By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The trouble is that the law rarely gets implemented as it is written. We've all seen handballs given that were clearly not deliberate. I suspect at least 8 out of 10 refs with a clear view of that incident last night would have given a free kick.
I also thought there was a foul on Carter-Vickers in the lead up for good measure.
Your 8 of 10 figure is just plucked out of the air.
I'd be the first to moan if we'd unfairly had a goal go against us, but looking at that again it would've been very soft to give a freekick for that. He's steadying himself and the ball's hit him.
Instead of complaining about the ref correctly adhering to the laws of the game, we should be asking how a player has managed to fall over, pick himself up again and still score.
There is also the other bit of the law about gaining an "unfair advantage" when the handball is accidental. That is why you see many whistles blown when the ball bounces up and hits a hand / arm which has given the attacker the advantage that cannot be allowed to continue. The law as stated above is not the complete picture.
Unfortunately I don't think there is any other relevant bit of the law (although you're welcome to put me right). I think the rationale behind the bit of Law 12 (as posted above) is that the act must, in the opinion of the referee, be "deliberate" in order to satisfy the definition of "handball". In other words, the referee has to ask him (or her) self: has the fact that the ball has made contact with the hand/arm arisen from A) a deliberate or B) non-deliberate (i.e. accidental) act? If A), then the referee must award a foul. If B), then play on.
Unfortunately the concept of "unfair advantage" doesn't come into it, certainly not in the current laws of the game.
Unfortunately I don't think there is any other relevant bit of the law (although you're welcome to put me right). I think the rationale behind the bit of Law 12 (as posted above) is that the act must, in the opinion of the referee, be "deliberate" in order to satisfy the definition of "handball". In other words, the referee has to ask him (or her) self: has the fact that the ball has made contact with the hand/arm arisen from A) a deliberate or B) non-deliberate (i.e. accidental) act? If A), then the referee must award a foul. If B), then play on.
Unfortunately the concept of "unfair advantage" doesn't come into it, certainly not in the current laws of the game.
There is also interpretation guidelines about unnatural positions of arms. The fact it hit both his hands whilst they were in the floor steadying himself to me, makes me think that there wouldn't have been any complaints had it been ruled out. Everyone seemed to stop from both sides as it was so obvious (bar Zohore)
There is also interpretation guidelines about unnatural positions of arms. The fact it hit both his hands whilst they were in the floor steadying himself to me, makes me think that there wouldn't have been any complaints had it been ruled out. Everyone seemed to stop from both sides as it was so obvious (bar Zohore)
The business about unnatural arm positions is entirely to do with evidence of "deliberateness".
It was not hand ball.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
There is also interpretation guidelines about unnatural positions of arms. The fact it hit both his hands whilst they were in the floor steadying himself to me, makes me think that there wouldn't have been any complaints had it been ruled out. Everyone seemed to stop from both sides as it was so obvious (bar Zohore)
You make a relevant point, however I think the fact that both hands were on the floor at the time that the ball hit actually helped the referee decide that the contact was accidental. Of the 5 factors that the referee must consider (in fact, only 2 are relevant to last night's incident), it is the first one, i.e. "hand to ball, not ball to hand" that is often turned to in borderline decisions. When you think about it, it is more difficult to move your hand towards the ball with the intention of touching the ball, when both of your hands are in contact with the ground at that time.
It isn't what is written in the laws that matters as much as the guidance notes issued to referees as to how the laws should be interpreted, this can change from one season to the next.
i have a relative who assess referee performance from the stands, might ask him fr his view.
Your 8 of 10 figure is just plucked out of the air.
I'd be the first to moan if we'd unfairly had a goal go against us, but looking at that again it would've been very soft to give a freekick for that. He's steadying himself and the ball's hit him.
Instead of complaining about the ref correctly adhering to the laws of the game, we should be asking how a player has managed to fall over, pick himself up again and still score.
A good question if you watch it you will see Skuse puts his hand in the air for the handball. The player was prone the ball pings between his arms, his head is naturally ahead of his arms any driven attempt to get the ball could have resulted in a head injury. Therefore, I think the referee should have given the benefit to the defending team especially as he fell over due to his own technique.
