Handball mess up

[Peter Grove]

Can someone fill me in.... I was lost after someone said other considerations are needed after you've judged whether it was deliberate OR NOT!!!

Too many posts on here for me to know who exactly you're referring to but I certainly didn't say (or mean to imply) that - my position is that the other considerations are to be used only in so far as they can help to arrive at the decision on whether it was deliberate or not. And that arm position may or may not be be all that helpful and certainly cannot be used in isolation.

 

[GraemeS]

I think where a lot of the confusion arises is that the laws have been crafted over the last twenty odd years to remove any attempts to read a player's mind and to judge only by outcomes. Hence in fouls we merely have to decide if the outcome was careless, reckless or excessive force, no need to ask if it was intentional. A purely accidental trip, if judged careless, is still a foul.

So too in handball: we are not asked if it was intentional at all...not even if it was deliberate....but rather if it was a deliberate ACT. In other words did the actual ACTION appear controlled by the player (rather than just an arm swinging in a natural position). We do NOT need to judge if the OUTCOME was intended.

So, in our OP, the player committed a deliberate act, with an unintended outcome - so it is a handling offence. If a player rushes in with two arms extended above his head, this is a deliberate act...handling. A player who is hit on the arm while merely running with arms moving...no offence.

Great post, very well put.

 

[one]

I think where a lot of the confusion arises is that the laws have been crafted over the last twenty odd years to remove any attempts to read a player's mind and to judge only by outcomes. Hence in fouls we merely have to decide if the outcome was careless, reckless or excessive force, no need to ask if it was intentional. A purely accidental trip, if judged careless, is still a foul.

So too in handball: we are not asked if it was intentional at all...not even if it was deliberate....but rather if it was a deliberate ACT. In other words did the actual ACTION appear controlled by the player (rather than just an arm swinging in a natural position). We do NOT need to judge if the OUTCOME was intended.

So, in our OP, the player committed a deliberate act, with an unintended outcome - so it is a handling offence. If a player rushes in with two arms extended above his head, this is a deliberate act...handling. A player who is hit on the arm while merely running with arms moving...no offence.

Also think very well put.
I can't help but notice you used some of the considerations to reach your conclusion

 

[JamesL]

I think where a lot of the confusion arises is that the laws have been crafted over the last twenty odd years to remove any attempts to read a player's mind and to judge only by outcomes. Hence in fouls we merely have to decide if the outcome was careless, reckless or excessive force, no need to ask if it was intentional. A purely accidental trip, if judged careless, is still a foul.

So too in handball: we are not asked if it was intentional at all...not even if it was deliberate....but rather if it was a deliberate ACT. In other words did the actual ACTION appear controlled by the player (rather than just an arm swinging in a natural position). We do NOT need to judge if the OUTCOME was intended.

So, in our OP, the player committed a deliberate act, with an unintended outcome - so it is a handling offence. If a player rushes in with two arms extended above his head, this is a deliberate act...handling. A player who is hit on the arm while merely running with arms moving...no offence.

Basically what i was trying to say. Just in one simple well constructed post
*doffs cap*