Make a decision

[zarathustra]

Yes. How else would you find out if the non-deliberate handball has created a GSO or has resulted in a goal.

What is in dispute/debate here is how long should you wait and how far can the distance be between the handball and where the GSO occurs or the goal is? Neither of which are addressed by LOTG or are very clear.

Not long enough for the defender to boot the ball down the other end of the pitch and for the attacker to get possession etc.

Maybe a second or two at most. I really don't think we need IFAB to spoon feed us every tiny piece of information, you are allowed to use commons sense sometimes

 

[Russell Jones]

Not long enough for the defender to boot the ball down the other end of the pitch and for the attacker to get possession etc.

Maybe a second or two at most. I really don't think we need IFAB to spoon feed us every tiny piece of information, you are allowed to use commons sense sometimes

I totally agree. Football is a complex game and the last thing I want is a 1,000 page law book trying to cover all eventualities. We are all well aware of the type of scenarios that the goal / goal scoring opportunity accidental handball law change was designed to prevent (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's a side issue!). The OP is not one of them.

 

[one]

Not long enough for the defender to boot the ball down the other end of the pitch and for the attacker to get possession etc.

Maybe a second or two at most. I really don't think we need IFAB to spoon feed us every tiny piece of information, you are allowed to use commons sense sometimes

Nothing about the OP or the incident in man City game is 'common'. I am certain any outcome anyone would offer is justified by 'their' commons sense. When it comes to grey areas, different ppl have different common sense.

Just look at the debates on here about handball and offside to see why somethings jcan't just be left to 'common sense'

 

[one]

So IFAB has said you can wait a few second for advantage. Why not apply it here as well? Wouldn't that be common sense?

 

[Kes]

In the OP case if you go according to the wording of the law, he handles, gains possession and created a goal scoring opportunity, so disallow the goal. But I won't be surprised if 'they' say it is within the spirit of the law to allow the goal again.

Let's say you did "disallow the goal". The problem then is that the restart has to be a penalty to the other team. Way too messy.

 

[one]

Let's say you did "disallow the goal". The problem then is that the restart has to be a penalty to the other team. Way too messy.

That is a problem then isn't it? And it highlights my point I had said I will cease for a while, too often IFAB introduces changes without thinking them through or be clear about them. Does the new goal kick ring a bell?

 

[zarathustra]

So IFAB has said you can wait a few second for advantage. Why not apply it here as well? Wouldn't that be common sense?

It would, and that's what I have been saying all along.

You cannot decide whether a player has gained possession or started/created a goal scoring opportunity from an accidental handball instantly, you have to watch how play develops.

But in this instance, if the referee hadn't waved away the handball they could have correctly blown up the minute the defender had enough control to boot it up field.

 

[one]

It would, and that's what I have been saying all along.

You cannot decide whether a player has gained possession or started/created a goal scoring opportunity from an accidental handball instantly, you have to watch how play develops.

But in this instance, if the referee hadn't waved away the handball they could have correctly blown up the minute the defender had enough control to boot it up field.

Oh but it's not determined on 'the minute they had control', if it was then you can never apply that law even if you want to in your cases (eg say that defender was close to or in the opponent penalty area). It's determined on the minute a goal scoring opportunity is created, which in OP is a few seconds at most, same time as advantage.

 

[zarathustra]

Oh but it's not determined on 'the minute they had control', if it was then you can never apply that law even if you want to in your cases (eg say that defender was close to or in the opponent penalty area). It's determined on the minute a goal scoring opportunity is created, which in OP is a few seconds at most, same time as advantage.

So, exactly what I said, you would need to wait for a few seconds to see how things develop.

In the OP it says the defender cleared the ball up the field, creating a goal scoring opportunity, immediately after you ruled out the hand ball.

 

[Russell Jones]

In the real world, if the ball accidentally hits a defender's hand / arm in the penalty area, all concerned will want / expect the referee to make a quick, clear and decisive call (for no penalty). Waiting a second or two to 'see what happens' is just not credible in this case. The idea that we would somehow penalise the defender (with a penalty) because his hoof upfield happened to result in a positive outcome is, IMO, ludicrous and in no way what the Law change was designed to achieve.

 

[Kes]

Has anybody said "It's what football expects" yet?

 

[socal lurker]

In the real world, if the ball accidentally hits a defender's hand / arm in the penalty area, all concerned will want / expect the referee to make a quick, clear and decisive call (for no penalty). Waiting a second or two to 'see what happens' is just not credible in this case. The idea that we would somehow penalise the defender (with a penalty) because his hoof upfield happened to result in a positive outcome is, IMO, ludicrous and in no way what the Law change was designed to achieve.

I think this thread stopped talking about the real world long ago...

 

[Ganajin]

... it highlights my point I had said I will cease for a while, too often IFAB introduces changes without thinking them through or be clear about them. Does the new goal kick ring a bell?

