# "HANDBALL"



## Surfref (Sep 29, 2016)

The one word I hear most from spectators is "Handball."  19 out of 20 times the spectators have it wrong.  If only spectators actually knew the Handling criteria and what the referee is using to make the decision, there would be less yelling at the referee in youth games.

Here is a good explanation of Handling with videos and play analysis of both the right and wrong calls by MLS referee.  PRO Referee is a great website with informative information on the LOTG and how to apply them.

http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2016-week-29.php


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 29, 2016)

This always interests me, especially if it occurs inside the box it can be a huge game changer.  

Reading the 5 things listed:

1. The proximity of the offending player when the ball is struck. The closer the player is to the ball, the less time he has to react, less time to move his arms out of the way or even towards the ball. The ball struck at close range on to the arm or hand of an opposing player is less likely to be considered a deliberate act than a ball struck from distance where a player has more opportunity to move his hand out of the way.

2. The movement of the hand or arm towards the ball, or away from the ball to prevent a handball offence occurring. If a player is attempting to avoid contact with a ball which strikes his hand or arm, the ball will often ‘fall’ towards the ground. If the act is deliberate, the ball will travel at pace off the offender as his hand/arm is rigid – he is expecting to make contact with the ball.

3. Consideration of the hand or arm in the unnatural position and distinguishing whether a player is merely protecting himself, or is unable to move his arms out of the way as the ball was struck from close range. However, when a ball goes to the side or above a player, where the hand or arm moves towards the ball, that is not a natural position or a defensive reaction. In these situations it is likely to be more a deliberate act of handball.

4. Whether the player uses his hands or arms to make himself bigger to prevent the ball from going past him, either towards goal or the penalty area. This action is a deliberate attempt to handle the ball, giving the defending player an unfair advantage.

5. The consequences of the handball offense.



If a player was just in front of the goal, back the play, another player shoots from 4 yards away, the ball strikes the defenders arm thus not going into the goal, do you call a handball?

What about corner kick, defender tries to play off chest and instead ball hits off chest and arm dropping next to them, they then clear, handball?


----------



## Surfref (Sep 29, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> This always interests me, especially if it occurs inside the box it can be a huge game changer.
> 
> Reading the 5 things listed:
> 
> ...


Both of your questions are dependent upon the position and what he does with the arms.  Since, you do not specify what his arms are doing I have to guess. 

In the first question I am assuming you meant, "back to the play."  If he has his back to the play and arms at his sides when the ball hits his arms, I would probably not call the foul.

The second question I am assuming arms next to his side in a natural position, so no foul.


----------



## Just a Parent (Sep 29, 2016)

Surfref said:


> The one word I hear most from spectators is "Handball."  19 out of 20 times the spectators have it wrong.  If only spectators actually knew the Handling criteria and what the referee is using to make the decision, there would be less yelling at the referee in youth games.
> 
> Here is a good explanation of Handling with videos and play analysis of both the right and wrong calls by MLS referee.  PRO Referee is a great website with informative information on the LOTG and how to apply them.
> 
> http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2016-week-29.php


A few weeks ago a coach asked me what handball was in my book. I told him I do not have a book but that I was going by the LOTG as interpreted by USSF. He said he would like to see them and I told him sure, as soon as the game was over. After the handshakes at the end of the game I waited for him near where he had his stuff. He came, picked up his staff and as he was starting to walk away I reminded him that I was going to show him the criteria. His reply; "we won't agree anyway". He didn't look too happy when I started to laugh.


----------



## socalkdg (Sep 30, 2016)

Surfref said:


> Both of your questions are dependent upon the position and what he does with the arms.  Since, you do not specify what his arms are doing I have to guess.
> 
> In the first question I am assuming you meant, "back to the play."  If he has his back to the play and arms at his sides when the ball hits his arms, I would probably not call the foul.
> 
> The second question I am assuming arms next to his side in a natural position, so no foul.


Thanks for the reply.  In both cases fouls were called.  It seems to many handballs are called based off what I read, especially at the younger age where kids aren't even thinking of using their hands to get an advantage.  Also had a game where handballs were called twice against us, both times they were trying to play off their chest and the ball either hit their hand or deflected onto their hand.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 30, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Thanks for the reply.  In both cases fouls were called.  It seems to many handballs are called based off what I read, especially at the younger age where kids aren't even thinking of using their hands to get an advantage.  Also had a game where handballs were called twice against us, both times they were trying to play off their chest and the ball either hit their hand or deflected onto their hand.



I occasionally work with some refs that call any contact with the arm/hand.  I have to provide them with a little education during halftime.


----------



## espola (Sep 30, 2016)

Surfref said:


> I occasionally work with some refs that call any contact with the arm/hand.  I have to provide them with a little education during halftime.


My sad handball story - from 15+/-2 years ago -  

First game of the season for my boy's BU11 team, away game on a pleasant day in El Cajon.  We were up by a goal as time was running out.  Opponents execute a corner kick with a looping arc that comes right to the feet of our big defender.  He tries to clear the ball from the PA, but miskicks it so it runs right up his body, including his right arm.  Ref calls handling, they tie the game with a last-minute PK.  

Fast forward to end of season - three-way tie for first.  Top 2 teams will be put in BU12 Premier next year.  We come out third on tie-breakers.


----------



## timbuck (Sep 30, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> This always interests me, especially if it occurs inside the box it can be a huge game changer.
> 
> Reading the 5 things listed:
> 
> ...


I'm not as experienced as baldref or surfref, but as described I'm likely to blow the whistle on both of them. 
1.  Ball is going into goal and hits a kid in hand?  I'm sure you had to be there, but unless he has his hand purposefully tucked to his side or into his body to get it out of the way, that sounds like a tough one to let go. 
2.  Corner kick and kid is trying to chest the ball but it hits his arm and then falls to his feet?   Again, unless his arms are tucked behind trying to keep them out of the way, this is going to get a whistle from me.


----------



## Surfref (Sep 30, 2016)

timbuck said:


> I'm not as experienced as baldref or surfref, but as described I'm likely to blow the whistle on both of them.
> 1.  Ball is going into goal and hits a kid in hand?  I'm sure you had to be there, but unless he has his hand purposefully tucked to his side or into his body to get it out of the way, that sounds like a tough one to let go.
> 2.  Corner kick and kid is trying to chest the ball but it hits his arm and then falls to his feet?   Again, unless his arms are tucked behind trying to keep them out of the way, this is going to get a whistle from me.


Age and skill level sort of come into play.  Men/women or higher level older youth players would need to have there arms stuck to their side and not twist or move the body to use the arm to block or redirect the ball.  A younger kid with their arms close to their side would probably not get the calls.  This is where Referee positioning comes into play.  The referee needs to be close to play (10-15 yards), but most important is to have a good angle especially if the ball is down in the attacking third.  Being "there" is critical when something such as Handling occurs and a call could change the game.  This is where referee fitness comes in and a knowledge of the game and tactics is important for a referee.  The other thing is that the referee has to have the courage to make that foul call that will result in a PK.  I have worked with a couple referees lately that did not make two game critical Handling calls.  One of the referees actually told me he did not make the call because he did not want to hear all the players, coach and spectators yell at him. This is when the referee needs to have a huge set of platinum balls and just ignore the yelling.  The other referee let it go because he thought there was an advantage.  The attacker lost the ball less than a second later.  We had a long talk about applying advantage in the penalty area.

Sorry got off on a little tangent.


----------



## SCS Fan (Sep 30, 2016)

Surfref, How about this one - in a GU15 game I was a spectator at, on a corner kick that is kicked into the goal box the first player to touch it is a defender a few feet in front of the middle of the goal, this defender contorts her body and lunges a foot at the ball getting a piece of the ball just before it hits the ground ball comes up and hits one her arms which has flailed out because she was off balance due to her stretching effort to get a foot on the ball.  The ball lightly lands at her feet where she is able to then clear the ball.  Because she was off balance it seems her arm was in an unnatural position, this was a ball to hand and was not intentional.  However the consequence was very beneficial to this defender which is why I believe the AR called handling, and the CR agreed and awarded a penalty kick.  Was this the right call?


----------



## Just a Parent (Oct 1, 2016)

SCS Fan said:


> Surfref, How about this one - in a GU15 game I was a spectator at, on a corner kick that is kicked into the goal box the first player to touch it is a defender a few feet in front of the middle of the goal, this defender contorts her body and lunges a foot at the ball getting a piece of the ball just before it hits the ground ball comes up and hits one her arms which has flailed out because she was off balance due to her stretching effort to get a foot on the ball.  The ball lightly lands at her feet where she is able to then clear the ball.  Because she was off balance it seems her arm was in an unnatural position, this was a ball to hand and was not intentional.  However the consequence was very beneficial to this defender which is why I believe the AR called handling, and the CR agreed and awarded a penalty kick.  Was this the right call?


No. Handling should only be for "deliberately handling the ball".


----------



## Surfref (Oct 2, 2016)

SCS Fan said:


> Surfref, How about this one - in a GU15 game I was a spectator at, on a corner kick that is kicked into the goal box the first player to touch it is a defender a few feet in front of the middle of the goal, this defender contorts her body and lunges a foot at the ball getting a piece of the ball just before it hits the ground ball comes up and hits one her arms which has flailed out because she was off balance due to her stretching effort to get a foot on the ball.  The ball lightly lands at her feet where she is able to then clear the ball.  Because she was off balance it seems her arm was in an unnatural position, this was a ball to hand and was not intentional.  However the consequence was very beneficial to this defender which is why I believe the AR called handling, and the CR agreed and awarded a penalty kick.  Was this the right call?


I have to agree with JaP.  Where are your arms going to go if you start to fall backwards, out and slightly back to help you regain balance.  This is a natural reaction to being off balance or falling.  She did not deliberately play the ball with her arms or hands.  

Although in real time it is much tougher.  A properly positioned referee and AR should have realized that the ball contacting the arms was not deliberate.  Some of these plays happen so fast that they are hard to see unless the referee is positioned correctly.


----------



## watfly (Oct 3, 2016)

I know some refs will call it a "handball" if they deem the player to have gained an advantage by the ball hitting their hand (regardless of intent).  Not correct, but that interpretation is not uncommon for refs and certainly a lot of parents.  I heard that recently from a ref that called a handball after a ball struck a player's hand that had his back to the ball and was retreating downfield.

Maybe semantics but I think if it were called what it is, "handling" that there might be a better understanding of rule.  Did that player handle the ball?


----------



## watfly (Oct 3, 2016)

The article quotes this "His arm is also in an unnatural position, away from his body."  and I also hear this from other refs when determining the call that the player's arm is away from his body.  Why is this considered an unnatural position?  It's natural in soccer to play with your arms out for balance and to create space, it's normal to be "bigger" than your torso.  I can see if the player has his arms straight out but arms out with a bend at the elbow seems natural.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 6, 2016)

Last night, hard shot towards the goal by one of my girls in AYSO, hits girls hand that is stuck out at a 90 degree angle from her body. Looks intentional, two referees on my side say it looks like a hand ball.  Referee says it was accidental.  I ask are you sure, her arm and hand extended outwards into the flight of the ball.  I lose a point for sportsmanship, and get a warning that if I say another word he will reward the other team with a penalty kick.  I apologize and shut my mouth.


----------



## twoclubpapa (Oct 6, 2016)

watfly said:


> The article quotes this "His arm is also in an unnatural position, away from his body."  and I also hear this from other refs when determining the call that the player's arm is away from his body.  Why is this considered an unnatural position?  It's natural in soccer to play with your arms out for balance and to create space, it's normal to be "bigger" than your torso.  I can see if the player has his arms straight out but arms out with a bend at the elbow seems natural.


Arms out to "create space" can be pushing or holding an opponent.  Players need to be careful when they create space in this manner.


----------



## watfly (Oct 6, 2016)

Based upon explanations I've read and heard it appears that handling is not just  a "deliberate act" but (given a certain distance) a "failure to avoid contact with the ball" with your hand or arm.


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Oct 6, 2016)

watfly said:


> Based upon explanations I've read and heard it appears that handling is not just  a "deliberate act" but (given a certain distance) a "failure to avoid contact with the ball" with your hand or arm.


If they see the ball at a certain distance and do not avoid the handling contact then it was deliberate


----------



## GunninGopher (Oct 6, 2016)

watfly said:


> but (given a certain distance) a "failure to avoid contact with the ball" with your hand or arm.


Here is how I explain it to kids and adults alike... 

Let's say a guy was driving down the street in a straight line and a kid's soccer ball rolled and stopped in the street a little bit ahead of his truck. If the guy kept driving straight and ran it over would you say he 'deliberately ran the ball over' if he could have avoided it? He was already driving straight, after all. 

I think most would agree that a _failing to act to avoid something is akin to deliberately doing it_, and that is one of the principles I apply when making the snap judgement about whether a ball was deliberately handled or not.


----------



## watfly (Oct 6, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> Here is how I explain it to kids and adults alike...
> 
> Let's say a guy was driving down the street in a straight line and a kid's soccer ball rolled and stopped in the street a little bit ahead of his truck. If the guy kept driving straight and ran it over would you say he 'deliberately ran the ball over' if he could have avoided it? He was already driving straight, after all.
> 
> I think most would agree that a _failing to act to avoid something is akin to deliberately doing it_, and that is one of the principles I apply when making the snap judgement about whether a ball was deliberately handled or not.


