Liverpool HB-PK (v Leeds)
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
If the ball hits the body/foot and rebounds to the arm/hand, the arm/hand must be away from the body (in the vast majority of cases). Therefore, this clause is completely masked/precluded by the text above and is therefore pointless
I'm hardly IFAB's number 1 fan, but even i can't envisage that this was what they intended, otherwise the scenario wouldn't have been added to the book
I'm hardly IFAB's number 1 fan, but even i can't envisage that this was what they intended, otherwise the scenario wouldn't have been added to the book
That's equivalent to the debate herein
IMO whenever the ball comes off the body/foot, it's a given that the arm/hand will be in what is tutored as an unnatural position or above shoulder height. At least 'above shoulder height' is incontrovertible, but it follows that the hand/arm is almost certain to be away from the body (unnatural position), if it is struck from the body. As it the dreadful Law stands, I'd rather it impacted on my observation than the outcome of my game. Know that I mean that
I appreciate the way you've worded this as it has helped me understand why it was given. Just to play devils advocate, what would have had to have happened for this not to be a pen? for the player to have deliberately have played the ball and it hit his arm?
Not arguing about either penalty. I can understand why they were given and have no argument about the decisions. I actually quite enjoyed Michael Oliver's low profile performance.
We had them rattled and I think we'll rattle a few more cages this season. Marching on together...
We had them rattled and I think we'll rattle a few more cages this season. Marching on together...
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I don't know how many points Leeds will get this season (I bet it's enough to keep them comfortably above relegation, but who knows??). But they will be highly entertaining to watch. That game looked like the final fight sequences in most of the "Rocky" movies. Crazy!
one
RefChat Addict
It's the position of the arm which makes it a pen. For it not to be a pen, his arm has to be in a position which does not make his body unnaturally bigger.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
"Unnaturally bigger" is just rubbish. A game worth billions. And this is the best they could do. Really?
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
While I don't agree with it, this effort by FIFA is attempting to remove as much subjectivity from handling as it can. I've seen this in the National Football League, where the league attempted to add all kinds of qualifiers and language to make the definition of a catch objective. It has gone over about as well as the handling laws have in soccer. There have been some very high-profile plays where a receiver has appeared to make a catch by the reasoned eye, but the rules have required the officials to call it an incomplete pass. In other words, the officials called it exactly as the NFL rulemakers wanted them to call it. However, the optics were it was a bad call.
What FIFA is trying (and failing) to do is get to the point where all referees will call a play like this the same way. It is trying to remove some of the "in the opinion of the referee" out of the Laws of the Game.
In this case, regardless of "old/subjective" or "new/letter of the law" laws, this is handling for me. The arm is outstretched. I could use the "I know it when I see it" ruling or the current FIFA laws, and my call is the same (in the opinion of this referee, of course!
).socal lurker
RefChat Addict
The idea behind unnaturally bigger is that players deliberately put their arms in positions that make it likely they will "happen to be" hit with the ball. That is what unnatrually bigger has been about for long before it became a part of the Laws--it was a way of explaining a certain type of very sneaky deliberate handling. Since it's (in the eyes of IFAB) really a deliberate attempt to cheat, it doesn't matter if it deflects off the player or another player, as the arm was there to gain an unfair advantage.
Above the shoulder is a sightly different concept, which i believes derives from the "taking a risk" concept that was in some of the teaching videos before the *******ization of, er, rewrite of Law 12' s handling clause, and I think it was largely aimed at players sliding in front of shots/crosses. But it isn't aimed at sneaky offenses, but a percieved unfairness of the arm above the player blocking a cross (and an awareness that in some situations the arm being above the shoulder is the natural position for the arm. Therefore, the deliberate play by the player does defeat the offense.
I think those are the concepts that got us into the current muddle. And I think the realization that they aren't perfect is what led to the initial "usually" nonsense--but "usually" doesn't help to define anything.
I'm in the camp of "takes us back to deliberate ITOOTR"--but that just isn't going to happen in a VAR world that pretends these are objective calls.
Above the shoulder is a sightly different concept, which i believes derives from the "taking a risk" concept that was in some of the teaching videos before the *******ization of, er, rewrite of Law 12' s handling clause, and I think it was largely aimed at players sliding in front of shots/crosses. But it isn't aimed at sneaky offenses, but a percieved unfairness of the arm above the player blocking a cross (and an awareness that in some situations the arm being above the shoulder is the natural position for the arm. Therefore, the deliberate play by the player does defeat the offense.
