Referee Discussion - Hand Balls

[Unregistered]

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.

Covering your buddies "boys" would be unnatural - cover your own and you'll be ok.

[Unregistered]

Hahahahahahaha

[Unregistered]

jf92NN

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.

This is all fine and dandy (faulty logic, but I'm not interested in trying to explain to you why) but you have not answered the first question, which you can't because you have twisted yourself into a logic knot. Give it a shot, and see if you can provide an example of where the following rule applies, just one example, I dare you to try (again this is the rule's exact wording):

"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."

You can't provide an example, because you have misinterpreted the rule to say that moving your hand to protect yourself instinctively is unnatural which is the exact opposite of the rule. Kind of like a raccoon that gets its head stuck in a chef Boyardee can, you've stuck you head in a logic trap, like this poor little critter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSxL7o8-awI

[Unregistered]

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.

This is the most contorted logic I've read in a long time.

[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.

But that is wrong. You are correct in saying it was a hand ball if she deliberately handled it after the contact was made, exactly as the rule says. It's possible the referee believed she did not deliberately handle it after contact, hard to say, but let me get to the reason why you've misinterpreted the rule. When you say it would have been different if her teammate cleared the ball away, you have misapplied the rule. It's still a handball, no matter if she clears it or her teammate clears it. In other words, where the rule says it's a handball if "the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage", it makes no difference whether the player that made the contact gained the advantaged personally or their teammate standing next to her did. If she drops it, hands it, throws it, or whatever, with her hand to her teammate after continuing her initial accidental contact, it's a handball. If she turns around and throws it in her own net, it's not a hand ball because the deliberate continued contact did not work to her advantage. But who would do that. So, this is a handball, unless the referee believed that her continued contact with the ball after it hit her stomach was not deliberate.

[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.

Your first paragraph is completely inconsistent with the following from the rule: "The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement". In simple English, this rule says if it is an inadvertent handball, then advantage has no bearing whatsoever on the call. Above, you're first paragraph is suggesting advantage does have bearing on whether and inadvertent touch is a handball.

[Unregistered]

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...

For some people, it is like trying to explain Multi-Compartment Linear Noise Approximation and then squaring it and rapping a cheese grater across my shins. I generally agree with you, but what you need to add is this concept from the rule:

"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."

This is what's tripping everyone up. They either can't understand the sentence, or just have a hard time understanding that the rule, not conventional thinking, but the rule, is explicitly saying that throwing your hand in front of your face when a ball suddenly comes flying at your face is no considered, for the sake of the rule, deliberate. Said another way for the mouth breathers, it may be deliberate in the normal sense, but for purposes of the rule, it is not considered deliberate. THAT IS WHAT THE RULE IS SAYING.

[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.

You're mixing concepts. The hand ball rule says if its inadvertent (in other words, not deliberate), then it's not a handball. The tripping rule, however, does not have a rule that says "if the offender did not deliberately try to trip the opponent, then it's not a tripping infringement." A trip is a trip, whether deliberate or not. A handball however, is only a handball if it's deliberate.

[Unregistered]

The deliberate movement of your hands and arms in front of your body is a hand ball. How often do we see players, younger girls in particular, raise their arms above their head as a ball comes toward them in the air. Using your logic this is instinctive and not handling. Crazy. In fact, any ball that is kicked hard at a players body is now, using your interpretation, okay to stop with your hands or arms because that player may be protecting themself. You are asking the ref to determine a players motivation. Again, I would love to see you use your interpretation in a meaningful game.. Nightmare!

[Unregistered]

You're mixing concepts. The hand ball rule says if its inadvertent (in other words, not deliberate), then it's not a handball. The tripping rule, however, does not have a rule that says "if the offender did not deliberately try to trip the opponent, then it's not a tripping infringement." A trip is a trip, whether deliberate or not. A handball however, is only a handball if it's deliberate.

Or if a player has their arms in an unnatural position and/or is making themselves bigger and/or has an opportunity to move out of the way. You can be guilty of handling without trying to handle the ball.

[Unregistered]

The deliberate movement of your hands and arms in front of your body is a hand ball. How often do we see players, younger girls in particular, raise their arms above their head as a ball comes toward them in the air. Using your logic this is instinctive and not handling. Crazy. In fact, any ball that is kicked hard at a players body is now, using your interpretation, okay to stop with your hands or arms because that player may be protecting themself. You are asking the ref to determine a players motivation. Again, I would love to see you use your interpretation in a meaningful game.. Nightmare!

Then can you give me an example of where this rule applies: "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."

Please, oh please, enlighten us as to why this sentence exists with just one example.

[Unregistered]

Or if a player has their arms in an unnatural position and/or is making themselves bigger and/or has an opportunity to move out of the way. You can be guilty of handling without trying to handle the ball.

Oh Heaven help us. The rule is pretty clear. Making yourself bigger or not moving your hand out of the way is considered a handball, because the rule considers this deliberate. The rule considers these to movements to be unnatural and therefore deliberate. You are not following the concepts of the rule at all and I can't bear to try to clarify for you any more.

[Unregistered]

JnFANn

The deliberate movement of your hands and arms in front of your body is a hand ball. How often do we see players, younger girls in particular, raise their arms above their head as a ball comes toward them in the air. Using your logic this is instinctive and not handling. Crazy. In fact, any ball that is kicked hard at a players body is now, using your interpretation, okay to stop with your hands or arms because that player may be protecting themself. You are asking the ref to determine a players motivation. Again, I would love to see you use your interpretation in a meaningful game.. Nightmare!

Your logic is flawed. The quirky response of 6 year girls to throw their hands above their head and stop a ball flying over their head has nothing to do with why FIFA wrote the rule the way they did. Last I checked, ones face is not above their head, it's on it, so throwing your hands above your head to redirect the ball, whether your a 6 year old doing so due to an instinctive reaction to use your hands or Diego Maradonna's hand of God, it is a hand ball, period. Instinctively throwing your hand instinctively in front of your face when you are about to get smashed in the face is not. That's what the rule says, not what I say, but what the rule says. Try a quick read of the rule.

[Unregistered]

Then can you give me an example of where this rule applies: "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."

Please, oh please, enlighten us as to why this sentence exists with just one example.

As predicted, you cannot provide an example, because YOU have basically said:

Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the face when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does constitute deliberate contact unless there is
subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made.

This is the rule verbatim, except that the word "body" has been replaced by "face" (and last I checked the face is part of the body), and the word "not" has been removed. In other words, you have said the exact opposite of the rule.

[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.

Still haven't heard your example. You must be stuck.