Handling the Ball

[William Henry Foulkes]

(Part of) Law 12 says:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
[...]
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Keith Hackett has a blog which mentions the above and also includes the following:

Throughout my involvement in refereeing which now spans over fifty years I have always believed that this is a simple law often misunderstood by players, managers, coaches, media and spectators.

[...]

Deciding if the handball is deliberate can be the area of difficulty for referees and they are coached to consider the following four criteria:-

1. The movement of the hand or arm towards the ball or away from the ball to prevent a handball offence occurring.
2. The referee must consider the position of the hand and arm. Are they in the expected place when the ball is played? Is the player merely protecting himself or unable to move it because of the very close proximity to the ball when it is struck?
3. The position of the offending player to the ball when it is played. The referee must take into account if the offending player has time to react when the ball is struck. A ball struck from close range onto the arm or hand of an opposing player is less likely to be a deliberate act than a ball struck from distance where the defender has time to retract it.
4. The referee has to decide if the offending player used his hands and arms to make himself bigger in order to prevent the ball from going past. This action is a deliberate attempt to handle the ball which gives the offending player an advantage and therefore must be punished.

All seems fairly reasonable.

FWIW I'd say that in 3. the emphasis is on distance - for me it should be on time.

More here http://you-are-the-ref.com/so-what-is-handball-clarification-from-you-are-the-ref/

Both incidents happened at the other end of the pitch - and neither is on the Utd highlights. As posted elsewhere I think he had to give both or give neither. He gave neither and, for now, I think that was the right call.

 

[Punk Blade]

Another problem fans have with handball is claiming 'it was deliberate, so must be a booking'.

The deliberate part is just to make it an offence. Then it is judged like any other infringement as to whether it is worthy of a card.

 

[Gavlar]

Another problem fans have with handball is claiming 'it was deliberate, so must be a booking'.

The deliberate part is just to make it an offence. Then it is judged like any other infringement as to whether it is worthy of a card.

I played in a game a few yrs ago when the ball broke to our centre forward who knocked it too far ahead of himself and then promptly punched it out of the way of an opponent and was given a straight red. Seemed like a fairly harsh decision at the time as he was on the half way line running towards the other teams goal.

 

[Gavlar]

(Part of) Law 12 says:

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
[...]
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

Keith Hackett has a blog which mentions the above and also includes the following:

Throughout my involvement in refereeing which now spans over fifty years I have always believed that this is a simple law often misunderstood by players, managers, coaches, media and spectators.

[...]

Deciding if the handball is deliberate can be the area of difficulty for referees and they are coached to consider the following four criteria:-

1. The movement of the hand or arm towards the ball or away from the ball to prevent a handball offence occurring.
2. The referee must consider the position of the hand and arm. Are they in the expected place when the ball is played? Is the player merely protecting himself or unable to move it because of the very close proximity to the ball when it is struck?
3. The position of the offending player to the ball when it is played. The referee must take into account if the offending player has time to react when the ball is struck. A ball struck from close range onto the arm or hand of an opposing player is less likely to be a deliberate act than a ball struck from distance where the defender has time to retract it.
4. The referee has to decide if the offending player used his hands and arms to make himself bigger in order to prevent the ball from going past. This action is a deliberate attempt to handle the ball which gives the offending player an advantage and therefore must be punished.

All seems fairly reasonable.

FWIW I'd say that in 3. the emphasis is on distance - for me it should be on time.

More here http://you-are-the-ref.com/so-what-is-handball-clarification-from-you-are-the-ref/

Both incidents happened at the other end of the pitch - and neither is on the Utd highlights. As posted elsewhere I think he had to give both or give neither. He gave neither and, for now, I think that was the right call.

The easiest way to work out if its deliberate is to be telepathic

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

An American mate of mine, in the context of American Football, once referred to these as metaphysical penalties - the ones where you have to figure out the intent.

 

[Punk Blade]

I played in a game a few yrs ago when the ball broke to our centre forward who knocked it too far ahead of himself and then promptly punched it out of the way of an opponent and was given a straight red. Seemed like a fairly harsh decision at the time as he was on the half way line running towards the other teams goal.