I think those are the concepts that got us into the current muddle. And I think the realization that they aren't perfect is what led to the initial "usually" nonsense--but "usually" doesn't help to define anything.
I'm in the camp of "takes us back to deliberate ITOOTR"--but that just isn't going to happen in a VAR world that pretends these are objective calls.
one
RefChat Addict
Once you have the word 'deliberate' in the offence name then subjectivity is built into the definition. IMO attempting to remove subjectivity the way they are is completely the wrong way to go about it. The foundation for defining this offence creates inconsistencies and no matter how many bandaids we put on it, it will continue to do so.
I have said this before, I think a better way is to redefine the offence altogether. Rather that assessing if it is deliberate, it should assess if the player had the ability to prevent it. And leave that assesment to the referee (ITOOTR). For example in the OP, the defender could have prevented it by not having his arm out like that knowing a shot is coming at his direction. It could have easily hit him directly on the arm without a deflection. The definition should stop defender from taking a chance and hope the ball doesn't hit their arm.
Whilst I don't know what the answer is, I am not sure this would stop any controversy.
I think if you ran a poll now and asked if this defender could have prevented the ball striking their arm, deflection or not, you would get a split of opinion.
I honestly don't think we will ever get consensus on handball, just like we don't with foul play, careless, reckless and excessive etc.
The only way to remove any consensus is to say any hand/arm contact is an offence, and remove all argument. Even then people will be unhappy but they wont be able to argue the outcome.
Whilst ever there are considerations or guidance to follow then these will always be interpreted differently and this forum will continue to hold healthy debates
Whilst our opinions differ somewhat on the detail, we seem to have unanimity in agreeing that the Law is a mess. I agree with @one that they need to tear the page out the book and re-write. IMO, the direction of travel which is spoiling the game, is that of desperately trying to turn an art into a science. I also generally agree that intent should not be a factor in determining HB (as we're not mind-readers); rather we should judge HB on a careless/avoidable/unavoidable basis
I maintain that's it's utterly pointless having the body/foot to hand/arm provision in the Law because this occurrence is a direct consequence of having the hand/arm in what IFAB term an 'unnatural position', which itself is usually an entirely natural action of balance (and so on)
I maintain that's it's utterly pointless having the body/foot to hand/arm provision in the Law because this occurrence is a direct consequence of having the hand/arm in what IFAB term an 'unnatural position', which itself is usually an entirely natural action of balance (and so on)
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
This is a good outline of handball -
Has quote from Rossetti suggesting the key point is whether the player merely blocks/deflects it onto their hand (offence) or deliberately plays it against their hand (no offence)
Has quote from Rossetti suggesting the key point is whether the player merely blocks/deflects it onto their hand (offence) or deliberately plays it against their hand (no offence)
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Ive read two pages on this (36 posts) and i still dont know if this was the correct call by the LOTG.
Very little doubt that there was anything wrong with this by current laws. Although it's very possible MO gave this without seeing the deflection, in which case it would be a touch more complex that he will have thought.
A huge chunk of the debate is getting mixed up with the fact that some feel this shouldn't be handball. But despite the initial confusion, I don't think there's much disputing this decision being correct in the end?
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Does anyone have a clip of this that will work in the US? After all the discussion, I'd love to see the play.
Re the refwatch opinion, if ITOOTR the arm was in an unnatural position making him bigger, then handling is absolutely the right call. If, however, ITOOTR, the arm was simply above the shoulder and the knee/ball was a deliberate play, then he would be off the hook.
Another nuance: is the play that forgives above the shoulder handling the same as the play by a defender that resets OS? Or do we have separate definitions for those?
(I hate the new HB rules . . .)
Re the refwatch opinion, if ITOOTR the arm was in an unnatural position making him bigger, then handling is absolutely the right call. If, however, ITOOTR, the arm was simply above the shoulder and the knee/ball was a deliberate play, then he would be off the hook.
Another nuance: is the play that forgives above the shoulder handling the same as the play by a defender that resets OS? Or do we have separate definitions for those?
(I hate the new HB rules . . .)