I understand your point, and agree with your conclusion in some cases,  but your analogy is not illustrative of your point as it is an example of  "the movement of the hand (car) towards the ball" which clearly is a foul under the LOTG.  The correct comparative analogy would be "if a kid threw a ball at a car stopped down the street it would be a deliberate act of hitting the ball by the driver if the driver didn't move his car out of the way".  Semantics maybe, but I see those as two very different concepts. (although it could be argued that those are just two really bad analogies).


----------



## coachrefparent (Oct 6, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Last night, hard shot towards the goal by one of my girls in AYSO, hits girls hand that is stuck out at a 90 degree angle from her body. Looks intentional, two referees on my side say it looks like a hand ball.  Referee says it was accidental.  I ask are you sure, her arm and hand extended outwards into the flight of the ball.  I lose a point for sportsmanship, and get a warning that if I say another word he will reward the other team with a penalty kick.  I apologize and shut my mouth.


Your league plays games on Wednesday nights?

Yes, that was a handling foul.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 6, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Last night, hard shot towards the goal by one of my girls in AYSO, hits girls hand that is stuck out at a 90 degree angle from her body.


Is this your U10 Rec team? Probably not intentional.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 12, 2016)

U12 AYSO, yes.   Mid-season tourney, raises money for cancer.  Played Wednesday, Friday, two games Saturday.  

Watched the girls's U17 games and the finals of the women's professional league.  Had both recorded.   They seem to call a lot of hand balls that most definitely weren't intentional.   The big question is why?   All were outside the box at least, but after reading information here, surprised me how often hand ball is called with olders and professionals.


----------



## watfly (Oct 12, 2016)

The one that kills me is when a player misplays or misses a trap and the ball bounces up (from foot, thigh or ground) and hits the player in the elbow or forearm, not deliberate but the vast majority of refs call it a handball.


----------



## Law5 (May 7, 2017)

I always start off my pregame with the players as saying "handballs... I hate them and you probably won't see me calling many of them because they need to be DELIBERATE and they need to be hand to the ball not ball to the hand" That's all the rules say about it anyways and you don't need to explain anything to any coach or player.


----------



## Frank (May 7, 2017)

I try to evaluate as follows:

1 hands in natural playing position
2 distance from ball when struck
3 did player get an advantage from use of hand

May not be the best way, but it has worked for me.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

Frank said:


> I try to evaluate as follows:
> 
> 1 hands in natural playing position
> 2 distance from ball when struck
> ...


What's wrong with going by USSF/IFAB consideratio?


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

Law5 said:


> I always start off my pregame with the players as saying "handballs... I hate them and you probably won't see me calling many of them because they need to be DELIBERATE and they need to be hand to the ball not ball to the hand" That's all the rules say about it anyways and you don't need to explain anything to any coach or player.


I have always found these pregames with players rather strange.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

watfly said:


> The one that kills me is when a player misplays or misses a trap and the ball bounces up (from foot, thigh or ground) and hits the player in the elbow or forearm, not deliberate but the vast majority of refs call it a handball.


Vast majority? Where?


----------



## coachrefparent (May 8, 2017)




----------



## SocalSoccerMom (May 8, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Vast majority? Where?


Our defender tried to chest the ball this weekend, and missed it. The ball bounced and hit her forearm. Ref called the foul, PK as it happened in the box.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

SocalSoccerMom said:


> Our defender tried to chest the ball this weekend, and missed it. The ball bounced and hit her forearm. Ref called the foul, PK as it happened in the box.


No one is disputing that these things happen. The question is where is this supposed vast majority?


----------



## Surfref (May 8, 2017)

watfly said:


> The one that kills me is when a player misplays or misses a trap and the ball bounces up (from foot, thigh or ground) and hits the player in the elbow or forearm, not deliberate but the vast majority of refs call it a handball.


Those referees that you refer too are not the vast majority.  They are the ones that do not attend the monthly training or even open the LOTG book to study.  The vast majority of these refs tend to be lazy and do not know how to apply the LOTG.  Any decent ref knows the criteria for Handling unlike the large number of parents that are constantly yelling "handball."


----------



## Surfref (May 8, 2017)

SocalSoccerMom said:


> Our defender tried to chest the ball this weekend, and missed it. The ball bounced and hit her forearm. Ref called the foul, PK as it happened in the box.


What was the position of her arm?  Was it by her side, out to the side, in the air?  The position and movement of the arm are considerations.

I rarely call handling.


----------



## Surfref (May 8, 2017)

SocalSoccerMom said:


> Our defender tried to chest the ball this weekend, and missed it. The ball bounced and hit her forearm. Ref called the foul, PK as it happened in the box.


What was the position of her arm?  Was it by her side, out to the side, in the air?  The position and movement of the arm are considerations.

I rarely call handling.


----------



## watfly (May 8, 2017)

Surfref said:


> They are the ones that do not attend the monthly training or even open the LOTG book to study.


I don't doubt that is the case and I'm not including you in that group.  Would you say that over 50% of licensed refs in San Diego attend the monthly meetings?  

Maybe vast majority is a little harsh, but is there are many refs at the youth level, and many more parents, that believe its a foul if a player benefits or gains an advantage from a non-deliberate "handball".


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

watfly said:


> I don't doubt that is the case and I'm not including you in that group.  Would you say that over 50% of licensed refs in San Diego attend the monthly meetings?
> 
> Maybe vast majority is a little harsh, but is there are many refs at the youth level, and many more parents, that believe its a foul if a player benefits or gains an advantage from a non-deliberate "handball".


Parents, sure. But referees? Perhaps a few. But many? Where?


----------



## SocalSoccerMom (May 8, 2017)

Surfref said:


> What was the position of her arm?  Was it by her side, out to the side, in the air?  The position and movement of the arm are considerations.
> 
> I rarely call handling.


Player's arms were out for balance. She collected the ball the same way every time, and did so several times prior to the call so this was no a deliberate handball situation.


----------



## coachrefparent (May 8, 2017)

SocalSoccerMom said:


> Player's arms were out for balance. She collected the ball the same way every time, and did so several times prior to the call so this was no a deliberate handball situation.


Not so sure. There is a "trick" that many players are taught, and learn quite well. They learn to receive a ball at the chest with their fists clenched, arms pointing straight up, to the side of their body. It is taught as a way to "bear down" and tighten the core for the reception. But coaches and players also know that a misplay will likely deflect off the lower biceps or inner elbow. Unless the referee is in a perfect position, handling is rarely called. Coaches also teach the player to jerk sideways to make it appear as thought the ball is being directed by the chest, although there is clear redirection by the upper arm. 

As a coach and part of a referee crew, I've seen it work most of the time.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 8, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Not so sure. There is a "trick" that many players are taught, and learn quite well. They learn to receive a ball at the chest with their fists clenched, arms pointing straight up, to the side of their body. It is taught as a way to "bear down" and tighten the core for the reception. But coaches and players also know that a misplay will likely deflect off the lower biceps or inner elbow. Unless the referee is in a perfect position, handling is rarely called. Coaches also teach the player to jerk sideways to make it appear as thought the ball is being directed by the chest, although there is clear redirection by the upper arm.
> 
> As a coach and part of a referee crew, I've seen it work most of the time.


If the referee is in a perfect, (or not perfect) position, what you describe is not handling the ball deliberately and should not be called even if the ball deflects off the lower biceps or inner elbow, at least according to USSF considerations. The ball went towards the arms and not the arms towards the ball.


----------



## watfly (May 9, 2017)

What's the proper call when a young player instinctively brings their arms in to block the ball and protect their body on a close range shot? Obviously, it's deliberate but I've seen refs not call it in the "spirit" of the game.  Sometimes it seems a little harsh to call a handball but what's the correct call?


----------



## timbuck (May 9, 2017)

watfly said:


> What's the proper call when a young player instinctively brings their arms in to block the ball and protect their body on a close range shot? Obviously, it's deliberate but I've seen refs not call it in the "spirit" of the game.  Sometimes it seems a little harsh to call a handball but what's the correct call?


From what I've seen-  if the hands/arms are tight to the body, then no call.  If the hands move forward to block, then it's a handling call. 
Also- if there is a chance to move out of the way or use your chest/head safely, but the arms come up in defense instead, then it's a handling call. 
But it's completely up to the ref to decide.


----------



## watfly (May 9, 2017)

timbuck said:


> From what I've seen-  if the hands/arms are tight to the body, then no call.  If the hands move forward to block, then it's a handling call.
> Also- if there is a chance to move out of the way or use your chest/head safely, but the arms come up in defense instead, then it's a handling call.
> But it's completely up to the ref to decide.


I realize that proximity to the ball is a consideration, I'm thinking greater than point blank but not farther than it would be to reasonably play the with head or chest.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 9, 2017)

watfly said:


> What's the proper call when a young player instinctively brings their arms in to block the ball and protect their body on a close range shot? Obviously, it's deliberate but I've seen refs not call it in the "spirit" of the game.  Sometimes it seems a little harsh to call a handball but what's the correct call?


The correct call according to USSF interpretation is no call. Even for an older player. Reflexively protecting one's face or you know where is a natural reaction and it is clearly stated as such in the USSF instructions.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 9, 2017)

timbuck said:


> From what I've seen-  if the hands/arms are tight to the body, then no call.  If the hands move forward to block, then it's a handling call.
> Also- if there is a chance to move out of the way or use your chest/head safely, but the arms come up in defense instead, then it's a handling call.
> But it's completely up to the ref to decide.


The referee is to follow USSF/IFAB considerations and not decide arbitrarily.


----------



## watfly (May 9, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> The correct call according to USSF interpretation is no call. Even for an older player. Reflexively protecting one's face or you know where is a natural reaction and it is clearly stated as such in the USSF instructions.


Thanks, I thought that was the case but apparently I had missed this previously:

"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."


----------



## Just a Parent (May 9, 2017)

watfly said:


> Thanks, I thought that was the case but apparently I had missed this previously:
> 
> "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."


Thank you.


----------



## coachrefparent (May 9, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> If the referee is in a perfect, (or not perfect) position, what you describe is not handling the ball deliberately and should not be called even if the ball deflects off the lower biceps or inner elbow, at least according to USSF considerations. The ball went towards the arms and not the arms towards the ball.


Nope. Arms not in a natural position, and moving your body and arms to deflect the ball is deliberate.


----------



## Just a Parent (May 9, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Nope. Arms not in a natural position, and moving your body and arms to deflect the ball is deliberate.


Baloney.


----------



## MWN (May 17, 2017)

watfly said:


> What's the proper call when a young player instinctively brings their arms in to block the ball and protect their body on a close range shot? Obviously, it's deliberate but I've seen refs not call it in the "spirit" of the game.  Sometimes it seems a little harsh to call a handball but what's the correct call?


As @Just a Parent pointed out, protecting a sensitive area in a reactionary manner is not deliberate handling under the USSF/IFAB rules.  Also note that US Soccer issued a 2009 directive (https://www.massref.net/ussfdirectives/Handling_the_Ball.pdf) that acknowledges "The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face."   

There are 5 primary considerations:
1. Did the player make themselves bigger?
2. Was the players hands/arms in an unnatural position?
3. Did the player/or his team benefit?
4. What was the reaction time? [this is where protecting a sensitive area, such as, face comes in]
5. Was it hand to ball or ball to hand?


----------



## watfly (May 17, 2017)

MWN said:


> As @Just a Parent pointed out, protecting a sensitive area in a reactionary manner is not deliberate handling under the USSF/IFAB rules.  Also note that US Soccer issued a 2009 directive (https://www.massref.net/ussfdirectives/Handling_the_Ball.pdf) that acknowledges "The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face."
> 
> There are 5 primary considerations:
> 1. Did the player make themselves bigger?
> ...


I hope you are not saying that it can be "handling" if only #3 applies.  I think this is where some refs get tripped up.  

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


----------



## LBSoccer (May 17, 2017)

timbuck said:


> From what I've seen-  if the hands/arms are tight to the body, then no call.  If the hands move forward to block, then it's a handling call.
> Also- if there is a chance to move out of the way or use your chest/head safely, but the arms come up in defense instead, then it's a handling call.
> But it's completely up to the ref to decide.


Saw this just recently at a game in national cup, hands/arms tight to the body and ref said no handball. The parents were livid and some even ran onto the field in protest. I agree with the call.


----------



## MWN (May 17, 2017)

watfly said:


> I hope you are not saying that it can be "handling" if only #3 applies.  I think this is where some refs get tripped up.
> 
> ATR:
> "The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement."


Correct, I'm not saying that any one of the factors can override the "deliberate" component of a handling call.  The factors are used to ascertain "intent" and/or deliberate action.  If a player does not "deliberately" handle the ball by using his hands/arms to disrupt the trajectory of the ball, it can never be handling.   Thus, if a defending player's hands, in a natural position is struck by a ball kicked at the player in a manner that would preclude the player from reasonably avoiding the contact, then its not deliberate.  However, let's take a look two scenarios:

1. Defending player moves hands to face to avoid ball striking his face, ball falls to feet and defending player passes to teammate.  *No handling, no foul*.  (Note, at least 8 dumbass parents (and likely 1 coach) on opposing teams section are going to be screaming at the top of their lungs "HANDBALL!!!, HANDBALL!!!, HANDBALL!!!.")