Your strict interpretation of the rule is correct of course, the difficulty comes in defining deliberate, easy when it's Maradona or Suarez much harder in many situations. This is why virtually all goal bound shots that hit the arm/hand are usually given as pens irrespective of whether it was deliberate or not, in fact I doubt many players can think and move that fast (for it to be deliberate), also crosses, when defenders have their arms up to provide balance most are given (Jordan Spence).
Interesting discussion here (especially regarding supplementary guidelines):
Your 8 of 10 figure is just plucked out of the air.
I'd be the first to moan if we'd unfairly had a goal go against us, but looking at that again it would've been very soft to give a freekick for that. He's steadying himself and the ball's hit him.
Instead of complaining about the ref correctly adhering to the laws of the game, we should be asking how a player has managed to fall over, pick himself up again and still score.
"Your 8 of 10 figure is just plucked out of the air. "
Well that and being a former referee (though not this level before you ask)! One of the mantras drummed into us as referees was "No surprises". I'd contend they'ed be fewer people who clearly saw that incident surprised to see that goal ruled out than not.
The free kick was a joke as well. Ref was a clown.
The ball "hit" both his hands. There was no attempt to control the ball with his hands. Surely it has to be deliberate for the ref to call it as hand ball?
"It was clearly handball, touched both his arms and gave him an advantage."
That's not the definition of the law though. It has to be deliberate. Why are some of you ignoring this? Samuel has posted it above.
I agree the ref was pretty bad most of the game but he applied the law correctly there.
I think it's because if that's true then there are plenty of referees who don't know the rule and tend to give handball purely in relation to where the arm is or whether it constitutes an advantage.
There was a great one a decade or so ago when Damien Duff (Newcastle or Fulham - can't remember?) was on the far-right side of the penalty box clearing an overhit cross from the left. He tried to knock it away with a first-time volley but the ball sliced off his foot and hit his arm which was in that outstretched kicking a ball position.
Couldn't have been less deliberate, and there wasn't even any imminent goal threat or attacker near him, yet the ref pointed to the spot immediately. I don't even remember a huge outcry from the players or the pundits or indeed any media analysis afterwards.
So the law may be clear but the "reality" of how handball is given seems to be even clearer.
I think it's because if that's true then there are plenty of referees who don't know the rule and tend to give handball purely in relation to where the arm is or whether it constitutes an advantage.
There was a great one a decade or so ago when Damien Duff (Newcastle or Fulham - can't remember?) was on the far-right side of the penalty box clearing an overhit cross from the left. He tried to knock it away with a first-time volley but the ball sliced off his foot and hit his arm which was in that outstretched kicking a ball position.
Couldn't have been less deliberate, and there wasn't even any imminent goal threat or attacker near him, yet the ref pointed to the spot immediately. I don't even remember a huge outcry from the players or the pundits or indeed any media analysis afterwards.
So the law may be clear but the "reality" of how handball is given seems to be even clearer.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2018 15:02]
Good post and this is the nub of the problem and why we are discussing it. How do you define a deliberate act in the split seconds of a football match?
I think it's because if that's true then there are plenty of referees who don't know the rule and tend to give handball purely in relation to where the arm is or whether it constitutes an advantage.
There was a great one a decade or so ago when Damien Duff (Newcastle or Fulham - can't remember?) was on the far-right side of the penalty box clearing an overhit cross from the left. He tried to knock it away with a first-time volley but the ball sliced off his foot and hit his arm which was in that outstretched kicking a ball position.
Couldn't have been less deliberate, and there wasn't even any imminent goal threat or attacker near him, yet the ref pointed to the spot immediately. I don't even remember a huge outcry from the players or the pundits or indeed any media analysis afterwards.
So the law may be clear but the "reality" of how handball is given seems to be even clearer.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2018 15:02]
That's absolutely right. If a player mishits the ball & it hits its own arm it could not be more obviously accidental. Referees do now seem to give far more penalties for accidental "handballs" & I don't know if that is down to direction from above or a cultural shift. While last night's incident was clearly accidental, I still think at least half of the current refs would have given it as handball. Especially it it had been a defender, who touched the ball with both arms before clearing it.
That's absolutely right. If a player mishits the ball & it hits its own arm it could not be more obviously accidental. Referees do now seem to give far more penalties for accidental "handballs" & I don't know if that is down to direction from above or a cultural shift. While last night's incident was clearly accidental, I still think at least half of the current refs would have given it as handball. Especially it it had been a defender, who touched the ball with both arms before clearing it.