That sounds akin to cynically scything someone down on half way to 'take a booking for the team', with the difference that you're unlikely to injure someone by punching the ball)

An American mate of mine, in the context of American Football, once referred to these as metaphysical penalties - the ones where you have to figure out the intent.

Uh oh, sounds like Chris Morgan on Steven Gerrard

I think this is an interesting point though, as intent also applies to physical fouls according to the laws - another one that is regularly ignored or not known.

 

[Bladebri]

If any one handled my balls I would call foul

 

[Gavlar]

That sounds akin to cynically scything someone down on half way to 'take a booking for the team', with the difference that you're unlikely to injure someone by punching the ball)

Uh oh, sounds like Chris Morgan on Steven Gerrard

I think this is an interesting point though, as intent also applies to physical fouls according to the laws - another one that is regularly ignored or not known.

Yeh it was taking one for the team for sure, but a straight red? I thought about mouthing off to the ref but thought I would probably be sent off aswell.

 

[Sheff de party]

One of my team mates once received a yellow card for taking a drink without permission while he was about to take a throw. Bearing in mind it was in 30 degree heat in Australia, it seemed a little harsh at the time.

With regards to handball, it drives me nuts playing at amateur football and everyone stops when it spins up and taps someones hand which is by their side. "Handball, handball". They don't even appeal, it's just accepted. Are we here to play or to ref? Gerron wi it!

 

[georgebernardshaw]

Why is a foul in the penalty area a red card offence? Why ruin a perfectly good game of football by reducing one side to ten men? People pay good money to see a game these days, why spoil it?

The foul usually means a goal against - that's enough in my view

 

[jt64]

Why is a foul in the penalty area a red card offence? Why ruin a perfectly good game of football by reducing one side to ten men? People pay good money to see a game these days, why spoil it?

You cannot be serious?

 

[georgebernardshaw]

You cannot be serious?

Totally

 

[grafikhaus]

'Was it deliberate?' seems to be the latest thing to keep the pundits busy - as if handball was a new phenomenon in football. It's been built up to near-scientific bullshit. 'Was it ball to hand, or hand to ball?' As ever, it depends who is doing the handling and against which team.

All I know is that John Terry has built an entire career on defending like a fucking starfish.

 

[jt64]

Totally

A red card offence is a red card offence if it takes place in minute 1 or minute 90, nothing infuriates me more than refereeing inconsistency on this point for fear that the media will say he "ruined the game". I have a Man City supporting friend who has similar opinions to yourself, oddly enough when I said that the West Brom player who got a red in the first 5 minutes shouldn't have walked as it'd ruin the game, he thought it should be a red

 

[georgebernardshaw]

A red card offence is a red card offence if it takes place in minute 1 or minute 90, nothing infuriates me more than refereeing inconsistency on this point for fear that the media will say he "ruined the game". I have a Man City supporting friend who has similar opinions to yourself, oddly enough when I said that the West Brom player who got a red in the first 5 minutes shouldn't have walked as it'd ruin the game, he thought it should be a red

It's the new interpretation of the law that bugs me, to be honest - if it's a red card offence, it's a red card offence, as you say. However, if you'll forgive an old fart here, in the sixties/seventies/eighties, a handball was a penalty, the ref awarded it, it was taken, the taker scored, and the bloke who gave the penalty away got a bollocking from his teammates. At no point did the ref even consider sending off the player.

Dangerous tackle, no problem, red card, but handball in the area hurts no-one, so if you've driven 150 miles to watch your team down to ten men inside ten minutes, it's taking the law to ridiculous extremes.

A penalty is sufficient punishment - that's as it should be, to my mind

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

It's the new interpretation of the law that bugs me, to be honest - if it's a red card offence, it's a red card offence, as you say. However, if you'll forgive an old fart here, in the sixties/seventies/eighties, a handball was a penalty, the ref awarded it, it was taken, the taker scored, and the bloke who gave the penalty away got a bollocking from his teammates. At no point did the ref even consider sending off the player.

Dangerous tackle, no problem, red card, but handball in the area hurts no-one, so if you've driven 150 miles to watch your team down to ten men inside ten minutes, it's taking the law to ridiculous extremes.

