Handball in leadup to goal

[tomh]

Hi, in my game today no. 9 accidentally handballed just outside box- As he received the ball it brushed his arm (which was by his body in a natural position) he then took two touches and scored. No appeal and I allowed the goal. I think I was wrong and I should have disallowed it. Annoyed with myself (but thankfully it was goal 4 in a 6-0 win so the stakes were fairly low.) My question is this though...
Law 12 says:
It is an offence if a player:
...

• scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

My question is what do we think constitutes 'immediately'?
I think mine should have been disallowed today as a couple of touches still probably falls into the 'immediately' category but what if the scorer accidentally handball and then takes 8 touches before scoring, are we pulling it back then? Anyone know of any guidance on this?

 

[Russell Jones]

There are a number of situations where we are asked to use our judgement to decide on what is 'immediate'. This is one of them. And there is no guidance to us on what constitutes immediate. From my reading of your post, this sounds like a situation which could legitimately be called either way. If there were no appeals, then, IMO, you called it the correct way on this occasion

 

[socal lurker]

While certainly not written into Law, I think in deciding how long immediate is, we should consider the actual arm/hand contact and whether it enabled the player to have a scoring opportunity. If the HB stopped the ball and created the scoring chance, I’m going to have a longer view of immediate than if it brushed and didn’t change the direction of the ball. As I picture what is described in the OP, I’m not considering it immediate, and I’m allowing the goal. (But I’m not criticizing a ref who reached a different conclusion.)

 

[santa sangria]

While certainly not written into Law, I think in deciding how long immediate is, we should consider the actual arm/hand contact and whether it enabled the player to have a scoring opportunity. If the HB stopped the ball and created the scoring chance, I’m going to have a longer view of immediate than if it brushed and didn’t change the direction of the ball. As I picture what is described in the OP, I’m not considering it immediate, and I’m allowing the goal. (But I’m not criticizing a ref who reached a different conclusion.)

I like the answer.

However, I’m more likely to be proactive here. If there’s an attacking ball-to-hand with the possibility of scoring, my handball offence-ometer swings and I will blow already if I can.

And if it is a thousand percent accidental - especially at grassroots - I think a few touches is still immediate - and a goal will result in IDFK - to avoid a riot!

This is an incredibly difficult judgement to have to make though. (Different sport - but in futsal there is more focus on this as immediate can be in own box and things happen so much quicker…)

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Immediately means without delay, so if following the contact the attacker next tries to score and succeeds then it should be pulled back. Two touches sounds like an attacker trying to shoot immediately rather than waiting/looking for other options.

 

[OldNavyRef]

You definitely choose the path of least resistance hahaa

You'd of been explaining it to the lads for 5mins.

But absolutely no criticism from me as the guidance sucks. But I agree with @CaptainsPlease but I would also think time also. Like you mention 2 touches. If these were giant Bale sprinting down the wing touches, or was it just the player as quickly as possible getting the ball under control and letting a shot off.

 

[one]

While certainly not written into Law, I think in deciding how long immediate is, we should consider the actual arm/hand contact and whether it enabled the player to have a scoring opportunity. If the HB stopped the ball and created the scoring chance, I’m going to have a longer view of immediate than if it brushed and didn’t change the direction of the ball. As I picture what is described in the OP, I’m not considering it immediate, and I’m allowing the goal. (But I’m not criticizing a ref who reached a different conclusion.)

This sits well with me.

There has been some recent discussion around "what football expects" and when to use it. The laws don't define what immediately means, but also say when the laws don't cover it, use "what football expect". In the case of OP, football, or at least it sounds like football on that field expected the goal to be allowed and it was.

 

[Russell Jones]

I like the answer.

However, I’m more likely to be proactive here. If there’s an attacking ball-to-hand with the possibility of scoring, my handball offence-ometer swings and I will blow already if I can.

And if it is a thousand percent accidental - especially at grassroots - I think a few touches is still immediate - and a goal will result in IDFK - to avoid a riot!

This is an incredibly difficult judgement to have to make though. (Different sport - but in futsal there is more focus on this as immediate can be in own box and things happen so much quicker…)

Hmmm. If you blow for an accidental HB before a goal is scored, then at that point no offence has been committed ....

