Referee Discussion - Hand Balls

[Unregistered]

If there is 80% consensus, I think the takeaway is the 20% and not the 80% are wrong.

Moving a hand to direct a ball is an unnatural soccer act. Whether it results in an advantage is just a guess. Off the face and in versus off the hand and out is a pretty big advantage. If off the hand goes in, then it's still a goal and no call is needed.

It's completely unreasonable to put the referee in a position to make a judgment like that in real time. And that's what the 4 out 5 people who disagree with you understand. What's next, asking the referee to conclude whether or not a shot was hard enough to warrant protection versus heading it out? Should there be a different standard for players with concussion histories? Someone with a broken nose? What if the ball wouldn't have hit the player in the face? That's just asking for trouble. Keep your hands down and there's no problem. Just like every player understands and accepts.

90% of all doctors in the 1920's thought smoking was either good for you or harmless. Can't believe how stupid the 10% were.

[Unregistered]

A player can not receive a advancing by handing the ball. surly not a goal incidental hand ball and go's the other way. As a referee that's how I would of called it.

You are making up your own rules, and you are wrong. And hence you will misapply rule 12.9 over and over again. You should try reading the rule. It says exactly the opposite of your statement that "a player can not receive a advantage [sic] by handling the ball." Let me provide you THE EXACT, I repeat, THE EXACT quote, verbatim, from rule 12.9 that totally contradicts what you are saying, the rule that provides THE RULES regarding the handling the ball RULE. And I quote:

"The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement."

Again, that is an exact quote. Is there any part of that that is not painfully obvious, or not excruciatingly contradictory with your interpretation of the rule. Here is the full rule for you to read.

12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is
subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).

[Unregistered]

90% of all doctors in the 1920's thought smoking was either good for you or harmless. Can't believe how stupid the 10% were.

Don't even get me started with flat earthers. They don't have anything to do with soccer either. What's your point? One is bad science the other is opinion re the rules of a game.

[Unregistered]

Don't even get me started with flat earthers. They don't have anything to do with soccer either. What's your point? One is bad science the other is opinion re the rules of a game.

My point is majority opinion doesn't make something right, which was your lead in point, or "take away" as you put it. But feel free to follow the sheep.

Are you able to understand the point now?

[Unregistered]

My point is majority opinion doesn't make something right, which was your lead in point, or "take away" as you put it. But feel free to follow the sheep.

Are you able to understand the point now?

You must be a ref...

[Unregistered]

My point is majority opinion doesn't make something right, which was your lead in point, or "take away" as you put it. But feel free to follow the sheep.

Are you able to understand the point now?

I understand your point. It's just that it has no applicability to a sporting rule which is a rule only because the participants agree that it's a rule. Smoking is dangerous whether you agree with that or not. When 4 of 5 agree playing a game agree, they aren't sheep. The outlier is a knucklehead yelling from the sideline that he's right. Is that too hard to understand?

[Unregistered]

The problem I have with all of this is that the person pretending to know it all by quoting the law and using Webster makes his point by making a leap to determine what a natural position is. Moving your hands to cover your face is not a natural position just as a defender lunging or sliding to block a cross and having their arm away from their body can be guilty of a handball. Saying it's natural to cover your face doesn't excuse the player for doing it. Wasn't it natural for the Costa Rican GK to protect himself? He's a GK, it certainly was naturally for him to react the way he did - NOT! 9.9 of 10 refs on here know that it is a PK and a send-off when a defender handles the ball on the goal line to stop an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Sheesh. I'd love to watch a game that you ref. I'm sure the players, coaches, spectators, ARs, and everyone else is really interested when you start quoting Webster and the Law book. Sheesh.

[Unregistered]

The problem I have with all of this is that the person pretending to know it all by quoting the law and using Webster makes his point by making a leap to determine what a natural position is. Moving your hands to cover your face is not a natural position just as a defender lunging or sliding to block a cross and having their arm away from their body can be guilty of a handball. Saying it's natural to cover your face doesn't excuse the player for doing it. Wasn't it natural for the Costa Rican GK to protect himself? He's a GK, it certainly was naturally for him to react the way he did - NOT! 9.9 of 10 refs on here know that it is a PK and a send-off when a defender handles the ball on the goal line to stop an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Sheesh. I'd love to watch a game that you ref. I'm sure the players, coaches, spectators, ARs, and everyone else is really interested when you start quoting Webster and the Law book. Sheesh.

Ok, let's walk through your thought process on this, given you believe it's such a leap to conclude that protecting your face is unnatural. What would you consider an example or scenario where the following rule applies (remember, this is the actual rule verbatim):

"Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made."

Once you've explained that, maybe you can explain the following sentence from the rules, and why every defensive wall set to defend a free kick has players with their arms protecting their body, in an "unnatural position" as you assert, in anticipation of a soon to be blasted ball. I take it you would call a handball if the blasted ball hits a players hand in the wall as well even if he has no time to react and move his hand.

"Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball."

Looking forward to hearing your reply.

[Unregistered]

I understand your point. It's just that it has no applicability to a sporting rule which is a rule only because the participants agree that it's a rule. Smoking is dangerous whether you agree with that or not. When 4 of 5 agree playing a game agree, they aren't sheep. The outlier is a knucklehead yelling from the sideline that he's right. Is that too hard to understand?