A penalty is sufficient punishment - that's as it should be, to my mind

Even going back to the old days, I don't remember a time when a deliberate handball to prevent a goal wasn't a red card offence..

 

[georgebernardshaw]

Even going back to the old days, I don't remember a time when a deliberate handball to prevent a goal wasn't a red card offence..

....I can remember a time when the ref didn't even have a card

 

[AlienBlade]

It's the new interpretation of the law that bugs me, to be honest - if it's a red card offence, it's a red card offence, as you say. However, if you'll forgive an old fart here, in the sixties/seventies/eighties, a handball was a penalty, the ref awarded it, it was taken, the taker scored, and the bloke who gave the penalty away got a bollocking from his teammates. At no point did the ref even consider sending off the player.

Dangerous tackle, no problem, red card, but handball in the area hurts no-one, so if you've driven 150 miles to watch your team down to ten men inside ten minutes, it's taking the law to ridiculous extremes.

A penalty is sufficient punishment - that's as it should be, to my mind

lets say the player handles the ball and it prevents a clear goal (i.e punching off the line when the keeper is beaten)

the "penalty" is only a chance to score... (and thus further punishment should be enacted) as what if the player doesnt score the penalty, you would see players simply handballing left right and centre for dead cert goals...

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

....I can remember a time when the ref didn't even have a card

Which is why it is still called a "booking".
The ref had to flick through, find the right page, lick the end of his pencil, and none of this discussion over a mike with his assistant bollocks..

 

[georgebernardshaw]

lets say the player handles the ball and it prevents a clear goal (i.e punching off the line when the keeper is beaten)

the "penalty" is only a chance to score... (and thus further punishment should be enacted) as what if the player doesnt score the penalty, you would see players simply handballing left right and centre for dead cert goals...

I don't know the success rate for penalties these days, but that's what they used to do

 

[AlienBlade]

I don't know the success rate for penalties these days, but that's what they used to do

obviously this wasnt from a handball, but McEverly took one for the team with Doncaster bearing down.... we won 1-0 after the Penalty wasnt scored...

we see less of them trying to punch the ball off the line due to the additional punishment.

this should be used for other things such as simulation, (if a ref deemed the player dived and books them on every occassion) when there are a few sendings off (due to 2 yellow cards) then players will be less inclined to throw themselves down like idiots (Tuesday night springs to mind)

the other way would be to have the player punished only of the player doesnt score. (so he stays on the pitch if you score and is sent off if you happen to miss (although this would be open to abuse... i.e if its the only good player in the 3rd minute you might miss on purpose...)

 

[Silent Blade]

Even going back to the old days, I don't remember a time when a deliberate handball to prevent a goal wasn't a red card offence..

at 2mins 35 secs, Mick Speight, on his first League start prevents a goalbound shot by Francis Lee with his hands. He got booked for that

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

at 2mins 35 secs, Mick Speight, on his first League start prevents a goalbound shot by Francis Lee with his hands. He got booked for that

Looked accidental to me......

Funny that "bobbly pitch" wasn't mentioned once despite it looking like a ploughed turnip patch.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

obviously this wasnt from a handball, but McEverly took one for the team with Doncaster bearing down.... we won 1-0 after the Penalty wasnt scored...

we see less of them trying to punch the ball off the line due to the additional punishment.

this should be used for other things such as simulation, (if a ref deemed the player dived and books them on every occassion) when there are a few sendings off (due to 2 yellow cards) then players will be less inclined to throw themselves down like idiots (Tuesday night springs to mind)

the other way would be to have the player punished only of the player doesnt score. (so he stays on the pitch if you score and is sent off if you happen to miss (although this would be open to abuse... i.e if its the only good player in the 3rd minute you might miss on purpose...)

It just seems to me that new rules and regs come in, and we spend our time discussing them and not the game itself - the game is meant to be enjoyed, for God's sake. How many people still do not understand the new offside law fully - me for a start.

 

[wizadry]

obviously this wasnt from a handball, but McEverly took one for the team with Doncaster bearing down.... we won 1-0 after the Penalty wasnt scored...

I might be wrong here but i'm sure it was that CB we once had who only came up to play games and fucked training off, Paddy McCarthy. If it's the same incident i'm thinking of anyway.