2.  Defending player moves hands to face to avoid ball striking his face, but at last moment slaps at ball, ball falls to opponent's feet who dribbles 5 yards and promptly loses ball to defender that handled ball.  *Advantage, then Whistle, handling, direct kick (assuming none of this occurred in penalty box)*.  2 dumbass parents for opposing team will yell "THANK YOU REF!!!" in a sarcastic tone and at least 2 (likely parents of player and goalkeepers parents) of team foul called against will yell "It was defensive, not intentional/deliberate" and at least 1 will yell "Come on Ref!!! Call it both ways" or some other nonsensical statement.

For the record, (and this is highly misunderstood by parents and coaches) a good Referee also takes into account the relative skill/age of the players when applying the Laws.   What might be a "red" card at the U16 level, is a yellow at the U10 and a verbal warning at U8.  Tactical awareness and control of one's body makes applying the Law 12 is a bit fluid.  U10's get much more latitude.


----------



## Socal United (Jun 4, 2017)

Surfref said:


> The one word I hear most from spectators is "Handball."  19 out of 20 times the spectators have it wrong.  If only spectators actually knew the Handling criteria and what the referee is using to make the decision, there would be less yelling at the referee in youth games.
> 
> Here is a good explanation of Handling with videos and play analysis of both the right and wrong calls by MLS referee.  PRO Referee is a great website with informative information on the LOTG and how to apply them.
> 
> http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2016-week-29.php


Question for you.  Goalkeeper has the ball, walks out of the box with the ball in his hand.  Hand ball.  Direct correct?


----------



## espola (Jun 4, 2017)

Socal United said:


> Question for you.  Goalkeeper has the ball, walks out of the box with the ball in his hand.  Hand ball.  Direct correct?


Yes, but ... I have seen indirect kick called even to the point of calling back a goal scored from the kick.


----------



## Socal United (Jun 4, 2017)

espola said:


> Yes, but ... I have seen indirect kick called even to the point of calling back a goal scored from the kick.


That exact thing happened today.  Hand ball called by the ref.  Told my kid to shoot, ref called it back when he scored and said it was indirect.  Try explaining that to a 6 year old, even he knew it was a goal.    Just wanted to make sure.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 4, 2017)

Socal United said:


> That exact thing happened today.  Hand ball called by the ref.  Told my kid to shoot, ref called it back when he scored and said it was indirect.  Try explaining that to a 6 year old, even he knew it was a goal.    Just wanted to make sure.


Deliberate handling aka "hand ball" is a direct kick:
LAW 12: _A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: 
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)_

That being said I can assume that a (single?) referee doing a game with 6 year old ("competitive ") soccer players just might not be the most experienced official out there.

Other goalkeeper offenses (playing a ball with their hands that was passed from a teammate, handling the ball in the box after intentionally releasing it) are indirect free kicks, so I can see how a new referee would confuse these plays that are a bit uncommon. Many new referees and most parents (like you) don't clearly understand that a keeper is just like any other player outside the penalty area, and its simply a "hand ball."


----------



## Socal United (Jun 4, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Deliberate handling aka "hand ball" is a direct kick:
> LAW 12: _A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
> • handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)_
> 
> ...


It was a single referee, I would say in his mid to late 20's.  He carried himself like someone that had been refereeing for a while.  I am the coach, and played professionally(a very long time ago), so I know the game what I like to think is pretty well and clearly understand the role of a keeper.  I had never seen that called indirect, but with all of these new silly rules I thought maybe it was one of the myriad of changes and I had just glossed over it.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 4, 2017)

espola said:


> Yes, but ... I have seen indirect kick called even to the point of calling back a goal scored from the kick.


Where the heck do you see these things?


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 4, 2017)

Socal United said:


> That exact thing happened today.  Hand ball called by the ref.  Told my kid to shoot, ref called it back when he scored and said it was indirect.  Try explaining that to a 6 year old, even he knew it was a goal.    Just wanted to make sure.


Some rec leagues like JUSA had it in their rules that for certain ages,  all kicks for all offenses were indirect free kicks. Check to make sure you were not playing in one of those.


----------



## espola (Jun 4, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Where the heck do you see these things?


On the pitch.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 4, 2017)

espola said:


> On the pitch.


Right . . .


----------



## Socal United (Jun 4, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Some rec leagues like JUSA had it in their rules that for certain ages,  all kicks for all offenses were indirect free kicks. Check to make sure you were not playing in one of those.


It was a calsouth regular tournament, the SD Cup Invitational.  I run our local rec league as well, I have made some just our league rules that I think help the little ones.  This one had the normal fifa rules stuff.


----------



## espola (Jun 4, 2017)

Socal United said:


> It was a calsouth regular tournament, the SD Cup Invitational.  I run our local rec league as well, I have made some just our league rules that I think help the little ones.  This one had the normal fifa rules stuff.


Our rec league rules for the youngest groups said no offside calls until halfway through the season.  When the magic weekend arrived, confusion reigned.


----------



## Socal United (Jun 4, 2017)

espola said:


> Our rec league rules for the youngest groups said no offside calls until halfway through the season.  When the magic weekend arrived, confusion reigned.


I heard about that?  I think a lot of those confused ended up at RB


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 5, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Where the heck do you see these things?


Conners park, San Marcos, 2016.


----------



## MWN (Jun 5, 2017)

On this topic, I had to call 2 direct kicks in a U9 game over the weekend.  Keeper 8 years old grabbed the ball twice outside the Penalty Area.  Its U9 so I explained the rule, but the second time she was in tears.  I waited until she dried her eyes a bit before allowing the DK.  Good news is she stopped both.


----------



## espola (Jun 5, 2017)

Socal United said:


> I heard about that?  I think a lot of those confused ended up at RB


I used to think that it was only beginning referees that got confused with direct/indirect calls - but here is a box score from a D1 college game, where an indirect kick was awarded after a handling call near midfield.  Both teams questioned the call, the defenders arguing it was not handling, and the attackers asking why it was indirect.  Eventually everyone just shrugged their shoulders and took the kick, which resulted in the only goal of the game.

http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/sports/m-soccer/stats/2010-2011/ucdmsc11.html


----------



## Surfref (Jun 5, 2017)

Socal United said:


> Question for you.  Goalkeeper has the ball, walks out of the box with the ball in his hand.  Hand ball.  Direct correct?


It would be a direct free kick at the spot where the whole of the ball completely crossed out of the penalty area boundary while meeting the criteria for handling (keeper holding the ball).  It is the position of the ball and not the position of the player/keeper.  Once the keeper is outside of the penalty area they are treated like a normal player.

There are infractions that can be committed by the keeper that can result in an indirect free kick, but all of those would occur in the penalty area.


----------



## Socal United (Jun 5, 2017)

Surfref said:


> It would be a direct free kick at the spot where the whole of the ball completely crossed out of the penalty area boundary while meeting the criteria for handling (keeper holding the ball).  It is the position of the ball and not the position of the player/keeper.  Once the keeper is outside of the penalty area they are treated like a normal player.
> 
> There are infractions that can be committed by the keeper that can result in an indirect free kick, but all of those would occur in the penalty area.


It was placed in the right spot, etc.  The kid on my team buried it, he called it back.  I asked him how that could be, he said it was indirect.  I then asked for clarification on the call, he said hand ball.  My comment was "so it was a hand ball, but it was indirect."  He said that it was.  It was a 2010 game, so I let it go.  The funnier part was the kid that hit the shot asking him twice why he took his goal away.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 5, 2017)

espola said:


> I used to think that it was only beginning referees that got confused with direct/indirect calls - but here is a box score from a D1 college game, where an indirect kick was awarded after a handling call near midfield.  Both teams questioned the call, the defenders arguing it was not handling, and the attackers asking why it was indirect.  Eventually everyone just shrugged their shoulders and took the kick, which resulted in the only goal of the game.
> 
> http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/sports/m-soccer/stats/2010-2011/ucdmsc11.html


This is not possible. Referees cannot make mistakes. They are always right. Ask a troll.


----------



## espola (Jun 5, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> This is not possible. Referees cannot make mistakes. They are always right. Ask a troll.


It's not so much that they are always right, but that they are never wrong once a restart has occurred.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 5, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> This is not possible. Referees cannot make mistakes. They are always right. Ask a troll.


This is the sort of self imposed, holier than thou fake frustrated anger that make this site so fun.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 5, 2017)

espola said:


> I used to think that it was only beginning referees that got confused with direct/indirect calls - but here is a box score from a D1 college game, where an indirect kick was awarded after a handling call near midfield.  Both teams questioned the call, the defenders arguing it was not handling, and the attackers asking why it was indirect.  Eventually everyone just shrugged their shoulders and took the kick, which resulted in the only goal of the game.
> 
> http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/sports/m-soccer/stats/2010-2011/ucdmsc11.html


How do you know the call was for hand ball?


----------



## espola (Jun 5, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> How do you know the call was for hand ball?


I saw the play live (looked like possible handling to me, depending on the referee's angle and opinion), I watched the referee's gestures as he explained the play to the players on the field, and I spoke to some of the players after the game.


----------



## espola (Jun 5, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> This is the sort of self imposed, holier than thou fake frustrated anger that make this site so fun.


q.e.d.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> q.e.d.


And this.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> I saw the play live (looked like possible handling to me, depending on the referee's angle and opinion), I watched the referee's gestures as he explained the play to the players on the field, and I spoke to some of the players after the game.


And what did it look like to the referee? I take it you didn't ask him?


----------



## espola (Jun 6, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> And what did it look like to the referee? I take it you didn't ask him?


We're all delighted that you have returned.  Please continue.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> We're all delighted that you have returned.  Please continue.


I know . . .

In the mean time, you never did ask the referee, did you dear?


----------



## espola (Jun 6, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> I know . . .
> 
> In the mean time, you never did ask the referee, did you dear?


The players did.  I spoke to the players right after the game ("what was that all about?").  Perhaps you missed that part.


----------



## MWN (Jun 6, 2017)

@Just a Parent and @espola.  You both made your point.  Opinion was based on hearsay, was it reliable/accurate?  Maybe or maybe not.  The referee could have seen an IDK foul (such as, impeding opponent a second before the handling), went with advantage then called it back to a similar spot or just made a mistake.


----------



## espola (Jun 6, 2017)

MWN said:


> @Just a Parent and @espola.  You both made your point.  Opinion was based on hearsay, was it reliable/accurate?  Maybe or maybe not.  The referee could have seen an IDK foul (such as, impeding opponent a second before the handling), went with advantage then called it back to a similar spot or just made a mistake.


My "hearsay" was watching the game and talking to players afterward, who had spoken to the referee when the call was made.  The referee said out loud with transparent gestures that it was handling to the defenders who were complaining about the call.  When the attackers asked why it was indirect, he just blew his whistle and waved for them to proceed.  A short tap by one player (his only assist of the year) and then a long shot that caught the upper V perfectly.  The attacking players thought it was funny, especially since the play resulted in the only goal of the game.

What "point" did JaP make?  Do you suppose he was the referee in question?  That would be even funnier.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> The players did.  I spoke to the players right after the game ("what was that all about?").  Perhaps you missed that part.


The part I missed is where you spoke to the referee.


----------



## espola (Jun 6, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> The part I missed is where you spoke to the referee.


Do you think he would have told me something different than what he told the players?


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> My "hearsay" was watching the game and talking to players afterward, who had spoken to the referee when the call was made.  The referee said out loud with transparent gestures that it was handling to the defenders who were complaining about the call.  When the attackers asked why it was indirect, he just blew his whistle and waved for them to proceed.  A short tap by one player (his only assist of the year) and then a long shot that caught the upper V perfectly.  The attacking players thought it was funny, especially since the play resulted in the only goal of the game.
> 
> What "point" did JaP make?  Do you suppose he was the referee in question?  That would be even funnier.


Ah, the point. The point is that, with nothing more than speculative guesswork, you carry on about a supposed incident to illustrate a referee error as if it was fact when you could have simply asked the referee to enlighten you. I must give you credit though. You do have a knack of carrying ignorance with confident pride.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> Do you think he would have told me something different than what he told the players?


You don't believe in direct communication?


----------



## espola (Jun 6, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Ah, the point. The point is that, with nothing more than speculative guesswork, you carry on about a supposed incident to illustrate a referee error as if it was fact when you could have simply asked the referee to enlighten you. I must give you credit though. You do have a knack of carrying ignorance with confident pride.


Are you speculating that he was right, when all the witnesses say he was wrong?


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 6, 2017)

espola said:


> Are you speculating that he was right, when all the witnesses say he was wrong?


I am speculating that, absent communication with the referee your guesswork as to what the call was or wasn't is neither here nor there.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> Do you think he would have told me something different than what he told the players?


And players always tell their coach, teammates and parents the truth?  I have heard more players than I can count tell someone something completely different than what was said on the field.  I yellow carded a player this past weekend for telling me a PK call was bullshit.  When that player subbed out and the coach asked, the player said he told me good call.  The coach approached me after the game and I told him what was actually said. He said, "I kind if figured it was something worse than good call."

Moral: Don't believe everything the players tell you.


