The Ref Stop

Handball mess up

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

one said:
Using an example here to bring in the element of 'risk'.

A defender under absolutely no pressure is trying to chest a long ball in his own PA. He does so with his arms well wide of his body. He misreads the flight of the ball and the ball clearly strike his arm. Everyone expects a pen and a pen is the correct decision. Leaving the considerations aside for the moment, this is not "a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm." He has no reason to do this deliberately and give a penalty away. But he took an unnecessary risk and he is paying the price. In this case the "unnatural position" consideration is what determines the deliberateness of the act.

The OP is not as clear cut as my example and its a case of YHTBT. But from the description the considerations that I would use to make the decision is:
Does the player attempt to avoid the ball striking his hand/arm?
Is the hand/arm moving towards the ball or is the ball moving towards the hand/arm?
Click to expand...
You sound like a safety officer!
Since when did the laws consider risk?
This I'd expect from players.
It's all about deliberate handling of the ball, either you think it was or in this case think it was not.
I wasn't there, only the referee's opinion matters.
 
The Ref Stop
Peter Grove said:
I don't see how you can say that this was not "a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm" and then go on to say it is a handling offence. That is an absolute requirement for it to be an offence. You seem to be arguing that because of the secondary consideration of a player taking a risk (which incidentally, is nowhere to be found in the Laws of the Game) you are going to ignore the primary requirement of the Law.

If you want to say that because of the way the player has deliberately taken a risk that has led to the hand/arm contacting the ball, this means it was a deliberate act according to the meaning of the law, that is one thing - but to say that something was not a deliberate act but that you're going to penalise it anyway, is just plain wrong, in my opinion.

This is akin to the argument that I sometimes see (and also disagree with) that because of an unnatural arm position alone, there is a handling offence. To me, this is totally wrong-headed thinking. The primary and absolutely inescapable requirement is that it has to be a deliberate act of using the hand or arm. All other considerations (ball to hand/hand to ball, arm position, unexpected ball etc) are only meant to be used as secondary tools in helping the referee decide whether the primary requirement was met.

It's somewhat akin to saying you're going to ignore offside position and decide on an offside offence based solely on whether the player became involved in active play. You can't just ignore the first requirement and only judge based on a secondary consideration.

Edit: Sorry, I see that you did also say that you would use arm position to judge the deliberateness of the act, which is what I was talking about. Still, to say it wasn't a deliberate act but it is an offence is the main thing I was objecting to.
Click to expand...
The reason I mentioned the risk element is from the player’s point of view. It has no bearing on my decision. I clearly stated I will use the given considerations to make my decision.

Putting a part of my example in quotes seemed to have the opposite effect to what I meant.

There are many cases a term in the LAW does not have exactly the same meaning to that used in everyday language. “Interfering with…” or “gaining and advantage…” are good examples. In these cases the law defines or gives guideline on how to interpret the term.

The deliberateness of handball is one of those. What I was getting at is that in my example, the act is not considered deliberate in everyday language terms but it is according to the guidelines/considerations we are given.

In the case of the OP, again it is unlikely to be a deliberate act using the everyday meaning of deliberate but is likely to be deliberate within the LOTG guidelines/considerations.
 
Mintyref said:
You sound like a safety officer!
Since when did the laws consider risk?
This I'd expect from players.
It's all about deliberate handling of the ball, either you think it was or in this case think it was not.
I wasn't there, only the referee's opinion matters.
Click to expand...
See post above.
 
Mintyref said:
It still fails at the first hurdle, you said it was not deliberate......ergo all other considerations are off
Click to expand...
I thought I qualified that with my second post. It was not deliberate in the everyday meaning of the word 'deliberate". It was deliberate withing the lotg guidelines ("unnatural position").
Let me put it this way. Did he mean it, NO. Does the lotg (football) want that to be a pen for deliberate handball, YES.
 
This is one area of law where there will always be inconsistencies between games and different referees. I rarely penalise for handball, as i believe, rightly or wrongly, that the player has to intentionally handle it. As an example, had one yesterday where the player went to control the ball, made a mess of it, and it bounced up onto his outstretched arm. His arm was there for balance, not because he intentionally miss controlled the ball, so I played on. Some players moaned, but I just explained that it was accidental. Others I have no doubt would have penalised because they felt the arm was in an unnatural position. Who is right, who is wrong, there probably is no answer to that.

The key thing is that each individual referee is consistent with his or her's own decisions.
 
I work on the basis that very few players would intentionally handle the ball. Other than to cheat a bit by controlling it, or a defender taking one for the team at say a through ball that he is getting nowhere near, my thought process is ,"why would he handle that"?""
I agree with above, I tend to shout out "accidental" at most appeals, that way am acknowledging I have seen what the shouts are for, but am choosing not to penalise it. And yes as per above also, you really want each team to "have one" and you can treat them both the same. At grass roots, unnatural positon stuff does not do a lot for me, its different on tv when you can slow it down over and over again, but dealing with Sunday League these guys are not trained athletes, they are postman and counter staff competing for a bag of air, it is at times going to end up hitting random body parts, bear in mind too, skill level lower, ball will bounce up when they try to control it and so on...
 
