However, my original point is that the law makes seem to fail to look at the consequences of the law changes occasionally, or they consider them secondary to having a more precise law?

The consequence of harsher handball interpretations, whether that be in SA or Europe, is more penalties. The consequence of ore penalties is that more games are decided on interpretation of the handball law. Surely even in SA they don't want 10s of extra penalties a season & therefore 10s of extra games decided due to a variance in handball interpretation?

The consequence of modern law changes appear to be a large increase in the number of penalties in top flight football. I dont have the stats, but I'd like to see comparisons. If the likelihood of getting penalties is increased due to law changes then the game will automatically adapt to teams looking more for penalties when in the box surrounded by defenders than to look to score/create a goal. Who wants that?
 
Surely even in SA they don't want 10s of extra penalties a season & therefore 10s of extra games decided due to a variance in handball interpretation?
But you're missing the point. I don't watch SA games, but based on what I know of the changes, I don't think the changes resulted in any extra handling calls in SA. I think the calls that have folks up in arms in England were always offenses in SA. The compromise was between different visions of what should be handling. If anything, by finding middle ground, there would be fewer PKs in SA with the changes to handling.

As to more calls in England/Europe, I think that the powers that be thought that with more clear standards, players would be better able to avoid getting called for PKs. But that hasn't happened. I also think that the "unnatural position," while having merit in concept has been problematic in application, especially when VAR is used--many things look "unnatural" once someone turns on slow-mo, and even sometimes just re-watching can do that to, as we over think where the arm "should" be.
 
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?

Regarding the point about more penalties being awarded this season. Mats Hummels has complained about the amount of penalties doubling since this time last season. In the PL it has more than doubled. Theres a penalty every 1.90 games this year in the PL as opposed to 4.13 last season.

Penalties are deciding alot more games. Which means that the new handball law is deciding many games in the PL. Who actually wanted that?
 
Presumably the number of hand ball PKs is going to decline as players believe and internalize what is going to be called. (But, contrary to the messaging that came from IFAB, the new hand ball law is not going to make players feel more comfortable in defending without putting their hands behind their back--at least not outside SA.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Presumably the number of hand ball PKs is going to decline as players believe and internalize what is going to be called. (But, contrary to the messaging that came from IFAB, the new hand ball law is not going to make players feel more comfortable in defending without putting their hands behind their back--at least not outside SA.)
My thoughts exactly. This will be the time line
  1. New laws in play
  2. More handball penalties (we are here)
  3. Players understand the new interpretation
  4. Number of defenders running in PA with hands behind their back increase
  5. The number of handball penalties decrease
Around that point, recently We have had many examples of "I don't like it but following the wording of law this is handball". What if a player is running with hands behind their back, hasn't that made their back unnaturally bigger? What happens if the ball hits their hand while behind their back (without hitting their hand the ball would have gone past them clean)?
 
Law 12:
"the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)"

This is quite clearly not a penalty kick in law.
 
Law 12:
"the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)"

This is quite clearly not a penalty kick in law.
Congratulations on your psychic powers!

But then.....I suppose you knew I was going to say that....
 
Law 12:
"the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)"

This is quite clearly not a penalty kick in law.
Not under that clause but nothing to stop a referee making it a penalty kick under the one above that one.
"the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger"

the problem is in the interpretation of what is "unnaturally bigger". Players running/moving and using their arm as counter balance or players running/moving with their arm tied next to their body or behind their back?
 
Not under that clause but nothing to stop a referee making it a penalty kick under the one above that one.
"the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger"

the problem is in the interpretation of what is "unnaturally bigger". Players running/moving and using their arm as counter balance or players running/moving with their arm tied next to their body or behind their back?
True.

The law was changed so that referees no longer have to determine intent but they now have to determine whether an arm position is "natural" which is still subjective. This still leads to inconsistent decisions. Perhaps there should be a further clause stating that obviously accidental contact is never handball?
 
Perhaps there should be a further clause stating that obviously accidental contact is never handball?
Except that is clearly not true with the modifications and not what IFAB was establishing. An arm over the head can be obvious accidental but is still a handball--if you put your arm there, the risk is all on you, regardless of whether it is accidental. (And that's before we even get to the attacker handball offense.) "Deliberate" was always subjective and debatable in many cages, but I still think the effort to micro-define handball (which is a trend throughout the Laws for the past several years) was a mistake that hasn't made anything better. But I think it would be very hard to roll back.
 
Back
Top