You should stop trying to be smart, because it's not working.

[Unregistered]

Seems to be. Nothing pointless from you today.

[Unregistered]

Ok, let's walk through your thought process on this, given you believe it's such a leap to conclude that protecting your face is unnatural. What would you consider an example or scenario where the following rule applies (remember, this is the actual rule verbatim):

"Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made."

Once you've explained that, maybe you can explain the following sentence from the rules, and why every defensive wall set to defend a free kick has players with their arms protecting their body, in an "unnatural position" as you assert, in anticipation of a soon to be blasted ball. I take it you would call a handball if the blasted ball hits a players hand in the wall as well even if he has no time to react and move his hand.

"Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball."

Looking forward to hearing your reply.

The reason a defensive wall covers there genitals on a free kick is the same reason that backs are, more and more frequently, defending with their arms at their sides or even behind their back - because they understand that moving their arms into that position after the ball is kicked constitutes a hand ball. By having your hands / arms there first you are not moving them to an unnatural position. It is not natural for most of us males to stand in a soccer game with our hands over our face or our nuts. I too played soccer for many years before turning to refereeing and not once did I move my arms to block a ball and claim that it wasn't deliberate. In fact, my soccer instincts would have me moving my arms away from the ball, so I wouldn't be guilty of handling.

[Unregistered]

The key being what happens next

Ok, let's walk through your thought process on this, given you believe it's such a leap to conclude that protecting your face is unnatural. What would you consider an example or scenario where the following rule applies (remember, this is the actual rule verbatim):

"Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made."

Once you've explained that, maybe you can explain the following sentence from the rules, and why every defensive wall set to defend a free kick has players with their arms protecting their body, in an "unnatural position" as you assert, in anticipation of a soon to be blasted ball. I take it you would call a handball if the blasted ball hits a players hand in the wall as well even if he has no time to react and move his hand.

"Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball."

Looking forward to hearing your reply.

The Stubborn status quo lovers will continue to ignore the law thinking they have appropriately applied the concept of advantage when as written the law deals explicitly with how it should be administered when the contact is inadvertent.

I watch a OPL State Cup Final two years ago where a defender in the box in front of the goal was hit by a blast in the stomach from short distance and she instinctively raised her hands and caught the ball with both hands and dropped the ball to her feet and cleared it from the goal area.

When I asked the very experienced ref if he saw that infraction he politely admitted he did but said she did not have a chance to avoid the ball in such a case. I was happy that at least he saw it but disagree with his conclusion believing that the post contact control should have resulted in a PK.

Under the rule had another player from her team cleared the ball I would have agreed with him but that is not what happened from my vantage point.

[Unregistered]

The Stubborn status quo lovers will continue to ignore the law thinking they have appropriately applied the concept of advantage when as written the law deals explicitly with how it should be administered when the contact is inadvertent.

I watch a OPL State Cup Final two years ago where a defender in the box in front of the goal was hit by a blast in the stomach from short distance and she instinctively raised her hands and caught the ball with both hands and dropped the ball to her feet and cleared it from the goal area.

When I asked the very experienced ref if he saw that infraction he politely admitted he did but said she did not have a chance to avoid the ball in such a case. I was happy that at least he saw it but disagree with his conclusion believing that the post contact control should have resulted in a PK.

Under the rule had another player from her team cleared the ball I would have agreed with him but that is not what happened from my vantage point.

Is anyone unclear as to why it is never called the same at any game?

It's simple. Intent and natural position. If natural position wasn't involved, you would have defenders running out with their arms outstretched, that is the reason it was included in the definition. If it hits my hand and I don't intend to handle it, no hand ball.

You would think we were trying to explain Multi-Compartment Linear Noise Approximation...

[Unregistered]

Ahhhh.... But you are so wrong. Many tripping calls are made when the intent of the defender is to tackle the ball, but they miss and foul the person w the ball. Their intent was to put their leg in a position that resulted in tripping a person. Likewise, intentionally moving your arm into a position that results in a handball is a foul. Perhaps you are the one who is wrong and stubborn. Citing dictionaries may make you feel better about your erroneous calls, but it doesn't make them correct. You should reconsider your vigilante refereeing so that the next two teams are not caught by surprise as the entire THPRD complex was during the game you mentioned.

[Unregistered]

Ahhhh.... But you are so wrong. Many tripping calls are made when the intent of the defender is to tackle the ball, but they miss and foul the person w the ball. Their intent was to put their leg in a position that resulted in tripping a person. Likewise, intentionally moving your arm into a position that results in a handball is a foul. Perhaps you are the one who is wrong and stubborn. Citing dictionaries may make you feel better about your erroneous calls, but it doesn't make them correct. You should reconsider your vigilante refereeing so that the next two teams are not caught by surprise as the entire THPRD complex was during the game you mentioned.

Not a ref, just a player. Read all of these and have laughed for an hour. The definition of tripping and hand-ball are different but maybe that is where your logic fails you.

My point was simple, but let me make it again. If (A) the hand intentionally touches the ball = hand ball. If (B) the hand is in an unnatural position and touches the ball = hand ball. If neither A nor B happen = no hand ball.

By the way, when you used to play and you covered your buddies "boys" in the wall = hand ball.

Later.