Rusty and Ciley are right the position of the hand is not a consideration. It says so specifically.
And of course it is always ITOOTR.
I also agree with one is also right about the different meanings in the lotg vs everyday use of words.
In respect of the OP he fails two of he main criteria which was the distance between ball and player and then movement of hand towards the ball. For me this is where it becomes a deliberate act of making contact with hand/arm.
Thinking about whether a player meant something for me puts us on a very slippery path of being conned by players.
I get totally understand that skill level is a consideration and do similar to ciley shouting not deliberate or accidental when that is the case. But if a player willingly moves his arm towards the ball and gets it wrong then that for me will be penalised on my pitch
 
Perhaps I didnt meant to be as cut and dry as no consideration at all :). Although the two documents are almost contradictory. There are many people who take up refereeing who will never look at things as in depth as some of us might on here i.e. what you have just produced. Very easy to read that throw away line in the actual lotg and not consider the position ever. I think the over riding feeling I get from the lotg statement is that just because the arm is in an unnatural position does not automatically mean it's handball which is what we hear about on the tele all the time. There needs to be a consideration of multiple factors and in some cases a combination of considerations before we can consider it an offence.
I think ifab are missing trick not including info like this in the practical guidelines.
 
one said:
I thought I qualified that with my second post. It was not deliberate in the everyday meaning of the word 'deliberate". It was deliberate withing the lotg guidelines ("unnatural position").
Let me put it this way. Did he mean it, NO. Does the lotg (football) want that to be a pen for deliberate handball, YES.
Click to expand...
Never mind the additional guidance, the law requires it to be deliberate, it was not in the opinion of the referee, I happen to agree with him. You do not because you focus on irrelevance.......that's your opinion and entitlement
 
Mintyref said:
Never mind the additional guidance,
Click to expand...
If you choose to ignore them that is your prerogative. I use them because they help me understand the intent of the law.

Mintyref said:
the law requires it to be deliberate, it was not in the opinion of the referee
Click to expand...
That is fine as long as he/she concluded that after interpreting the law correctly. I accept that it is very subjective.

Mintyref said:
You do not because you focus on irrelevance
Click to expand...
Ouch. I beg to differ. I will reverse this view. You are not looking at the very relevant points within considerations which prove that the word deliberate is not used in the same context in "deliberate handball" as it is in its every day dictionary meaning use. Guidelines/considerations and the example I gave stress this point.

I can see that we are never going to agree on this.
 
Both the Laws of the Game and the FIFA list only say that the referee should consider arm position. Neither of them says that an unnatural arm position is to be used as the overriding decisive factor. Arm position may be a consideration but it is not the primary one. The primary consideration is whether it was the deliberate act of a player using the hand/arm to contact the ball. Arm position is just one of several (LotG) or many (FIFA) factors to consider in trying to decide whether the player has committed a deliberate handling offence. It cannot be taken on its own or used as the sole basis for the decision, it is only to be used as a tool to aid in decision-making and as the LotG clearly states, while it is to be considered, it does not necessarily mean there is an offence.
 
one said:
If you choose to ignore them that is your prerogative. I use them because they help me understand the intent of the law.

That is fine as long as he/she concluded that after interpreting the law correctly. I accept that it is very subjective.

Ouch. I beg to differ. I will reverse this view. You are not looking at the very relevant points within considerations which prove that the word deliberate is not used in the same context in "deliberate handball" as it is in its every day dictionary meaning use. Guidelines/considerations and the example I gave stress this point.

I can see that we are never going to agree on this.
Click to expand...

Peter Grove said:
Both the Laws of the Game and the FIFA list only say that the referee should consider arm position. Neither of them says that an unnatural arm position is to be used as the overriding decisive factor. Arm position may be a consideration but it is not the primary one. The primary consideration is whether it was the deliberate act of a player using the hand/arm to contact the ball. Arm position is just one of several (LotG) or many (FIFA) factors to consider in trying to decide whether the player has committed a deliberate handling offence. It cannot be taken on its own or used as the sole basis for the decision, it is only to be used as a tool to aid in decision-making and as the LotG clearly states, while it is to be considered, it does not necessarily mean there is an offence.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree we will agree to differ.
Thanks for that moment of clarity PG, deliberate or not has to be your primary focus.
 
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!!!
 
You move your shoulder towards the ball, mistime that and strike it with your arm instead, that's a clear handball. He's made a deliberate action of the arm towards the ball, this is a foul.

'Deliberate' doesn't mean 'player sat down, thought hard about it and made a conscious decision to so something stupid that makes no sense'. There is a deviation between the 'street' meaning of the word and the 'LOTG' meaning, as is the case with a few terms used.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
Ok I'll bite.

Peter Grove said:
Both the Laws of the Game and the FIFA list only say that the referee should consider arm position. Neither of them says that an unnatural arm position is to be used as the overriding decisive factor. Arm position may be a consideration but it is not the primary one. The primary consideration is whether it was the deliberate act of a player using the hand/arm to contact the ball. Arm position is just one of several (LotG) or many (FIFA) factors to consider in trying to decide whether the player has committed a deliberate handling offence. It cannot be taken on its own or used as the sole basis for the decision, it is only to be used as a tool to aid in decision-making and as the LotG clearly states, while it is to be considered, it does not necessarily mean there is an offence.
Click to expand...
I’ll go much more than deliberateness being a primary consideration, it’s the determination. It’s the basic law. Once you have determined its deliberate it’s an offence. But here is the caveat, you must determine the deliberateness within the context of the law and guidelines provided, not what you think deliberate means and stop at that.

In a case of handball, to say that its deliberate (common meaning) so I won’t need to look further is akin to saying in a case of offside, he gained an advantage (common meaning) so I won’t look any further.

In offside you must look at what gaining an advantage means in the context of the law. Similarly in handball you must look at what deliberate means in the context of the law.

And I agree that you can't look at one consideration in isolation. You have to consider all consideration and then make a determination on deliberateness.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top