I would just like to say that I feel people are far too quick to blame IFAB for "ill thought out" Laws. Now I admit that occasionally they come up with a real clanger (Golden Goal?), but then you can't make Laws for 150+ years without that happening sometimes. In general they do a very good job of tweaking and updating the Laws. Of course sometimes very unexpected consequences arise, and this gets dealt with the following year. This happens in just about every sport in the world. More than that, look at Laws made by Parliaments all over the earth....again and again exceptions appear that have to be adjudicated in the courts. Even if hundreds of experts discuss something for years, once they release it into the world then millions of people can examine it and find all sorts of flaws.

Even simple obvious things seem to cause problems. There was a whole thread on here recently discussing the new set of choices from the coin toss. How people could find problems with this concept amazed me, but put enough different minds on any problem and this will always happen. So by all means point out problems and inconsistencies in the Laws...just stop expecting the IFAB to be capable of doing something that has defeated rulemakers all over the Globe for thousands of years.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

When you say simplify?

 

[JH]

Award the goal. If you're going to punish the HB with a penalty here you are:
A. Going against the spirit and intention of the law
B. Asking for a riot

 

[The Referee]

I would just like to say that I feel people are far too quick to blame IFAB for "ill thought out" Laws. Now I admit that occasionally they come up with a real clanger (Golden Goal?), but then you can't make Laws for 150+ years without that happening sometimes. In general they do a very good job of tweaking and updating the Laws. Of course sometimes very unexpected consequences arise, and this gets dealt with the following year. This happens in just about every sport in the world. More than that, look at Laws made by Parliaments all over the earth....again and again exceptions appear that have to be adjudicated in the courts. Even if hundreds of experts discuss something for years, once they release it into the world then millions of people can examine it and find all sorts of flaws.

Even simple obvious things seem to cause problems. There was a whole thread on here recently discussing the new set of choices from the coin toss. How people could find problems with this concept amazed me, but put enough different minds on any problem and this will always happen. So by all means point out problems and inconsistencies in the Laws...just stop expecting the IFAB to be capable of doing something that has defeated rulemakers all over the Globe for thousands of years.

It's not difficult to consult the public on the wording of new laws before changing them; would solve a lot of problems.

 

[The Referee]

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

--

Note that the actual hand/arm-ball contact is not an offense - doing this and THEN creating a goal scoring opportunity is the offense. A free kick should be awarded where the goal-scoring opportunity is created, not where the hand-ball contact occurred; this will not be in the team's penalty area.

However, in reality, you'd play on..

 

[one]

I would just like to say that I feel people are far too quick to blame IFAB for "ill thought out" Laws. Now I admit that occasionally they come up with a real clanger (Golden Goal?), but then you can't make Laws for 150+ years without that happening sometimes. In general they do a very good job of tweaking and updating the Laws. Of course sometimes very unexpected consequences arise, and this gets dealt with the following year. This happens in just about every sport in the world. More than that, look at Laws made by Parliaments all over the earth....again and again exceptions appear that have to be adjudicated in the courts. Even if hundreds of experts discuss something for years, once they release it into the world then millions of people can examine it and find all sorts of flaws.

Even simple obvious things seem to cause problems. There was a whole thread on here recently discussing the new set of choices from the coin toss. How people could find problems with this concept amazed me, but put enough different minds on any problem and this will always happen. So by all means point out problems and inconsistencies in the Laws...just stop expecting the IFAB to be capable of doing something that has defeated rulemakers all over the Globe for thousands of years.

You do have a point. But seriously since when have we been using politicians as the benchmark for how to do something? They can't run a chook raffle... i mean Brexit... I mean chook raffle if their lives depended on it IFAB is funded by multi-billion dollar (FIFA I think) industry, possibly trillion if you think globally, you'd think they use best practices for change management. Proof of concept, pilots, retrospectives, lessons learned... I can keep going. There are dozens of proven methodologies, process driven, formulised practices out there that can be followed to avoid seeing similar issues over and over again. So for the sake of football, i hope the benchmark is those who get it right more frequently than polies.

Just this new handball law, barely a few weeks into the English season, we have the Man City incident when a goal was disallowed and the law says it should have stood, the OP where expectation is for the goal to be allowed but the law says should be disallowed, highlighting two obvious errors in the law. One would think if better processes/practices were followed in writing the laws, we would have a lot less occasions when we need to fix things up after they are released.

 

[one]

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

--

Note that the actual hand/arm-ball contact is not an offense - doing this and THEN creating a goal scoring opportunity is the offense. A free kick should be awarded where the goal-scoring opportunity is created, not where the hand-ball contact occurred; this will not be in the team's penalty area.

However, in reality, you'd play on..

I think you are misreading this. "It is an offence if a player: gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm..." the rest are just additional conditions to be satisfied. It is the touching of the ball which is the offence (or to be precise the gaining possession/control) . The free kick is where the offence occurs.

(Edited after seeing JL's post to make more accurate )

 

[JamesL]

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

--

Note that the actual hand/arm-ball contact is not an offense - doing this and THEN creating a goal scoring opportunity is the offense. A free kick should be awarded where the goal-scoring opportunity is created, not where the hand-ball contact occurred; this will not be in the team's penalty area.

However, in reality, you'd play on..

Deliberate hand ball remains an offence irrespective of what happens next.

It is non deliberate handballs that become offences when the player gains control/posession and then scores in the opponent's goal/ or creates a goal scoring opportunity.