If it has to be truly deliberate the only penalties ever given for handball would be those on the line when they make saves
If it has to be truly deliberate the only penalties ever given for handball would be those on the line when they make saves
No- because it is quite clear that spreading yourself to block a cross, therbey putting your arms in an unnatural position, amounts to deliberate. Similarly, moving the arm towards ball is generally seen as evidence of deliberateness.
Its not a difficult rule.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
No- because it is quite clear that spreading yourself to block a cross, therbey putting your arms in an unnatural position, amounts to deliberate. Similarly, moving the arm towards ball is generally seen as evidence of deliberateness.
Its not a difficult rule.
"Its not a difficult rule."
Must be why it's applied so consistently by professional refs then
You make a relevant point, however I think the fact that both hands were on the floor at the time that the ball hit actually helped the referee decide that the contact was accidental. Of the 5 factors that the referee must consider (in fact, only 2 are relevant to last night's incident), it is the first one, i.e. "hand to ball, not ball to hand" that is often turned to in borderline decisions. When you think about it, it is more difficult to move your hand towards the ball with the intention of touching the ball, when both of your hands are in contact with the ground at that time.
Or am I over-analysing this!
No, you're correct. That's exactly what I thought. He was holding himself up with his arms, he couldn't have moved them towards the ball if he had tried. But I still think many (the majority) of refs would have given it as handball.
No- because it is quite clear that spreading yourself to block a cross, therbey putting your arms in an unnatural position, amounts to deliberate. Similarly, moving the arm towards ball is generally seen as evidence of deliberateness.
Its not a difficult rule.
The difficult with the rule is motivation. Which is extremely hard to assess in the middle of a game like that.
Hence, I'd take out the reference to intention. If talented strikers or tricky wingers want to try deliberately targetting defenders' arms and succeed, I'd personally be happy for them to be rewarded with a free kick or penalty... ;-)
I'd also like to add this decision that I remember clearly feeling we were cheated by.
The quality of this is poor but the replay at the time showed the ball in was effectively a top-spinner on a bobbly, winter pitch that beat Osman with the bounce. Everton went on to win the Cup and we lost a chance to stem the decline after Robson.
The difficult with the rule is motivation. Which is extremely hard to assess in the middle of a game like that.
Hence, I'd take out the reference to intention. If talented strikers or tricky wingers want to try deliberately targetting defenders' arms and succeed, I'd personally be happy for them to be rewarded with a free kick or penalty... ;-)
Why should people be penalised for something entirely unintended?
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
No- because it is quite clear that spreading yourself to block a cross, therbey putting your arms in an unnatural position, amounts to deliberate. Similarly, moving the arm towards ball is generally seen as evidence of deliberateness.
Its not a difficult rule.
I agree it's not an unduly difficult rule to understand in terms of the written rule. However, it is difficult in terms of its implementation because it relies solely on the subjective nature of the referee's assessment of deliberateness, as you say. What one sees as deliberate, others might see otherwise. I think that must be the case judging by the number of posts in this thread, although, as I said in a previous post, I think the fact that the player had both hands on the ground at the time probably, sadly, swung the decision against us.
Looks like a legal goal to me, but if you disagree, what if , say, Chambers in the same position but in his own penalty area, got himself in the same tangle trying to clear the ball, had the ball hit him in the same way and then cleared it? Penalty?
I agree it's not an unduly difficult rule to understand in terms of the written rule. However, it is difficult in terms of its implementation because it relies solely on the subjective nature of the referee's assessment of deliberateness, as you say. What one sees as deliberate, others might see otherwise. I think that must be the case judging by the number of posts in this thread, although, as I said in a previous post, I think the fact that the player had both hands on the ground at the time probably, sadly, swung the decision against us.
Referees are constantly making subjective judgments about what is a foul or not- all partof their job. Unless they can reach the view that it was deliberate, they should not give the free kick.
[Post edited 22 Feb 2018 18:51]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Call me old fashioned, but if the ball ricochets off both arms, away from the defenders, and into favourable position for the attacker to tuck away, then irrelevant of intention it must be a handball.
Mustn't it?
No. As has been explained repeatedly throughout this thread.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Why should people be penalised for something entirely unintended?
No, but they should not be rewarded for cheating which the handball was. Outfield players cannot use their arms to control the ball which is what happened in this case. If a player fell over and accidently prevent an opponent from scoring would that be acceptable under the rules of the game?