A&H

New Handball

The Referee Store
This new version scares me. Would we all say this are penalties on current laws with the exception of clip 1?
 
I can see no 3 being controversial not to give. The player was about to kick the ball. Search "player kicking football" in Google images. 10/10 images have at least one arm wide from the body. That's where the arm goes for balance. No 3 is handball in 20/21 but no handball in 21/22.

No 4 no handball in 21/22. He is about to fall, with or without the ball, that's where the arm would go. I prob won't give it under 20/21 either as supporting the body in a fall in not considered 'unnaturally bigger' in 20/21.
 
No 3 is handball in 20/21 but no handball in 21/22.
Agreed

No 4 no handball in 21/22. He is about to fall, with or without the ball, that's where the arm would go. I prob won't give it under 20/21 either as supporting the body in a fall in not considered 'unnaturally bigger' in 20/21.
Only thing with #4 for me is that at the point it hits the player's right arm, the arm is parallel to the ground, so I don't think it can qualify as "supporting the body" at that point. However, I've changed my mind on #4 - even under the current laws I wouldn't give it, as I think his jumping to block the free kick would count as a deliberate play of the ball, and the ball comes up off his foot onto his arms.
 
I have to be honest - I am starting to get a little bit confused about the HB rule.
 
I have to be honest - I am starting to get a little bit confused about the HB rule.

I think the 21-22 is the least confusing, as it goes mostly back to deliberate ITOOTR. Beyond that, the "biggering" emphasis is on the unnatural party of unnaturally bigger, and to ITOOTR as to whether the arms/hands were in a natural position for what the player was doing.

I see this as basically taking us back to where we were before they were monkeying around with everything, as we always interpreted arms that unnaturally made the player bigger as being deliberate because the player deliberately put the arms there for no legitimate reason.

(Though we still have the special attacker handball, but that is also now narrowed to the same player immediately scoring, which seems much more palatable, at least to me.)
 
I think the 21-22 is the least confusing, as it goes mostly back to deliberate ITOOTR. Beyond that, the "biggering" emphasis is on the unnatural party of unnaturally bigger, and to ITOOTR as to whether the arms/hands were in a natural position for what the player was doing.

I see this as basically taking us back to where we were before they were monkeying around with everything, as we always interpreted arms that unnaturally made the player bigger as being deliberate because the player deliberately put the arms there for no legitimate reason.

(Though we still have the special attacker handball, but that is also now narrowed to the same player immediately scoring, which seems much more palatable, at least to me.)
Agree. Strip everything off and just have 'unnatural position' as a consideration to help referees determine deliberateness. But we now have a definition or an explanation for what natural means. Even though it somewhat shifts the problem to the use of the word 'justifiable'. However that is not as debatable as 'unnatural'. Even you used the word 'legitimate' in the same context which one can debate on its meaning.

I think all the law is saying is that don't call handball every time the ball makes contact with the hand. It has to be deliberate. But also don't get conned by players who make it look not deliberate. And that was always the intent of this law.
 
Back
Top