----------



## espola (Jun 7, 2017)

Surfref said:


> And players always tell their coach, teammates and parents the truth?  I have heard more players than I can count tell someone something completely different than what was said on the field.  I yellow carded a player this past weekend for telling me a PK call was bullshit.  When that player subbed out and the coach asked, the player said he told me good call.  The coach approached me after the game and I told him what was actually said. He said, "I kind if figured it was something worse than good call."
> 
> Moral: Don't believe everything the players tell you.


In this situation, why would they not just tell what everyone had seen?


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 7, 2017)

Surfref said:


> And players always tell their coach, teammates and parents the truth?  I have heard more players than I can count tell someone something completely different than what was said on the field.  I yellow carded a player this past weekend for telling me a PK call was bullshit.  When that player subbed out and the coach asked, the player said he told me good call.  The coach approached me after the game and I told him what was actually said. He said, "I kind if figured it was something worse than good call."
> 
> Moral: Don't believe everything the players tell you.


Surfref, I see you're trying to reason with the poster known as espola. Good luck with that.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> In this situation, why would they not just tell what everyone had seen?


If everyone had seen, why would they need to be told?


----------



## espola (Jun 7, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> If everyone had seen, why would they need to be told?


It was a topic of post-game conversation, since it was the only goal.


----------



## espola (Jun 7, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Surfref, I see you're trying to reason with the poster known as espola. Good luck with that.


I think the average reader can figure out who is being reasonable here.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 7, 2017)

espola said:


> I think the average reader can figure out who is being reasonable here.


I have no doubt you do.


----------



## coachrefparent (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 8, 2017)

espola said:


> It was a topic of post-game conversation, since it was the only goal.


They needed to be told what they had seen in order to carry out a post-game conversation?


----------



## espola (Jun 8, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> They needed to be told what they had seen in order to carry out a post-game conversation?


This is about the most convoluted thought you have ever posted.  Congratulations.

And please continue.


----------



## Just a Parent (Jun 8, 2017)

espola said:


> This is about the most convoluted thought you have ever posted.  Congratulations.
> 
> And please continue.


It is not a thought. The guesswork with which you are famed for turned out to be wrong again. As usual.

In the meantime, if everyone saw what happened, why did they need to be told?


----------



## jsmaxwell (Jun 13, 2017)

espola said:


> Yes, but ... I have seen indirect kick called even to the point of calling back a goal scored from the kick.


I've seen it too.  Youth game, goalie walks out of box with ball in hand, whistle. Ref places ball outside the 18.  Player shoots and scores over goalie. Another whistle, ref says it was indirect, and awards goal kick to defending team. Mistakes are relatively rate, but they happen.


----------



## watfly (Aug 16, 2017)

This is an interesting video on handling (out of a whole series of informative videos).  Apparently I would suck as a ref because I only went 3 for 6 on the examples.  The instructor clearly refers to the defender benefitting as a reason for calling a handball which seems to negate ATR 12.9  "The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement."  As justification he uses the concept of "taking a risk" that I had never heard or seen published before.  So if a defender does a slide tackle he has taken the risk and if the ball hits his hand, whether deliberate or not, it is a handball...too bad, so sad.  Also interesting that he places a lot of emphasis on players and the public's perception of a handball call or non-call.


----------



## Surfref (Aug 16, 2017)

watfly said:


> This is an interesting video on handling (out of a whole series of informative videos).  Apparently I would suck as a ref because I only went 3 for 6 on the examples.  The instructor clearly refers to the defender benefitting as a reason for calling a handball which seems to negate ATR 12.9  "The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement."  As justification he uses the concept of "taking a risk" that I had never heard or seen published before.  So if a defender does a slide tackle he has taken the risk and if the ball hits his hand, whether deliberate or not, it is a handball...too bad, so sad.  Also interesting that he places a lot of emphasis on players and the public's perception of a handball call or non-call.


The ATR is no longer used.


----------



## watfly (Aug 17, 2017)

Surfref said:


> The ATR is no longer used.


I fully realize that the ATR isn't current, although I still see refs refer to it.  So a player that benefits from a non-deliberate handball is now considered handling?  What published guidance superceded this?

Also what published guidance introduced the concept of "taking a risk" (ie slide tackle) for non-deliberate handballs?  I've never seen that interpretation published or mentioned by refs, certainly nary a mention of it in 6 pages of this thread.   That seems like a really important concept for players and coaches to be aware of.


----------



## MWN (Aug 17, 2017)

@watfly, not exactly.  In this video, the trainer introduces a concept of "taking a risk," in order to determine the intent of the player.  That's all.  Because the Referee can only determine the intent of the player through circumstantial evidence, the trainer's advice is that we should give weight to taking an unusual risk (i.e. slide tackle in the box) in determining whether the player's handling of the ball was deliberate.  Taking a risk doesn't overturn a determination of "unintentional."   We already take into account whether the hands/arms are in an unnatural position (i.e. player making himself bigger) and the movement of hand to ball.  The taking a risk concept is simply an extension of these considerations in that a player undertakes a risky move (red flag) that has an "intended" secondary effect of making the player bigger and increasing the chance of the ball hitting the players hand/arm through the use of his arms as part of the risky move.  The trainer's advice is we should give great weight to the possibility that handling was intentional.

With regard to "youth" players the considerations are more liberal than high level pros.  At the end of the day, handling requires a "deliberate" handling of the ball.  The considerations of hand to ball, unnatural position, time to react, etc. are much more liberal when the player is 10 v 14 v 20 because the level of player must be taken into account in determining intent.  My standard tightens up as we work from a 14 year old Rec v. 14 year old Flight 3 v. 14 year old USSDA.  

Was the handling deliberate?  Run through the considerations in .9542 seconds to figure it out.


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 18, 2017)

watfly said:


> ...So a player that benefits from a non-deliberate handball is now considered handling?...
> 
> Also what published guidance introduced the concept of "taking a risk" (ie slide tackle) for non-deliberate handballs?  I've never seen that interpretation published or mentioned by refs, certainly nary a mention of it in 6 pages of this thread.   That seems like a really important concept for players and coaches to be aware of.


I agree that such things should be put in writing, but you can't write down every circumstance. This presentation was, evidently, for FIFA referees. I'm sure they have some pretty solid documentation and instructions for players and referees, including releasing these presentations.

Like MWN says above, the 'taking a risk' concept is really only appropriate at older and/or higher level of skill play, where you can expect a player to know how to go to ground without making themselves bigger.

At none of the games I'm usually assigned to would I consider the sliding situations to be intentional.


----------



## watfly (Aug 18, 2017)

GunninGopher said:


> I agree that such things should be put in writing, but you can't write down every circumstance. This presentation was, evidently, for FIFA referees. I'm sure they have some pretty solid documentation and instructions for players and referees, including releasing these presentations.
> 
> Like MWN says above, the 'taking a risk' concept is really only appropriate at older and/or higher level of skill play, where you can expect a player to know how to go to ground without making themselves bigger.
> 
> At none of the games I'm usually assigned to would I consider the sliding situations to be intentional.


Yes my main point is that I found it interesting that "taking a risk" was a factor that was presented with all the other factors that are traditionally mentioned in determining a handball.   Obviously this is either a new and/or not well known factor based upon 1) the vast majority of refs in the video that felt the 2nd slide tackle handball example was not a foul 2) the very detailed explanations by refs in this thread never mention the "taking the risk" factor, nor have I ever heard a ref mention this factor until this video.  And yes maybe this only applies to older players.  Interesting nonetheless.

The presenter in the video is unequivocal that he couldn't care less whether the arm was in a "proper" position for a slide tackle or not.  His exact works were "too bad, too bad".  His justification was that an attacker who has done everything right should not be punished, and a defender should not benefit, from a slide tackle.  He stated his primary basis for this is because a slide tackle is a last ditch effort (which in reality is not an absolute) and also mentions that he prefers attacking soccer.   So in terms of handling, a slide tackle is an objective measure, as explained in the video.  I actually think that would be a decent rule under the spirit of the game; however, in my layman's mind if its an objective measure it should be included in the rules.  Wouldn't it be easier for refs, players and coaches to know exactly what the rule is to minimize controversy.  It's a lot easier to explain that "it was a slide tackle" versus "well the defender should have done a standup tackle or his arms were a little wide for a properly executed slide tackle".   I realize a Ref's judgment is sacred, but the LOTG are for everyone in the game.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 18, 2017)

watfly said:


> Yes my main point is that I found it interesting that "taking a risk" was a factor that was presented with all the other factors that are traditionally mentioned in determining a handball.   Obviously this is either a new and/or not well known factor based upon 1) the vast majority of refs in the video that felt the 2nd slide tackle handball example was not a foul 2) the very detailed explanations by refs in this thread never mention the "taking the risk" factor, nor have I ever heard a ref mention this factor until this video.  And yes maybe this only applies to older players.  Interesting nonetheless.
> 
> The presenter in the video is unequivocal that he couldn't care less whether the arm was in a "proper" position for a slide tackle or not.  His exact works were "too bad, too bad".  His justification was that an attacker who has done everything right should not be punished, and a defender should not benefit, from a slide tackle.  He stated his primary basis for this is because a slide tackle is a last ditch effort (which in reality is not an absolute) and also mentions that he prefers attacking soccer.   So in terms of handling, a slide tackle is an objective measure, as explained in the video.  I actually think that would be a decent rule under the spirit of the game; however, in my layman's mind if its an objective measure it should be included in the rules.  Wouldn't it be easier for refs, players and coaches to know exactly what the rule is to minimize controversy.  It's a lot easier to explain that "it was a slide tackle" versus "well the defender should have done a standup tackle or his arms were a little wide for a properly executed slide tackle".   I realize a Ref's judgment is sacred, but the LOTG are for everyone in the game.


Refs judgment  is not sacred, look at ivr. This guy sounds a bit off, not sure why this was ever published  as authoritative.


----------



## Just a Parent (Aug 20, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Refs judgment  is not sacred, look at ivr. This guy sounds a bit off, not sure why this was ever published  as authoritative.


Because he is an authority both at USSF and FIFA.


----------



## espola (Aug 21, 2017)

Just a Parent said:


> Because he is an authority both at USSF and FIFA.


I think I see your problem.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 21, 2017)

espola said:


> I think I see your problem.


Which  is?


----------



## espola (Aug 21, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> Which  is?


Adherence to authority.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 21, 2017)

espola said:


> Adherence to authority.


My comment was the opposite.


----------



## espola (Aug 21, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> My comment was the opposite.


My comment was not directed to you.  I favored yours.


----------



## coachrefparent (Aug 21, 2017)

espola said:


> My comment was not directed to you.  I favored yours.


Sorry, with all the posts its hard to tell who you are referring to when you reply without quoting. No worries.


----------



## Just a Parent (Aug 21, 2017)

espola said:


> I think I see your problem.


Right . . .


----------



## Just a Parent (Aug 21, 2017)

espola said:


> Adherence to authority.


Muahahahahahaaaaaaa


----------



## watfly (Dec 23, 2018)

MWN said:


> @watfly, not exactly.  In this video, the trainer introduces a concept of "taking a risk," in order to determine the intent of the player.  That's all.  Because the Referee can only determine the intent of the player through circumstantial evidence, the trainer's advice is that we should give weight to taking an unusual risk (i.e. slide tackle in the box) in determining whether the player's handling of the ball was deliberate.  Taking a risk doesn't overturn a determination of "unintentional."   We already take into account whether the hands/arms are in an unnatural position (i.e. player making himself bigger) and the movement of hand to ball.  The taking a risk concept is simply an extension of these considerations in that a player undertakes a risky move (red flag) that has an "intended" secondary effect of making the player bigger and increasing the chance of the ball hitting the players hand/arm through the use of his arms as part of the risky move.  The trainer's advice is we should give great weight to the possibility that handling was intentional.
> 
> With regard to "youth" players the considerations are more liberal than high level pros.  At the end of the day, handling requires a "deliberate" handling of the ball.  The considerations of hand to ball, unnatural position, time to react, etc. are much more liberal when the player is 10 v 14 v 20 because the level of player must be taken into account in determining intent.  My standard tightens up as we work from a 14 year old Rec v. 14 year old Flight 3 v. 14 year old USSDA.
> 
> Was the handling deliberate?  Run through the considerations in .9542 seconds to figure it out.





GunninGopher said:


> I agree that such things should be put in writing, but you can't write down every circumstance. This presentation was, evidently, for FIFA referees. I'm sure they have some pretty solid documentation and instructions for players and referees, including releasing these presentations.
> 
> Like MWN says above, the 'taking a risk' concept is really only appropriate at older and/or higher level of skill play, where you can expect a player to know how to go to ground without making themselves bigger.
> 
> At none of the games I'm usually assigned to would I consider the sliding situations to be intentional.


So I was watching the EPL post game today and Clattenburg had this analysis regarding "handball" on a slide tackle (see starting around 2:00 ) .  https://www.nbcsports.com/video/premier-league-ever-wonder-what-considered-handball.

His analysis was completely opposite of the video noted above by Esse Baharmast .  Clattenburg states that it is perfectly normal for a player to have his arm fully extended on a slide tackle and that it is "not deliberate" and strongly and rhetorically states if the ball hits the outstretched arm of a slide tackle that "how can this ever be a penalty?" (as long as the hand is on the ground and not raised to block the ball)

Whereas Esse in his video (starting around 7:20) unequivocally states that a ball hitting the hand of slide tackler is a handball (or handling for the purist).  Esse claims that its a handball because a slide tackle is a "last ditch effort" from a defender and that defender "has taken a risk" and that the a slide tackler has "taken away the benefit the attacker from the attacker that has done everything right".  He goes further to say that referees are to promote attacking soccer and as far as the slide tackling defender is considered he says "too bad, too bad".

