Referee Discussion - Hand Balls

[Unregistered]

We've reached an impasse. What I know is that playing in a game that you ref would be quite an experience. By the book referees are never successful. Continue to quote the laws and the dictionary and keep doing what you're doing. See where it takes you. By the book, it seems as though your example of a player being afraid of the ball may not be guilty of handling. What an awful game you participate in. Mine is much better and more enjoyable for players, fans, coaches, and all others participating.

[Unregistered]

Original Poster, I believe you are incorrect on Question 2

Question 2 - . . . Defender A is standing on his goal line expecting a possible shot coming his direction. He therefore moves his hand in front of his face to protect his face from getting hit. An opposing forward blasts a shot from three 3 yards away and the ball does in fact hit defender A's hand which has moved into the defensive position protecting his face. . . .

I have not read each and every post carefully, but I did note that the original poster states that this scenario is not a foul. I believe you would be incorrect and that this would be a penalty kick under the technical application of the rules (since that is what we are debating).

One of the many misapplications of the rule is in the "deliberate" element. The rule does not limit fouls to the intentional handling of the ball with the hand. In other words, the rule does not require the referee to guess at the subjective intent of the player. According to the official interpretation (which the OP quotes in parts), "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm." By this interpretation, the rule requires the referee to determine objectively whether the player made a "deliberate act." If the referee determines that the act itself is deliberate, it is a foul if the deliberate act results in "contact with the ball with his hand or arm."

The OP previously states that "instinctive" movement protecting the body is not a foul. This is correct. It is correct because instinctive means reflexive, not deliberate.

But as the OP wrote the scenario, the player "expects" a shot and therefore protects his face. This is not instinctive or reflexive. Rather, expecting or anticipating a shot and moving the hand to the face is a deliberate act. Players are not allowed to consciously protect themselves from the ball in the run of play. In the direct kick scenario, the players before play is resumed can protect themselves. However, this is a stated exception for a restart rather than an illustration of acceptable behavior during the run of play.

Because the movement of the hand to the face ahead of the shot is a deliberate and not reflexive movement, and this deliberate act then makes contact with the ball, it is a PK.

[Unregistered]

Follow up on #62

Even though I would reward a PK, I would not issue a red card. A foul for deliberate use of hands in the penalty area is not a red card unless it would otherwise result in a goal or it denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. Again, as written by the OP, the ball would have hit another part of the player's body but for the ball first striking the arm or hand. In other words, it cannot be said that the ball would have gone directly into the goal because the shot would have hit the player first in the face or head.

Also, it cannot be said that it denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity. My reasoning is that had the ball instead hit the face or head, we cannot assume it would have resulted in a more favorable deflection than the deflection off the hand or arm. Since the deflection off the hand did not result in a goal or did not land at an opponent's feet with clear shot at goal (advantage would have been granted and no foul called regardless), it cannot then be presumed that the deflection off the head or face would have resulted in an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

[Unregistered]

G2TSAj

I have not read each and every post carefully, but I did note that the original poster states that this scenario is not a foul. I believe you would be incorrect and that this would be a penalty kick under the technical application of the rules (since that is what we are debating).

One of the many misapplications of the rule is in the "deliberate" element. The rule does not limit fouls to the intentional handling of the ball with the hand. In other words, the rule does not require the referee to guess at the subjective intent of the player. According to the official interpretation (which the OP quotes in parts), "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm." By this interpretation, the rule requires the referee to determine objectively whether the player made a "deliberate act." If the referee determines that the act itself is deliberate, it is a foul if the deliberate act results in "contact with the ball with his hand or arm."

The OP previously states that "instinctive" movement protecting the body is not a foul. This is correct. It is correct because instinctive means reflexive, not deliberate.

But as the OP wrote the scenario, the player "expects" a shot and therefore protects his face. This is not instinctive or reflexive. Rather, expecting or anticipating a shot and moving the hand to the face is a deliberate act. Players are not allowed to consciously protect themselves from the ball in the run of play. In the direct kick scenario, the players before play is resumed can protect themselves. However, this is a stated exception for a restart rather than an illustration of acceptable behavior during the run of play.

Because the movement of the hand to the face ahead of the shot is a deliberate and not reflexive movement, and this deliberate act then makes contact with the ball, it is a PK.

