RefSix

Liverpool HB-PK (v Leeds)

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Can someone tell me why nobody seems to be questioning the HB-PK awarded to Liverpool? The ball strikes the defenders knee, at speed, from not that far away; and ricochets onto the hand. Why did VAR not intervene to bring it to the attn. of Michael Oliver that he'd misapplied specific Law?

Commentators saying, 'oh yeh, that's HB because it came off the player and onto his arm'.... which is an exact contradiction of the Law
What am I missing??
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Can someone tell me why nobody seems to be questioning the HB-PK awarded to Liverpool? The ball strikes the defenders knee, at speed, from not that far away; and ricochets onto the hand. Why did VAR not intervene to bring it to the attn. of Michael Oliver that he'd misapplied specific Law?

Commentators saying, 'oh yeh, that's HB because it came off the player and onto his arm'.... which is an exact contradiction of the Law
What am I missing??
You are missing the fact that they have chopped and changed it so much and it is still so bad that no one knows how to apply it any more.

But with the wording now, if the hand has made them unnaturally bigger, the fact that it has come off the knee has no bearing on the decision.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
The laws in this instance are all considerations, it's is usually/not usually an offence if...
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Might as well decide the game on the toss of a coin if that's now a PK. Just pure chance. .. no reflection of footballing ability, no account of 'careless'...
just utter tosh
Also would've been a different kettle'o'fish if it happened up tother end (the inquest that is, or absence of it)
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
The laws in this instance are all considerations, it's is usually/not usually an offence if...
Nope. They have took usually/unusually out now so it is now is and is not an offence.

Can someone tell me why nobody seems to be questioning the HB-PK awarded to Liverpool? The ball strikes the defenders knee, at speed, from not that far away; and ricochets onto the hand. Why did VAR not intervene to bring it to the attn. of Michael Oliver that he'd misapplied specific Law?

Commentators saying, 'oh yeh, that's HB because it came off the player and onto his arm'.... which is an exact contradiction of the Law
What am I missing??


This is a handball offence as the outstretched arm is making the body unnaturally bigger.
The bit you are referring to falls under the except for the above offences, so as the above offence ie made the body unnaturally bigger we stop there and forget the rest.
 

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Handling the ball It is an offence if a player: deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: scores in the opponents’ goal creates a goal-scoring opportunity scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper It is usually an offence if a player: touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm) The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close. Except for the above offences, it is not usually 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 The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.

It's in there @JamesL

I may be referencing old laws mind...app says 19/20 laws. I checked them before posting origibally!
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
Might as well decide the game on the toss of a coin if that's now a PK. Just pure chance. .. no reflection of footballing ability, no account of 'careless'...
just utter tosh
Also would've been a different kettle'o'fish if it happened up tother end (the inquest that is, or absence of it)
I think that was always a PK. It's just now a PK in a round about way.

@es1 are looking at the laws for the right year?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Handling the ball It is an offence if a player: deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: scores in the opponents’ goal creates a goal-scoring opportunity scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper It is usually an offence if a player: touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm) The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close. Except for the above offences, it is not usually 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 The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.

It's in there @JamesL

I may be referencing old laws mind...app says 19/20 laws. I checked them before posting origibally!
You need to skip forward a year ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
I think that was always a PK. It's just now a PK in a round about way.