So what is the correct call (they are both referring to high level soccer)?  Please spare me the long-winded answer that it depends, they are both referring to the exact same situations and are both unequivocal in their positions which are exactly opposite.


----------



## Just a Parent (Dec 23, 2018)

watfly said:


> So I was watching the EPL post game today and Clattenburg had this analysis regarding "handball" on a slide tackle (see starting around 2:00 ) .  https://www.nbcsports.com/video/premier-league-ever-wonder-what-considered-handball.
> 
> His analysis was completely opposite of the video noted above by Esse Baharmast .  Clattenburg states that it is perfectly normal for a player to have his arm fully extended on a slide tackle and that it is "not deliberate" and strongly and rhetorically states if the ball hits the outstretched arm of a slide tackle that "how can this ever be a penalty?" (as long as the hand is on the ground and not raised to block the ball)
> 
> ...


The Baharmast interpretation is the USSF one.


----------



## espola (Dec 23, 2018)

watfly said:


> So I was watching the EPL post game today and Clattenburg had this analysis regarding "handball" on a slide tackle (see starting around 2:00 ) .  https://www.nbcsports.com/video/premier-league-ever-wonder-what-considered-handball.
> 
> His analysis was completely opposite of the video noted above by Esse Baharmast .  Clattenburg states that it is perfectly normal for a player to have his arm fully extended on a slide tackle and that it is "not deliberate" and strongly and rhetorically states if the ball hits the outstretched arm of a slide tackle that "how can this ever be a penalty?" (as long as the hand is on the ground and not raised to block the ball)
> 
> ...


So whether it is called handling or not depends on which referee is involved, which I have known for over 30 years.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Dec 29, 2018)

Just a Parent said:


> Parents, sure. But referees? Perhaps a few. But many? Where?





Surfref said:


> Those referees that you refer too are not the vast majority.  They are the ones that do not attend the monthly training or even open the LOTG book to study.  The vast majority of these refs tend to be lazy and do not know how to apply the LOTG.  Any decent ref knows the criteria for Handling unlike the large number of parents that are constantly yelling "handball."


Maybe I am just being naive. But it _feels_ like a vast majority of refs call the non deliberate, but advantageous, ball to hands as handling. Maybe the minority of refs that call it just stick out in my mind more. But it feels like that isnt the case.

The number of new referees that I try to explain handling to and they always seem either confused or desperate for clarification. Its like they hear something different every week. I remember being new. It took me like 2 years to finally peg down the proper handling criteria. 

Furthermore You would think after a 100 games with a "majority" of refs calling it close to properly, you would think the parents and players would eventually get the picture that handball has to be deliberate. But they still yell all entitled-like whenever a ball brushes an arm as though every other ref has been calling it like that all season. Or maybe they just believe that every ref is just blind and if all 100 of them were blessed with the super parent vision then the ref would concur. 

It feels like only the top 10% of refs call handling properly. (An assignor once told me that 10% of the ref pool does 50% of the games). And maybe since you are in that 10% you are surrounded by refs that know the rules. But I dont think its that common.


----------



## watfly (Dec 29, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Maybe I am just being naive. But it _feels_ like a vast majority of refs call the non deliberate, but advantageous, ball to hands as handling. Maybe the minority of refs that call it just stick out in my mind more. But it feels like that isn't the case.


I feel the same way, and in fact mentioned that earlier in this thread, but was given a yellow card for using the term "vast majority".  I guess the question of whether handling is called "properly" is in the eye of beholder.  When two professional refs as well regarded as Baharmast and Clattenburg have complete opposite opinions on what is handling in a very specific circumstance than how can we expect weekend warrior refs to know what the "proper" interpretation is?  Even Baharmast in his USSF training video uses the concept of gaining a benefit as justification for calling handling on a non-deliberate handball.


----------



## coachrefparent (Dec 29, 2018)

watfly said:


> When two professional refs as well regarded as Baharmast and Clattenburg have complete opposite opinions on what is handling in a very specific circumstance than how can we expect weekend warrior refs to know what the "proper" interpretation is?


Referees of teenage competitive soccer matches should make zero mistakes, and study EPL referee training videos and guidance daily. If they call a touchline a sideline, or the area a box, or impeding obstruction, they must be fined $10,000, and suspended for 5 years.


----------



## watfly (Dec 30, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Referees of teenage competitive soccer matches should make zero mistakes, and study EPL referee training videos and guidance daily. If they call a touchline a sideline, or the area a box, or impeding obstruction, they must be fined $10,000, and suspended for 5 years.


Wading through your hyperbole, if you think that I'm saying that refs should be judged more harshly you obviously skipped over my prior sentence.  What I'm saying is refs should be given way more latitude because  there is not even consensus among the referee community on what the "proper" interpretation is in certain limited circumstances.   Bharmast/Clattenburg is an example of this as, as are the differing opinions from refs on this forum.  I see a refs on this forum adamantly claim that their interpretation is correct over another ref's opinion, when in reality they both may have a good faith basis for their opinion and it's possible they're both "correct".  If you ignore the drama and the name calling, I've found this forum to be very informative.

I'll I care about is that the ref...and the coach and the player, put in the effort.  Mistakes happen, that's to be expected, but mistakes are less frequent when a good effort is put forward.


----------



## coachrefparent (Dec 30, 2018)

watfly said:


> Wading through your hyperbole, if you think that I'm saying that refs should be judged more harshly you obviously skipped over my prior sentence.  What I'm saying is refs should be given way more latitude because  there is not even consensus among the referee community on what the "proper" interpretation is in certain limited circumstances.   Bharmast/Clattenburg is an example of this as, as are the differing opinions from refs on this forum.  I see a refs on this forum adamantly claim that their interpretation is correct over another ref's opinion, when in reality they both may have a good faith basis for their opinion and it's possible they're both "correct".  If you ignore the drama and the name calling, I've found this forum to be very informative.
> 
> I'll I care about is that the ref...and the coach and the player, put in the effort.  Mistakes happen, that's to be expected, but mistakes are less frequent when a good effort is put forward.


Wading aside, I was agreeing with you: "how can we expect weekend warrior refs to know what the "proper" interpretation is?" And making fun of those that debate the minutiae of differing interpretations as fact, and that youth soccer referees should be measured by the standards of professionals at the highest levels (who themselves make copious mistakes.)


----------



## watfly (Dec 31, 2018)

coachrefparent said:


> Wading aside, I was agreeing with you: "how can we expect weekend warrior refs to know what the "proper" interpretation.


My bad and my apologies.


----------



## TangoCity (Dec 31, 2018)

Handling and offside restart location are the two laws I see consistently misapplied.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Dec 31, 2018)

Let me try and clear up some common confusion on handling, even in this educated forum.
*DELIBERATE* is *not* the same as* INTENTIONAL*. Do not use the words interchangeably. I have seen several back and forth posts where two people use each word and no one is bothering to correct the other, it leads to talking past each other. It is very possible to unintentionally handle the ball but still deliberately handle the ball. Deliberate only refers to the motion of the arm. Do you deliberately place your arm in that position? The next question is then "Can you help it that you deliberately put your arm there?" The answer to that question is no in the case of natural position and close proximity. Trying to judge intention and mind read is impossible.

Next misconception:* NATURAL POSITION*. Everyone tries to use the dictionary definition here. "That was a natural position for the arm to be during a slide/jump". They are technically correct, but not soccer correct. You know how some defenders put their arms behind their back in the box? That is dictionary "unnatural position", and yet, when the ball still hits the hands behind the back, which it does sometimes, the referee does not and should not call it.


----------



## espola (Dec 31, 2018)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> It is very possible to unintentionally handle the ball but still deliberately handle the ball.


Nonsense.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Dec 31, 2018)

TangoCity said:


> Handling and offside restart location are the two laws I see consistently misapplied.


Offside restart is_ supposed_ to be where the attacker was when he interfered with an opponent/gained an advantage. It_ used_ to be (3-4 years ago) wherever the 2nd to last defender was. In practice, I begrudgingly split the baby and pick a spot somewhere in between. That is one of those laws that just won't be applied until the entire referee association finally decides: "hey everyone, call it the way it is supposed to be. It is just too much of a headache to deal with the olders to get them to restart the kick in the proper location 25 yards back than where they think it should go just because every referee is calling it different.


----------



## Surfref (Jan 5, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> Offside restart is_ supposed_ to be where the attacker was when he interfered with an opponent/gained an advantage. It_ used_ to be (3-4 years ago) wherever the 2nd to last defender was. In practice, I begrudgingly split the baby and pick a spot somewhere in between. That is one of those laws that just won't be applied until the entire referee association finally decides: "hey everyone, call it the way it is supposed to be. It is just too much of a headache to deal with the olders to get them to restart the kick in the proper location 25 yards back than where they think it should go just because every referee is calling it different.


Use your whistle and voice and tell them where the restart is.  Why would you “pick a spot somewhere in between” when you could easily move them to the correct spot.  I have no problem getting players to restart in the correct location.  If all referees would just follow the LOTG and guidance from USSF, then there would be no problems.  The referees that I see not changing to the newer guidance are the 40 year old and older refs that have 10+ years of experience.  Most coaches and older youth players know the changes and rarely question my calls.  I have even seen numerous teams that have set offside plays to take advantage of the newer Law 11 guidance.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jan 8, 2019)

Surfref said:


> Use your whistle and voice and tell them where the restart is.  Why would you “pick a spot somewhere in between” when you could easily move them to the correct spot.  I have no problem getting players to restart in the correct location.  If all referees would just follow the LOTG and guidance from USSF, then there would be no problems.  The referees that I see not changing to the newer guidance are the 40 year old and older refs that have 10+ years of experience.  Most coaches and older youth players know the changes and rarely question my calls.  I have even seen numerous teams that have set offside plays to take advantage of the newer Law 11 guidance.


I will start trying it again in my games, my last experience with this was 2 years ago, I pointed to the spot where the IDFK should be, the defender gave me an exasperated look and took the kick from there ; but his teammate who was standing 15 yards away where he thought the offside restart should be taken received the pass with his hand to take the IDFK from the spot he thought the idfk should have been. I called handling going the other way. Ultimately I am not happy with how that situation turned out or how I handled it.

This is also something that would need to be stressed in the pregame because otherwise you would have your AR stand their (with his/her flag still up, ugh) 15 yards ahead of where the kick should go. A proper pregame is not always a possibility. There are so many obstacles to calling it correctly and I guess I have been choosing the "choose your battles" approach.


----------



## Surfref (Jan 16, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I will start trying it again in my games, my last experience with this was 2 years ago, I pointed to the spot where the IDFK should be, the defender gave me an exasperated look and took the kick from there ; but his teammate who was standing 15 yards away where he thought the offside restart should be taken received the pass with his hand to take the IDFK from the spot he thought the idfk should have been. I called handling going the other way. Ultimately I am not happy with how that situation turned out or how I handled it.
> 
> This is also something that would need to be stressed in the pregame because otherwise you would have your AR stand their (with his/her flag still up, ugh) 15 yards ahead of where the kick should go. A proper pregame is not always a possibility. There are so many obstacles to calling it correctly and I guess I have been choosing the "choose your battles" approach.


I completely agree with you on the pregame talk.  I always include a quick refresher on Law 11 and where the AR should be when they raise the flag.  I also tell the AR to be patient and wait for active involvement or interference with play.  Most ARs I have been working with lately have been good at getting the location of the call correct.  The trouble I have had recently has been during high school games running the dual system.  Some refs only work HS and AYSO/Rec games and are fully versed on the changes to Law 11, so there is inconsistencies in when and where we make the call.  It clearly frustrates the players.  Some guys either just want to keep on doing it the old way or just do not listen during the pre-game.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Jan 17, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I completely agree with you on the pregame talk.  I always include a quick refresher on Law 11 and where the AR should be when they raise the flag.  I also tell the AR to be patient and wait for active involvement or interference with play.  Most ARs I have been working with lately have been good at getting the location of the call correct.  The trouble I have had recently has been during high school games running the dual system.  Some refs only work HS and AYSO/Rec games and are fully versed on the changes to Law 11, so there is inconsistencies in when and where we make the call.  It clearly frustrates the players.  Some guys either just want to keep on doing it the old way or just do not listen during the pre-game.


From what I witnessed as a standby at Rob field for the Albion Cup (U9-U12), I found all the refs that don't call handling properly, who don't do offside properly, etc. I still think you are pretty inaccurate about the # of refs that call the game correctly. All the good refs you work with were doing the U13-U14's, but the majority at Robb field were not up to parr. Hell, a 9v9 game ended with 3 kids punching the crap out of a goalie and parents running on to the field.


----------



## RedCard (Jan 18, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> From what I witnessed as a standby at Rob field for the Albion Cup (U9-U12), I found all the refs that don't call handling properly, who don't do offside properly, etc. I still think you are pretty inaccurate about the # of refs that call the game correctly. All the good refs you work with were doing the U13-U14's, but the majority at Robb field were not up to parr. Hell, a 9v9 game ended with 3 kids punching the crap out of a goalie and parents running on to the field.