 

[santa sangria]

Hmmm. If you blow for an accidental HB before a goal is scored, then at that point no offence has been committed ....

(as you know) I’m talking more about interpreting e.g. was it justifiable etc etc… for an attacker in the box, any handbal with arm away from the body is easy to whistle - and I would suggest you take a very harsh (UEFA-esque) line.

 

[Russell Jones]

(as you know) I’m talking more about interpreting e.g. was it justifiable etc etc… for an attacker in the box, any handbal with arm away from the body is easy to whistle - and I would suggest you take a very harsh (UEFA-esque) line.

I can see why this could easily be interpreted as 'safe refereeing'. However, for better or worse, I'm an ardent believer that we should (all) be enforcing the handball law exactly as written. Leaving aside the accidental handball --> goal scenario, only penalising players for handball when they have actually done something wrong seems inherently fair and reasonable to me. As for 'arm away from body', the reality is that the vast majority of commonplace playing movements (running, kicking, turning, jumping etc) involve players having their arms away from their body perfectly naturally. IMO the footballing world would be a better place if referees top to bottom and far and wide had the cojones to turn down the incessant appeals that occur for handball offences EVERY time accidental contact between ball and hand/arm occurs.
Rant over

 

[santa sangria]

I can see why this could easily be interpreted as 'safe refereeing'. However, for better or worse, I'm an ardent believer that we should (all) be enforcing the handball law exactly as written. Leaving aside the accidental handball --> goal scenario, only penalising players for handball when they have actually done something wrong seems inherently fair and reasonable to me. As for 'arm away from body', the reality is that the vast majority of commonplace playing movements (running, kicking, turning, jumping etc) involve players having their arms away from their body perfectly naturally. IMO the footballing world would be a better place if referees top to bottom and far and wide had the cojones to turn down the incessant appeals that occur for handball offences EVERY time accidental contact between ball and hand/arm occurs.
Rant over

Love the sentiment - but I don’t think anyone enforces handball as written. I’ve sat through the UEFA guidance and their interpretation is insanely harsh, unenforceable and unenforced. The law is so poorly conceived and the concepts so vague - one of the few positives is that we have massive scope to “interpret” and make proactive/smart decisions.

 

[Russell Jones]

Love the sentiment - but I don’t think anyone enforces handball as written. I’ve sat through the UEFA guidance and their interpretation is insanely harsh, unenforceable and unenforced. The law is so poorly conceived and the concepts so vague - one of the few positives is that we have massive scope to “interpret” and make proactive/smart decisions.

The benefit of me being an RDO (in New Zealand and to some extent in England) is that I at least have the opportunity to (try and) ensure that the referees I influence are fully aware of the law and how (IMO) it should be applied . Personally, I see nothing 'ill conceived or vague' about the idea that in 90% of handball decisions, the referee simply needs to make one binary choice ... was the hand / arm in question in a natural position for what the player was doing? The problems start when we muddy the waters on this .. and especially when we ignore that the laws currently allow for players to gain almost any advantage from accidental contact between the ball and hand / arm

 

[Big Cat]

I can see why this could easily be interpreted as 'safe refereeing'. However, for better or worse, I'm an ardent believer that we should (all) be enforcing the handball law exactly as written. Leaving aside the accidental handball --> goal scenario, only penalising players for handball when they have actually done something wrong seems inherently fair and reasonable to me. As for 'arm away from body', the reality is that the vast majority of commonplace playing movements (running, kicking, turning, jumping etc) involve players having their arms away from their body perfectly naturally. IMO the footballing world would be a better place if referees top to bottom and far and wide had the cojones to turn down the incessant appeals that occur for handball offences EVERY time accidental contact between ball and hand/arm occurs.
Rant over

You've always been a believer in the way the HB Law is currently written. Unfortunately, it's been an utter failure. The Referees are almost certainly not to blame for this, rather it's the competing International expectations for HB and the constantly changing and inconsistent guidance R's are subjected to that's caused the calamity to continue. Another re-write won't improve things because the 'system' is broken