@es1 are looking at the laws for the right year?
It's only a PK because FIFA/UEFA referees are seemingly guided to apply Law that doesn't exist yet... and still doesn't exist
The EPL referees have tried to stick to the HB Law as it's written in pigeon English in the book, but this incident may indicate that they too are now following suit
Maybe this all boils down to that anxiety that the game would never take-off in the U.S. with frequent low scoring games. So the solution (motivated out of $$$) has been to force more goals into the game, often from the penalty spot). Of course that cynicism might be off the mark, but why else would FIFA/IFAB want games decided by pure luck?
I just hope @Mintyref doesn't watch Match of the Day
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It's only a PK because FIFA/UEFA referees are seemingly guided to apply Law that doesn't exist yet... and still doesn't exist
The EPL referees have tried to stick to the HB Law as it's written in pigeon English in the book, but this incident may indicate that they too are now following suit
Maybe this all boils down to that anxiety that the game would never take-off in the U.S. with frequent low scoring games. So the solution (motivated out of $$$) has been to force more goals into the game, often from the penalty spot). Of course that cynicism might be off the mark, but why else would FIFA/IFAB want games decided by pure luck?
I just hope @Mintyref doesn't watch Match of the Day
Whilst I agree this doesn't feel like and old school handball I don't see how, as the new law is written, you don't think this is an offence.
 

bester

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
So having your arms above your head is not always considered unnaturally bigger but it still can be an offence anyway?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Whilst I agree this doesn't feel like and old school handball I don't see how, as the new law is written, you don't think this is an offence.
Except for the above offences (none of which apply), 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)

Clear enough?
So having your arms above your head is not always considered unnaturally bigger but it still can be an offence anyway?
Nobody had any hands above the body, nor was the player's body made bigger to block the ball, as he actually blocked it with his knee
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
His arm is practically horizontal though and well away from his 'natural silhouette'
I'd emphatically agree if the ball hit his hand directly from the shot. but it's out wide to balance in the process of blocking with the knee. Unnaturally bigger doesn't apply because the shot was not blocked with the hand/arm
Jeez, what a mess the game is in
 
Last edited:

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Except for the above offences (none of which apply), 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)

Clear enough?

Nobody had any hands above the body, nor was the player's body made bigger to block the ball, as he actually blocked it with his knee
None of which apply? Except the arm making the body unnaturally bigger AND extended beyond the shoulder, and not deliberately played (the two 'is an offence' that over rule any of the not offences) but we ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative?

I happen to agree with you in that I hate that this is a handball offence, but the law is very clear, hand or arm making the body unnaturally bigger/extended beyond the shoulder = offence. By extending the arm the player is taking a risk, the fact it ricocheted off of his body is neither here nor there when making this decision because of the position of the arm. Whether we agree that it should be an offence is another matter, but as it is written this is as clear as they come.
 
Last edited:

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
A fairly clear cut penalty I think - hand/arm has made the body unnaturally bigger.

I think we're going to see more penalties given for handball in PL this season than we've been used to.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Except the arm making the body unnaturally bigger AND extended beyond the shoulder
Above the shoulder is irrelevant (and is black & white in its determination)
'Unnaturally bigger'... what the hell does that mean? The player cannot block the ball with his knee, if he's in a straight jacket. If the ball hit his hand in that position direct from the kick, then tough luck, careless, unnaturally bigger, whatever, I easily live with the interpretation
But, there is no point having this statement in the Law;
Except for the above offences (none of which apply), 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)

when it is masked or precluded by a clause above which will inevitably involve 'unnaturally bigger' because the last thing the player is intending is a handling offence (the arms will be in an extended position to facilitate playing the ball with the body, head, foot, knee and so on)

Not having a go at you James, obviously, but it's this sheer nonsense and direction the game is headed, which makes me think about the golf course
 
Last edited:

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Like @one said, they've messed about with this so much. They can't have intended this outcome from this incident
Surely, IFAB do not want PKs to be awarded for an 'Act of God'. Surely IFAB weren't stupid enough to have intended this. Surely, the ball to hand from body|foot was intended to achieve the opposite... i.e. to indicate that this is an accidental play and not an offence. Surely, they've just messed up the wording by continual tweaking
 

onthebrink

Well-Known Member
I don't see anything in the LOTG to support the argument that it should be a penalty if it hit the hand directly but not if it gets deflected in that situation.

Who knows what IFAB intended although given recent law changes and the fact the Premier League have seemingly been told to fall into line with the rest of the world on this, I think they probably want this given as a penalty.
 
Top