My son played in the Albion Cup also and it was .......interesting. He was in the USSDA 05 bracket and the referees/tournament personnel at USD got the game time duration wrong. Our 1st game was 30 minute halves and the 2nd game was 25 minute halves. We were confused but in looking at the rules, the 1st game should of been 25. Pretty bad when you screw that up.
And when we played the host Albion...let’s just say that was frustrating.


----------



## Surfref (Jan 18, 2019)

RedCard said:


> My son played in the Albion Cup also and it was .......interesting. He was in the USSDA 05 bracket and the referees/tournament personnel at USD got the game time duration wrong. Our 1st game was 30 minute halves and the 2nd game was 25 minute halves. We were confused but in looking at the rules, the 1st game should of been 25. Pretty bad when you screw that up.
> And when we played the host Albion...let’s just say that was frustrating.


(Sarcasm). Maybe the referee just added 5 minutes of additional time to each half for reasons outlined in Law 7.  At least that would be my excuse.

The referees that I worked with (B/G 13-14) were both good and did a great job.  We worked together very well as a team and only had problems with one spectator (got to watch the game from the parking lot) in in two of the game.  The funny thing is we had Sunday afternoon games after the Chargers epic loss to the Pats and the two dads that got removed from the games were wearing either a Charger jersey or Charger hat.


----------



## watfly (Jan 18, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> From what I witnessed as a standby at Rob field for the Albion Cup (U9-U12), I found all the refs that don't call handling properly, who don't do offside properly, etc. I still think you are pretty inaccurate about the # of refs that call the game correctly. All the good refs you work with were doing the U13-U14's, but the majority at Robb field were not up to parr. Hell, a 9v9 game ended with 3 kids punching the crap out of a goalie and parents running on to the field.





RedCard said:


> My son played in the Albion Cup also and it was .......interesting. He was in the USSDA 05 bracket and the referees/tournament personnel at USD got the game time duration wrong. Our 1st game was 30 minute halves and the 2nd game was 25 minute halves. We were confused but in looking at the rules, the 1st game should of been 25. Pretty bad when you screw that up.
> And when we played the host Albion...let’s just say that was frustrating.


I will just echo RedCard's comment that the reffing was interesting at the Albion Cup, at least for the 07 and 08 games I saw at Robb.  We've had great refs for league DA this year and the Albion refs made me feel like I was in some "Twilight Zone".  Of course, there were some parents that didn't help the situation.


----------



## Art (Jan 19, 2019)

Ok, after today I am starting to wonder if refs I work with just call handling because the ball hits someone's hand. After I tried explaining to a coach that it's not always that clear cut he got rude and had to caution him .

I always use the phrase ball to hand. It's not always hand to ball. First and foremost you have to look at it as a player purposely handling a ball. However these extremely educated coaches believe that just because the ball gets deflected by a hand that is two inches away from the thigh it should warrant a call for handling...Most of the time the ball bangs around off a players arm. Why punish a player that didn't do anything intentional?

If the hand is out there and the ball strikes it and puts the ball into their possession then that is a good time to call it. However, I see refs ditching protocol and calling it when a coach barks. Extremely difficult to enforce on a 2 man system. Let alone the angle issues that come into play . Nightmare.

As for the slide tackling that leads to a "hand ball." It depends on the situation, if a player makes a last ditch effort to slide and deflect a shot but it misses their legs and hits their arm, then it's handling, especially in the penalty area. Because the act of going to ground and having your arms in a certain position is deliberate. I find the nfhs interpretation of handling far superior to the USSF version.


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 6, 2019)

Thoughts on the Paris v. Manchester United handball call?  On the one hand, back was turned, not the hand, some say it wasn't intentional, and that late it was clear it would be a game deciding penalty.  On the other hand, arm away from body in the penalty area.  Does it matter if these are pros with greater body control v a U10 game...would you make the same call?


----------



## timbuck (Mar 6, 2019)

I’d love to hear the banter on the sidelines if that was a youth match. 
Would the referee have been threatened on the walk to the car?
Would parents shout “karma” at the other parents for some foul that wasn’t called earlier in the game?
Would the coach blame the ref?


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 6, 2019)

Also, I read somewhere that the handball rule was under discussion anyways for the next season...that they had decided that a score off a handball (whether deliberate or not) will be disallowed.  Given that and UEFA's announcement it would start calling handballs tighter, shouldn't they just make the rules change (given the already controversial changes about no attacking players in the wall and only one foot of the goalkeeper on the line in a penalty)?



timbuck said:


> I’d love to hear the banter on the sidelines if that was a youth match.
> Would the referee have been threatened on the walk to the car?
> Would parents shout “karma” at the other parents for some foul that wasn’t called earlier in the game?
> Would the coach blame the ref?


Making the rule change would actually make the youth game harder in this case.  The AR (if there is one) would be watching the line and have no way of seeing whether it struck the back or arm and the CR would be out of position to see if it hit the back or arm.  The sideline, though, would surely see it.


----------



## watfly (Mar 6, 2019)

IMO its not handling.  There was no deliberate act to touch the ball.  The arm was rotating away from the ball so no way its "hand to ball".  Also there is no law that says that arm can't be away from body in penalty box, in fact just the opposite "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence".  Regardless, if you watch the continuation of the defenders movement he was trying to bring his arm inside his body and away from the ball.  (The still photo makes it look way worse than it was) Unlucky, yes.  Handling, no ... in my opinion.

I'm sure there will be some rationalization about how the arm was in an unnatural position.  There is no rule that says a ball hitting a hand in an unnatural position is a foul.  The guidance for unnatural position is as a factor to consider (among others) as a indication that it may be deliberate, but not as a foul in and of itself.  Hence why there is the guidance "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence".


----------



## watfly (Mar 6, 2019)

watfly said:


> IMO its not handling.  There was no deliberate act to touch the ball.  The arm was rotating away from the ball so no way its "hand to ball".  Also there is no law that says that arm can't be away from body in penalty box, in fact just the opposite "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence".  Regardless, if you watch the continuation of the defenders movement he was trying to bring his arm inside his body and away from the ball.  (The still photo makes it look way worse than it was) Unlucky, yes.  Handling, no ... in my opinion.
> 
> I'm sure there will be some rationalization about how the arm was in an unnatural position.  There is no rule that says a ball hitting a hand in an unnatural position is a foul.  The guidance for unnatural position is as a factor to consider (among others) as a indication that it may be deliberate, but not as a foul in and of itself.  Hence why there is the guidance "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence".


Listening to Sirius FC, they stated that Clattenburg said that UEFA issued guidance after the MC - Schalke game that a ball hitting an elbow away from the body is a foul.


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 6, 2019)

watfly said:


> Listening to Sirius FC, they stated that Clattenburg said that UEFA issued guidance after the MC - Schalke game that a ball hitting an elbow away from the body is a foul.


Yeah, I don't fault the ref since it seems they were instructed to call it this way, but that begs the question why then if they are messing around with the handball rules anyway don't they take the step of really revising them so any contact to the arm away from the body is a handball.  Neymar might have a point that if they are going to change the rules, they should change them in the rulebook so everyone is on the same page (though I think he said it more colorfully)


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Mar 6, 2019)

Can someone explain the following to me (extracted from the ESPN link below):

http://www.espn.com/soccer/paris-saint-germain/story/3793346/psgs-neymar-blasts-var-after-losscalls-it-a-disgrace

_"Coach Thomas Tuchel reaffirmed his support for VAR but questioned whether or not the shot that struck Kimpembe was on target.
"I am for VAR, but it feels like the shot was not on target and if it was not on target there is no penalty," the German said. "Penalty or no penalty, there needs to be an explanation."_

Why does it matter if the shot is on target or not?  If it's judged as a handball in the box, isn't a penalty shot automatically given?


----------



## TangoCity (Mar 6, 2019)

watfly said:


> I'm sure there will be some rationalization about how the arm was in an unnatural position.  There is no rule that says a ball hitting a hand in an unnatural position is a foul.  The guidance for unnatural position is as a factor to consider (among others) as a indication that it may be deliberate, but not as a foul in and of itself.  Hence why there is the guidance "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence".


My daughter got called for handling in the box last year in a tournament on a cross that ricocheted off a thigh into her arm and ref gave other team a PK.  I yelled out that it was not deliberate and AR politely told me her arm was not in an athletic position and that the 2016 FIFA rewrite of the law stated such... so I politely pulled out my 2018 FIFA laws and asked him to show me where it was in the most current release of the laws of the game... because there was no such statement, only that the ball had to be deliberately handled.

The two most missed calls in my opinion are the "offside" restart position (part of the problem being that ARs tend to raise the flag way too early) and handling.


----------



## timbuck (Mar 6, 2019)

I think that if a ball hits the hand or arm in any way -  then it should be a handling infraction. 
Way too much subjectivity in the way it’s written right now.


----------



## Just a Parent (Mar 6, 2019)

timbuck said:


> I think that if a ball hits the hand or arm in any way -  then it should be a handling infraction.
> Way too much subjectivity in the way it’s written right now.


Why?


----------



## espola (Mar 6, 2019)

timbuck said:


> I think that if a ball hits the hand or arm in any way -  then it should be a handling infraction.
> Way too much subjectivity in the way it’s written right now.


It appears that there are some professional referees who agree with you.


----------



## espola (Mar 6, 2019)

TangoCity said:


> My daughter got called for handling in the box last year in a tournament on a cross that ricocheted off a thigh into her arm and ref gave other team a PK.  I yelled out that it was not deliberate and AR politely told me her arm was not in an athletic position and that the 2016 FIFA rewrite of the law stated such... so I politely pulled out my 2018 FIFA laws and asked him to show me where it was in the most current release of the laws of the game... because there was no such statement, only that the ball had to be deliberately handled.
> 
> The two most missed calls in my opinion are the "offside" restart position (part of the problem being that ARs tend to raise the flag way too early) and handling.


I got exposed to this early, in a BU9 game in 2000 - a defender in his PA who blocked a shot with his foot, the ball rolled up the side of his leg and over his arm held close to his body.  The referee awarded a PK that tied the game.


----------



## watfly (Mar 7, 2019)

watfly said:


> Listening to Sirius FC, they stated that Clattenburg said that UEFA issued guidance after the MC - Schalke game that a ball hitting an elbow away from the body is a foul.


Clattenburg article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6779733/The-referee-RIGHT-call-awarding-Man-Utd-penalty.html

*"Sorry, but this should NOT be a penalty... it was only given because of recent UEFA instruction*

*It was the correct decision to award Manchester United a last-minute penalty*
*The referee applied the laws as UEFA see fit after Presnel Kimpembe's handball*
*In the Premier League over the years this decision would never have been given*
*Personally, this should never be a penalty as it was not a deliberate handball"*


----------



## coachrefparent (Mar 7, 2019)

timbuck said:


> I think that if a ball hits the hand or arm in any way -  then it should be a handling infraction.
> Way too much subjectivity in the way it’s written right now.


Coaches are already designing drills to practice aiming the ball at the defender's arms instead of crossing or shooting it. Try it 10 times, you'll get a PK 2 or 3...The beautiful (PK) game.


----------



## Surfref (Mar 7, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> Coaches are already designing drills to practice aiming the ball at the defender's arms instead of crossing or shooting it. Try it 10 times, you'll get a PK 2 or 3...The beautiful (PK) game.


What coaches?  I hope your post was just full of sarcasm.


----------



## Surfref (Mar 7, 2019)

espola said:


> I got exposed to this early, in a BU9 game in 2000 - a defender in his PA who blocked a shot with his foot, the ball rolled up the side of his leg and over his arm held close to his body.  The referee awarded a PK that tied the game.


Handling was called differently 19 years ago.


----------



## Surfref (Mar 7, 2019)

TangoCity said:


> My daughter got called for handling in the box last year in a tournament on a cross that ricocheted off a thigh into her arm and ref gave other team a PK.  I yelled out that it was not deliberate and AR politely told me her arm was not in an athletic position and that the 2016 FIFA rewrite of the law stated such... so I politely pulled out my 2018 FIFA laws and asked him to show me where it was in the most current release of the laws of the game... because there was no such statement, only that the ball had to be deliberately handled.
> 
> The two most missed calls in my opinion are the "offside" restart position (part of the problem being that ARs tend to raise the flag way too early) and handling.


The referee may have got the call wrong or right, I was not there to see it.  The LOTG book does not include detailed interpretation of the LOTG.  Those are taught to referees in the continuing training they should be receiving.  The training provides the referees what the interpretation of “deliberately” means in the game of soccer.

I actually do not see handling called incorrectly very often.  I do agree with you about offside restart position.


----------



## coachrefparent (Mar 7, 2019)

Surfref said:


> What coaches?  I hope your post was just full of sarcasm.


Yes I was responding to the post that said they hoped the rules changed so that any ball that hits a player's arm or hand is handling.


----------



## Just a Parent (Mar 7, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> Coaches are already designing drills to practice aiming the ball at the defender's arms instead of crossing or shooting it. Try it 10 times, you'll get a PK 2 or 3...The beautiful (PK) game.


I thought they stopped doing this in 1970 . . .


----------



## watfly (Mar 8, 2019)

Surfref said:


> The referee may have got the call wrong or right, I was not there to see it.  The LOTG book does not include detailed interpretation of the LOTG.  Those are taught to referees in the continuing training they should be receiving.  The training provides the referees what the interpretation of “deliberately” means in the game of soccer.


