Penalties and cautions for deliberate handball

[puddles15]

In a couple of PL games this week (inc Utd at Wolves just now), a ‘deliberate’ handball is given as a penalty (fine), and a caution.

Just wanted to understand where the nuance is between a caution and dismissal in these instances - is it SPA if there’s other players in the way of the shot and DOGSO if there’s other isn’t?

 

[one]

We have discussed this multiple times here. Deliberately handling a goalbound ball, if not DOG, seems to be an automatic caution. Strictly this is not supported by law. My view is it doesn't fall under SPA as the shot is the end of a promissing attack so the handball is not realy stoping it. It's either going in (red) or it is not. If it is not, it possible a rebound can create a new promissing attack, but that is just guess work.

The nuance here is the notion that if it was going in I would have given you a red, but because I am not sure I'd just give you a yellow. It is an invented notion to sell the decision and football seems to just accept it.

For context, not too long ago most people believed every (blatantly) deliberate handball was a caution until the laws made it clear it is not.

 

[socal lurker]

I think the Laws anticipate the SPA caution. It’s stop or interfere with—handling a shot is certainly interfering with that promising attack. And the Laws also feel the need to expressly exempt non-deliberate in the PA from SPA. I don’t think this is invented, but is consistent with Law 12. But that certainly doesn’t mean every deliberate HB in the PA should be a SPA caution. And it may well be given more than it should be.

 

[one]

I think the Laws anticipate the SPA caution. It’s stop or interfere with—handling a shot is certainly interfering with that promising attack. And the Laws also feel the need to expressly exempt non-deliberate in the PA from SPA. I don’t think this is invented, but is consistent with Law 12. But that certainly doesn’t mean every deliberate HB in the PA should be a SPA caution. And it may well be given more than it should be.

IMO you are misappliying what "interferes with" is there for. If a foul is committed during a PA and there still exists a PA then the PA hand stopped the PA. If the referee stops the game, for whatever reason, then "interfers with" is the clause to use for a caution. In the context of the OP, once the shot has been taken, where it will end up is only a guess, unless the shot is actually pass to a teammate calling this interfering with a PA is technically incorrect. Happy to agree to disagree with is one.

Having siad that, as practiced now, cautioning a defender handball for a goalbound shot is treated as mandatory. I actually don't mind for this to be a mandatory yellow card, but the law has to be amended to support it.

 

[socal lurker]

IMO you are misappliying what "interferes with" is there for. If a foul is committed during a PA and there still exists a PA then the PA hand stopped the PA. If the referee stops the game, for whatever reason, then "interfers with" is the clause to use for a caution. In the context of the OP, once the shot has been taken, where it will end up is only a guess, unless the shot is actually pass to a teammate calling this interfering with a PA is technically incorrect. Happy to agree to disagree with is one.

Having siad that, as practiced now, cautioning a defender handball for a goalbound shot is treated as mandatory. I actually don't mind for this to be a mandatory yellow card, but the law has to be amended to support it.

See, the problem is you are assuming words mean what normal people think they mean, not what IFAB drafters mean! I totally agree it should be more clear, but I think IFAB thinks they have said it is a caution. (I also think that IFAB thinks they wrote clearly and have no need for a competent editor . . . )