I'm the original poster. I do give you props for pointing out a key distinction, moving your hand in anticipation of a shot versus a reflexive reaction. I do think this is relevant, and can make this scenario a handball. My intent in the original scenario was that it represented a reflective reaction, but to your point, if I ran down the field with my hand in front of my face, that would be a handball. So I give you props for pointing out a subtlety and get the sense you know what your talking about versus the majority of the other responses on this topic. So let me ask you one question. Say I'm standing on the line and a player is "winding up" a blast (hasn't struck the ball yet, but is stepping into the shot ready to launch), and I react by throwing my hand reflexively. I can definitely see a person reacting reflexively in this case. So what's your take on this.

And thanks for the quality, knowledgeable input. It's refreshing.

[Unregistered]

Factors for deliberate vs reflexive movement

I'm the original poster. I do give you props for pointing out a key distinction, moving your hand in anticipation of a shot versus a reflexive reaction. I do think this is relevant, and can make this scenario a handball. My intent in the original scenario was that it represented a reflective reaction, but to your point, if I ran down the field with my hand in front of my face, that would be a handball. So I give you props for pointing out a subtlety and get the sense you know what your talking about versus the majority of the other responses on this topic. So let me ask you one question. Say I'm standing on the line and a player is "winding up" a blast (hasn't struck the ball yet, but is stepping into the shot ready to launch), and I react by throwing my hand reflexively. I can definitely see a person reacting reflexively in this case. So what's your take on this.

And thanks for the quality, knowledgeable input. It's refreshing.

Thank you for the compliment. I agree with you that there are situations where this reaction would be reflexive rather than deliberate. There are really a numbers of factors that would cause a referee to view this as a deliberate act but in a different game the same referee may rule it reflexive. Most important are distance from ball and experience of the players.

Regardless of experience of the players, there is a point in distance when a player has time to respond to the reflexive act with a deliberate act (keep arm in place, drop arm, play with head, turn back, etc). Clearly, a judgment call by referee where this distinction lies.

Also, experience allows players to overcome instinct or suppress reflexes because they become conditioned to avoid playing the ball with the hand.

At one extreme, you have professional players. Absent very unusual circumstances, I would call this a foul every time against professional players because they are conditioned to react differently than protecting their face or head with their hand/arm. In other words, the impulse to react is trained out of them so movement of the hand to face almost has to be deliberate. On the other extreme, you have very young kids and I would almost never call this a foul because they do not have the tools or development to restrain their impulse to protect their head or face. Then, there is everything in between.

I say experience because there are variations between levels of play even in the same age of athletes. I would call a recreational league of U14 differently than a U13 NWCL game. No knock on rec soccer but more likely than not, rec players have played significantly fewer games than even younger kids on a NWCL team. Referees have to be very observant of the players, their experience, and skill level and make a decision on how to call the game.

[Unregistered]

We've reached an impasse. What I know is that playing in a game that you ref would be quite an experience. By the book referees are never successful. Continue to quote the laws and the dictionary and keep doing what you're doing. See where it takes you. By the book, it seems as though your example of a player being afraid of the ball may not be guilty of handling. What an awful game you participate in. Mine is much better and more enjoyable for players, fans, coaches, and all others participating.

That's what I thought.

[Unregistered]

Thank you for the compliment. I agree with you that there are situations where this reaction would be reflexive rather than deliberate. There are really a numbers of factors that would cause a referee to view this as a deliberate act but in a different game the same referee may rule it reflexive. Most important are distance from ball and experience of the players.

Regardless of experience of the players, there is a point in distance when a player has time to respond to the reflexive act with a deliberate act (keep arm in place, drop arm, play with head, turn back, etc). Clearly, a judgment call by referee where this distinction lies.

Also, experience allows players to overcome instinct or suppress reflexes because they become conditioned to avoid playing the ball with the hand.

At one extreme, you have professional players. Absent very unusual circumstances, I would call this a foul every time against professional players because they are conditioned to react differently than protecting their face or head with their hand/arm. In other words, the impulse to react is trained out of them so movement of the hand to face almost has to be deliberate. On the other extreme, you have very young kids and I would almost never call this a foul because they do not have the tools or development to restrain their impulse to protect their head or face. Then, there is everything in between.

I say experience because there are variations between levels of play even in the same age of athletes. I would call a recreational league of U14 differently than a U13 NWCL game. No knock on rec soccer but more likely than not, rec players have played significantly fewer games than even younger kids on a NWCL team. Referees have to be very observant of the players, their experience, and skill level and make a decision on how to call the game.

Agree with all of this. One thing that's clear, refereeing (and I don't currently referee) is a difficult job, not just in case of subtle calls like your examples above, but because this rule is so misinterpreted by parents, players, coaches, etc...

Anyway, thanks again for your input. I think you get it.