Clearly what you are saying is very accurate, I don't dispute that.  However, it is also clear that what is being taught is more than just interpretation but is a broadening of the law beyond what is deliberate (see previous videos I posted).   There seems to be a lot of "legislation from the bench". That is part of my frustration as a layman.  To me the LOTG are pretty clear as to what is handling.  "Hand to ball and position of the hand/arm isn't necessarily relevant".  So either 1) you reach out and touch the ball or 2) you reach out your hand/arm to put it in the way of the ball or 3) leave it in the way of the ball if you have the time/distance to get it out of the way.  Those 3 scenarios are deliberate and our clearly indicated by the LOTG.  I believe, as does at least one prominent ref (which I posted), that the whole concept of "unnatural position" can be misleading and is misapplied.  It is impossible to play effective soccer without your arms away from your body or to jump to reach maximum height without bringing your hands at least above your shoulders.  (Not to mention the fact that everyone has different body mechanics) Yet I hear all the time as justification for calling handling that "the arm/hand was away from the body".

I'd be less frustrated if these "interpretations" were authoritatively published and distributed by whatever legislative is broadening the law.  Say for example, USSF's position is that if you slide tackle and the ball hits your arm it is handling even though its not-deliberate because you "took a risk" a risk by slide tackling.  However, as a player or a coach you would never know this unless you stumbled across the video on Youtube.  The LOTG of the game and its interpretations should be available to everyone not just referees.  (USSF did a much better job of this when they use to issue Advice to Referees).

I'm curious in regards to the PSG/Manu game.  UEFA issued guidance that they want referees to penalise handballs when the arm is out (regardless of whether it was deliberate).  I wonder if UEFA informed anyone other than the referees?


----------



## Surfref (Mar 8, 2019)

watfly said:


> Clearly what you are saying is very accurate, I don't dispute that.  However, it is also clear that what is being taught is more than just interpretation but is a broadening of the law beyond what is deliberate (see previous videos I posted).   There seems to be a lot of "legislation from the bench". That is part of my frustration as a layman.  To me the LOTG are pretty clear as to what is handling.  "Hand to ball and position of the hand/arm isn't necessarily relevant".  So either 1) you reach out and touch the ball or 2) you reach out your hand/arm to put it in the way of the ball or 3) leave it in the way of the ball if you have the time/distance to get it out of the way.  Those 3 scenarios are deliberate and our clearly indicated by the LOTG.  I believe, as does at least one prominent ref (which I posted), that the whole concept of "unnatural position" can be misleading and is misapplied.  It is impossible to play effective soccer without your arms away from your body or to jump to reach maximum height without bringing your hands at least above your shoulders.  (Not to mention the fact that everyone has different body mechanics) Yet I hear all the time as justification for calling handling that "the arm/hand was away from the body".
> 
> I'd be less frustrated if these "interpretations" were authoritatively published and distributed by whatever legislative is broadening the law.  Say for example, USSF's position is that if you slide tackle and the ball hits your arm it is handling even though its not-deliberate because you "took a risk" a risk by slide tackling.  However, as a player or a coach you would never know this unless you stumbled across the video on Youtube.  The LOTG of the game and its interpretations should be available to everyone not just referees.  (USSF did a much better job of this when they use to issue Advice to Referees).
> 
> I'm curious in regards to the PSG/Manu game.  UEFA issued guidance that they want referees to penalise handballs when the arm is out (regardless of whether it was deliberate).  I wonder if UEFA informed anyone other than the referees?


I agree with you.  I am curious about what guidance use Non-pro refs will receive from USSF and Cal South.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Mar 17, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Thoughts on the Paris v. Manchester United handball call?  On the one hand, back was turned, not the hand, some say it wasn't intentional, and that late it was clear it would be a game deciding penalty.  On the other hand, arm away from body in the penalty area.  Does it matter if these are pros with greater body control v a U10 game...would you make the same call?


I've heard different refs I greatly respect have completely opposite opinions on this one. Don't worry, they are in the process of changing the rules for handling in 2020. (or maybe worry...)


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 18, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> I've heard different refs I greatly respect have completely opposite opinions on this one. Don't worry, they are in the process of changing the rules for handling in 2020. (or maybe worry...)


Worry.  New rules are more confusing.   For example, over the weekend had a game where a player fell in a challenge to a ball, used his arm to support himself (which the new rules say is not a foul) but the player's hand strikes the ball when blocking the shot and it's clear the player has made himself a bigger barrier intentionally in the mad struggle to block the shot (which is a foul after all).  ^-\/-^  And there's no offense if the ball touches a hand of another player who is near?  Woo boy!

In the youth game, there's no way the I'm-going-to-do-the-minimum training club refs or the volunteer AYSO refs are ever going to be able to translate this accurately.  At the higher levels, I think it will provide some clarity because deliberate examples are outlined, but on the youth level it's going to be even worse than what we have.  But they only care about the pro game, so that's why we get what we get.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3799425/handball-revamp-confirmed-as-ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 18, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Worry.  New rules are more confusing.   For example, over the weekend had a game where a player fell in a challenge to a ball, used his arm to support himself (which the new rules say is not a foul) but the player's hand strikes the ball when blocking the shot and it's clear the player has made himself a bigger barrier intentionally in the mad struggle to block the shot (which is a foul after all).  ^-\/-^  And there's no offense if the ball touches a hand of another player who is near?  Woo boy!
> 
> In the youth game, there's no way the I'm-going-to-do-the-minimum training club refs or the volunteer AYSO refs are ever going to be able to translate this accurately.  At the higher levels, I think it will provide some clarity because deliberate examples are outlined, but on the youth level it's going to be even worse than what we have.  But they only care about the pro game, so that's why we get what we get.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3799425/handball-revamp-confirmed-as-ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20


p.s. most non-keepers 14 and under are going to extend their arm when falling.  They just do...it's instinct....is that "unnaturally bigger?"


----------



## watfly (Mar 18, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Worry.  New rules are more confusing.   For example, over the weekend had a game where a player fell in a challenge to a ball, used his arm to support himself (which the new rules say is not a foul) but the player's hand strikes the ball when blocking the shot and it's clear the player has made himself a bigger barrier intentionally in the mad struggle to block the shot (which is a foul after all).  ^-\/-^  And there's no offense if the ball touches a hand of another player who is near?  Woo boy!
> 
> In the youth game, there's no way the I'm-going-to-do-the-minimum training club refs or the volunteer AYSO refs are ever going to be able to translate this accurately.  At the higher levels, I think it will provide some clarity because deliberate examples are outlined, but on the youth level it's going to be even worse than what we have.  But they only care about the pro game, so that's why we get what we get.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3799425/handball-revamp-confirmed-as-ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20


Interesting, well first off I give credit to IFAB for trying to incorporate most of the non-deliberate interpretations that are being taught to refs (i.e. now disclosing them to the general public).  I can appreciate that they are trying to expand the definition to include a "fairness" principle.  I still don't care for the term "unnatural", maybe semantics but I prefer a term like "unusually extended" or even "unnaturally extended".  I'm a little concerned for how "the hands above the shoulders" and the "taking a risk" will impact the defenders ability to head and slide tackle inside the box.  I do like some of the definitions of what is "not usually a free kick".  Whether I like the laws or not, at least they have given full disclosure as to what the rules are, many of which have already been in practice for some time.  To me they seem more clarifying, although they certainly still leave a lot of room for subjectivity.


----------



## BSMet94 (Mar 24, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Worry.  New rules are more confusing.   For example, over the weekend had a game where a player fell in a challenge to a ball, used his arm to support himself (which the new rules say is not a foul) but the player's hand strikes the ball when blocking the shot and it's clear the player has made himself a bigger barrier intentionally in the mad struggle to block the shot (which is a foul after all).  ^-\/-^  And there's no offense if the ball touches a hand of another player who is near?  Woo boy!
> 
> In the youth game, there's no way the I'm-going-to-do-the-minimum training club refs or the volunteer AYSO refs are ever going to be able to translate this accurately.  At the higher levels, I think it will provide some clarity because deliberate examples are outlined, but on the youth level it's going to be even worse than what we have.  But they only care about the pro game, so that's why we get what we get.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3799425/handball-revamp-confirmed-as-ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20


You imply that AYSO referees, because they are volunteers, are not well trained.  You should look into that before making such statements.


----------



## Eagle33 (Mar 25, 2019)

BSMet94 said:


> You imply that AYSO referees, because they are volunteers, are not well trained.  You should look into that before making such statements.


Trained well or not in AYSO doesn't mean anything unless you doing competitive games for more than few years.


----------



## Soccer Dad & Ref (Mar 25, 2019)

BSMet94 said:


> You imply that AYSO referees, because they are volunteers, are not well trained.  You should look into that before making such statements.


Many are not.  They can now take an online course (which is great, and all coaches and parents should take it), and then a 4-6 hour in-person course to referee U10.  The purpose of the Regional Referee course is to make sure they understand the basics and can get the game going.  Handling's details are not covered, and not expected to be called correctly.

If a volunteer in AYSO wants to referee higher ages, they are supposed to then take the Intermediate course.  Fouls are really talked about a lot more in that course.


----------



## Surfref (Mar 25, 2019)

Eagle33 said:


> Trained well or not in AYSO doesn't mean anything unless you doing competitive games for more than few years.


I know several really good AYSO referees that do not work club games.  They only work AYSO and high school.  They could easily work club games but most have told me they don’t want to deal with the crazy parents and out of control sidelines.


----------



## Soccer Dad & Ref (Mar 25, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I know several really good AYSO referees that do not work club games.  They only work AYSO and high school.  They could easily work club games but most have told me they don’t want to deal with the crazy parents and out of control sidelines.


Agreed, although they likely took at least the Intermediate course, if not the Advanced or National.  Those courses really help AYSO referees become better, especially with the required assessments.  Whether the assessors are good or not, it is feedback from a neutral party, which is hard to come by.


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 25, 2019)

BSMet94 said:


> You imply that AYSO referees, because they are volunteers, are not well trained.  You should look into that before making such statements.


I've been through both the AYSO and club ref training.  As I stated before, the initial AYSO training is just better than the club training and AYSO does a lot more to support people as they go along.  That said, AYSO forces the parents on teams to volunteer to referee.  As a result, as a new CR my biggest struggle was bringing along ARs that hadn't read the material and didn't really care because they were just doing it because they had to.  In fact, I went out of my way to try and work with youth volunteers because 1) I really like working with the kids, and 2) unlike the parents, they knew their stuff, even if they needed some encouragement to make the call.  Some volunteers just didn't care, wanted to do the bare minimum out there and the bare minimum of games, and unlike club refs didn't have a monetary incentive to do the work.

Both things can simultaneously be true: 1) AYSO has a lot of good experienced refs, particularly those with a higher than intermediate rank, and 2) AYSO has a lot of newbie refs, some of whom don't really want to do much more than the bare minimum


----------



## Just a Parent (Mar 25, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> p.s. most non-keepers 14 and under are going to extend their arm when falling.  They just do...it's instinct....is that "unnaturally bigger?"


No.


----------



## coachrefparent (Mar 25, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> I've been through both the AYSO and club ref training.  As I stated before, the initial AYSO training is just better than the club training and AYSO does a lot more to support people as they go along.  That said, AYSO forces the parents on teams to volunteer to referee.  As a result, as a new CR my biggest struggle was bringing along ARs that hadn't read the material and didn't really care because they were just doing it because they had to.  In fact, I went out of my way to try and work with youth volunteers because 1) I really like working with the kids, and 2) unlike the parents, they knew their stuff, even if they needed some encouragement to make the call.  Some volunteers just didn't care, wanted to do the bare minimum out there and the bare minimum of games, and unlike club refs didn't have a monetary incentive to do the work.
> 
> Both things can simultaneously be true: 1) AYSO has a lot of good experienced refs, particularly those with a higher than intermediate rank, and 2) AYSO has a lot of newbie refs, some of whom don't really want to do much more than the bare minimum


Yes. Anyone who has taken AYSO referee training and US Soccer/Cal South's training laughs at the latter.  AYSO voers the laws in much more depth.  But the gestapo competitive trainers will be sure you have tucked your shirt in, hold the flag at a 45 degree angle (not 44 or 46 mind you), shuffle side to side, and run to the flag on a corner kick.  There is little to no in person training on the laws, and examples.   Only an online test you can't fail.  It's more about appearance over substance.


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 25, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> Yes. Anyone who has taken AYSO referee training and US Soccer/Cal South's training laughs at the latter.  AYSO voers the laws in much more depth.  But the gestapo competitive trainers will be sure you have tucked your shirt in, hold the flag at a 45 degree angle (not 44 or 46 mind you), shuffle side to side, and run to the flag on a corner kick.  There is little to no in person training on the laws, and examples.   Only an online test you can't fail.  It's more about appearance over substance.


One of the few compliments my AYSO intermediate ref evaluator had for me was that unlike most AYSO refs, I held my flag at just the right angle, even when running with it.   "Very pretty".


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Apr 3, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Worry.  New rules are more confusing.   For example, over the weekend had a game where a player fell in a challenge to a ball, used his arm to support himself (which the new rules say is not a foul) but the player's hand strikes the ball when blocking the shot and it's clear the player has made himself a bigger barrier intentionally in the mad struggle to block the shot (which is a foul after all).  ^-\/-^  And there's no offense if the ball touches a hand of another player who is near?  Woo boy!
> 
> In the youth game, there's no way the I'm-going-to-do-the-minimum training club refs or the volunteer AYSO refs are ever going to be able to translate this accurately.  At the higher levels, I think it will provide some clarity because deliberate examples are outlined, but on the youth level it's going to be even worse than what we have.  But they only care about the pro game, so that's why we get what we get.
> 
> http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fifa/story/3799425/handball-revamp-confirmed-as-ifab-reveals-new-laws-of-the-game-for-2019-20


After reading the changes, this is actually better. This is the way I call the game now. (much to the irate parents and players that scream for handball when a player kicks the ball into their own hand.) It only seems confusing because there are a lot of words, but it is pretty clear.

The big difference is "touched". This is opposed to deliberately played. So... this means the player that has his back turned to a shot but his elbow is sticking out in "an unnatural position" and it hits his arm. I heard referees say "how can it be deliberate if he isn't even looking at the ball. Now it is just did it hit the hand, were they unnatural? Easy.

Furthermore, the argument "but he gained an advantage from the handling (accidental usually) has no merit except when they score a goal.

I think more detailed examples are way better than the vague "it needs to be deliberate". and then every referee needed to go on an epic 5 year quest to find out what deliberate meant. (it took me 5 years to figure out handling.)


----------



## Surfref (Apr 4, 2019)

Definitelynotanotherref said:


> After reading the changes, this is actually better. This is the way I call the game now. (much to the irate parents and players that scream for handball when a player kicks the ball into their own hand.) It only seems confusing because there are a lot of words, but it is pretty clear.
> 
> The big difference is "touched". This is opposed to deliberately played. So... this means the player that has his back turned to a shot but his elbow is sticking out in "an unnatural position" and it hits his arm. I heard referees say "how can it be deliberate if he isn't even looking at the ball. Now it is just did it hit the hand, were they unnatural? Easy.
> 
> ...


It will be interesting what the actual wording in the LOTG are for the changes and how US Soccer teaches the interpretation.  I know the first time I go to move an attacker 17y/o boy out of the defenders wall he is going to yell at me that he is allowed to be in the wall.  Should be fun.


----------



## outside! (Apr 4, 2019)

Surfref said:


> It will be interesting what the actual wording in the LOTG are for the changes and how US Soccer teaches the interpretation.  I know the first time I go to move an attacker 17y/o boy out of the defenders wall he is going to yell at me that he is allowed to be in the wall.  Should be fun.


It would be more fun for the rest of us if you wore a body cam this one time.


----------



## Definitelynotanotherref (Apr 9, 2019)

Surfref said:


> It will be interesting what the actual wording in the LOTG are for the changes and how US Soccer teaches the interpretation.  I know the first time I go to move an attacker 17y/o boy out of the defenders wall he is going to yell at me that he is allowed to be in the wall.  Should be fun.


I imagine enforcement in case of non-cooperation is a yellow card. But I'm sure Mark Geiger is happy of this rule change... *cough cough* Columbia *cough cough*.


----------



## Grace T. (Apr 10, 2019)

Interesting application of the new handball guidance in the Tottenham v Manchester game (thought the new rules aren't in force yet, as noted above the Champions refs seem to be instructed to rule in accordance with the guidance of the new Laws).  At 0:38...handball from VAR...defender is falling (which is listed as one the circumstances not considered as a foul), unclear if deliberate, but arm is up and possibly "unnaturally bigger".


----------



## Soccer Dad & Ref (Apr 11, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Interesting application of the new handball guidance in the Tottenham v Manchester game (thought the new rules aren't in force yet, as noted above the Champions refs seem to be instructed to rule in accordance with the guidance of the new Laws).  At 0:38...handball from VAR...defender is falling (which is listed as one the circumstances not considered as a foul), unclear if deliberate, but arm is up and possibly "unnaturally bigger".


Wondering if the falling player and arm are more about downward motion though.  The defender was falling, but his arm was above him like you said...


----------



## Tea and Busquets (Apr 11, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Interesting application of the new handball guidance in the Tottenham v Manchester game (thought the new rules aren't in force yet, as noted above the Champions refs seem to be instructed to rule in accordance with the guidance of the new Laws).  At 0:38...handball from VAR...defender is falling (which is listed as one the circumstances not considered as a foul), unclear if deliberate, but arm is up and possibly "unnaturally bigger".


I think the penalty was a slide (not falling, which would suggest a lack of control over the body) from Rose, with arm coming out to make the body bigger.  We saw Manchester United go through in the last round against PSG on a similar decision: the defender jumped in the air with an arm away from the body.  It too went to VAR and was given as a penalty.  






Obviously the new laws don't come into effect until June.  However, UEFA began to instruct its referees to recognize as handball last year, and this approach is what we see in the new IFAB laws as well.


----------



## espola (Jun 9, 2019)

It appears that the handball rule change combined with VAR might be the biggest story of the WWC.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 9, 2019)

espola said:


> It appears that the handball rule change combined with VAR might be the biggest story of the WWC.


It wouldn’t be so bad except that the punishment for even an unintentional one in the box is a pk. And the pk is so close to goal that it almost always converts.  Somethings going to have to give:  either fix the pk rule or modify again the handball rule.


----------



## espola (Jun 9, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> It wouldn’t be so bad except that the punishment for even an unintentional one in the box is a pk. And the pk is so close to goal that it almost always converts.  Somethings going to have to give:  either fix the pk rule or modify again the handball rule.


The call was hard to make before the change, but at least it was logical.  Now defenders are being called for almost all contact - except I did see one waved off when a ball hit a defender's hand in front of her torso.

I'm not recommending this, but -- I am wondering if some player might without warning kick a ball at a referee from three yards away and then ask him why he didn't put his hands up to defend himself.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 9, 2019)

espola said:


> It appears that the handball rule change combined with VAR might be the biggest story of the WWC.


Why?  I have not been able to watch any of the games.


----------



## espola (Jun 9, 2019)

Surfref said:


> Why?  I have not been able to watch any of the games.


Plays that would have been clear cases of ball-to-hand in the past are now passed to VAR for newly-refined judgment.


----------



## espola (Jun 11, 2019)

https://sports.yahoo.com/handball-rule-womens-world-cup-var-soccer-penalties-231242356.html


----------



## Soccer Dad & Ref (Jun 11, 2019)

That arm position is as natural as the Hotspurs player in the CL final.  Not very natural to me.  Why do that in the PA?


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 11, 2019)

espola said:


> https://sports.yahoo.com/handball-rule-womens-world-cup-var-soccer-penalties-231242356.html


Good article except it misses that the problem got worse due to the recent modifications in the handball rule, which were applied as guidance both in the CL playoffs and WWC.


----------



## watfly (Jun 11, 2019)

What's "unnatural" is defenders running around in the box with their arms behind their backs.  That's the irony.


----------



## Surfref (Jun 11, 2019)

espola said:


> https://sports.yahoo.com/handball-rule-womens-world-cup-var-soccer-penalties-231242356.html


I agree with a lot the article has to say.  You will still get referees to differ on what they believe is deliberate handling.


----------



## watfly (Jun 18, 2019)

Surfref said:


> I agree with a lot the article has to say.  You will still get referees to differ on what they believe is deliberate handling.


As written, the new LOTG have dramatically reduced the importance of deliberate (the concept of hand to ball is also gone).   Maybe application will be different, but based on what I've seen so far in WWC it doesn't appear to be so.

As a matter, of note the summary of LOTG changes mentions that handballs can be "accidental", the actual LOTG for 19/20 doesn't use that term.


----------



## Soccer Dad & Ref (Jun 19, 2019)

Love this from the article:

_As for the handball rule, its scope should be reduced. Only intentional ones should be whistled, no matter where on the field they occur. As long as players aren’t swatting at balls, or blocking them like a keeper would, or picking them up and running like an American footballer would, why, exactly, do we need to police them so strictly?

Now, “intentional,” to be clear, would include even the slightest instinctive movement of the arm into a position that could possibly make it more likely to come into contact with the ball. But that 50/50 challenge in midfield where the ball randomly pops up and hits an arm? Please, just play on.
_


----------



## Tea and Busquets (Jun 19, 2019)

watfly said:


> As written, the new LOTG have dramatically reduced the importance of deliberate (the concept of hand to ball is also gone).   Maybe application will be different, but based on what I've seen so far in WWC it doesn't appear to be so.
> 
> As a matter, of note the summary of LOTG changes mentions that handballs can be "accidental", the actual LOTG for 19/20 doesn't use that term.


There is specific mention of both hand to ball and the term "accidental" is in there as well, actually.  

Deliberate now means exactly that, a very deliberate action of handling the ball.

Overall, I think the handball rewrite makes it clearer and easier to understand.   It requires more thinking, but less understanding of the game, if that makes sense.


----------



## watfly (Jun 19, 2019)

Tea and Busquets said:


> There is specific mention of both hand to ball and the term "accidental" is in there as well, actually.
> 
> Deliberate now means exactly that, a very deliberate action of handling the ball.


Ok my reading comprehension is a little off.  There is reference to ball to hand, but only as a subset of possible infractions not as a primary consideraton as it was in the previous laws.  

In the actual new text of the laws "accidental" is only mentioned as it relates to goals scored off a hand/arm.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKmACRxr4OXkg_nJ9dAHX7XOY3C_ikb5/view

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if* accidental*,
including by the goalkeeper

However, in the LOTG changes summary (as opposed to the actual text of the law), IFAB had "accidental" applying to all the primary handball offences: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A76gwnR9lW9nA2w2nyAj74y5s-W1BtNt/view

• The following ‘handball’ situations, even if *accidental*, will be a free kick:
    • the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
    • a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm
    and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
   • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally
   bigger
   • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the
  player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Based on what I've seen in the WWC they clearly are considering that a handball can be "accidental" and still an offence in all handball situations.  PK's are now being awarded for obviously  accidental handballs inside the box solely because a players hand was away from their body but still in a natural position.  This seems harsh to me, particularly when you consider most of the PK calls were on crosses and not shots on frame from the attacker.  If I'm an attacker and don't have an open teammate in the box then I'm certainly going to try and kick the ball at an opponents hand.  I appreciate the concept of promoting attacking soccer, but defenders are going to be severely hamstrung by having to play with their arms behind their backs and not raising their arms above their shoulders for a header (which makes it impossible to reach any sort of height to clear the ball in the air).


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 19, 2019)

watfly said:


> Based on what I've seen in the WWC they clearly are considering that a handball can be "accidental" and still an offence in all handball situations.  PK's are now being awarded for obviously  accidental handballs inside the box solely because a players hand was away from their body but still in a natural position.  This seems harsh to me, particularly when you consider most of the PK calls were on crosses and not shots on frame from the attacker.  If I'm an attacker and don't have an open teammate in the box then I'm certainly going to try and kick the ball at an opponents hand.  I appreciate the concept of promoting attacking soccer, but defenders are going to be severely hamstrung by having to play with their arms behind their backs and not raising their arms above their shoulders for a header (which makes it impossible to reach any sort of height to clear the ball in the air).


Agree but I highly doubt an organization as arrogant as the IFAB is going to admit they made a mistake by going backwards, particularly given the lobby that pushed for the change.  Given as well the controversies of goalkeepers leaving the line and VAR review out of this WWC, and given that with enforcement of that rule it's an automatic goal given to the team awarded the penalty, it's time for a change to the penalty rule.  Noting that the IFAB will likely never move the spot back (and therefore require a reworking of thousands upon thousands of pitches around the world), maybe the time to consider the proposal to change most fouls (except egregious ones and DOGSO) in the box to DFKs.  Another tweak which would be less intrusive but also fix the VAR issue is to allow the goalkeeper to move as soon as the ref whistles.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 13, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Agree but I highly doubt an organization as arrogant as the IFAB is going to admit they made a mistake by going backwards, particularly given the lobby that pushed for the change.  Given as well the controversies of goalkeepers leaving the line and VAR review out of this WWC, and given that with enforcement of that rule it's an automatic goal given to the team awarded the penalty, it's time for a change to the penalty rule.  Noting that the IFAB will likely never move the spot back (and therefore require a reworking of thousands upon thousands of pitches around the world), maybe the time to consider the proposal to change most fouls (except egregious ones and DOGSO) in the box to DFKs.  Another tweak which would be less intrusive but also fix the VAR issue is to allow the goalkeeper to move as soon as the ref whistles.


How about this? DOGSO PK is taken at the 12, and all others taken at the 18?


----------



## MWN (Sep 13, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> How about this? DOGSO PK is taken at the 12, and all others taken at the 18?


It would make it easier for the GK's if it was 6 yards closer, is that your intent?


----------



## espola (Sep 13, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> How about this? DOGSO PK is taken at the 12, and all others taken at the 18?


That doesn't solve the field remarking problem.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 13, 2019)

MWN said:


> It would make it easier for the GK's if it was 6 yards closer, is that your intent?


Sorry, it's Friday evening affecting my math skills. Regular PK is 12 yards, my proposal is to have non DOGSO Pks from the 18 (which is also called the penalty box for old folks, and the "area" for sticklers.)

Nothing would be closer.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 13, 2019)

espola said:


> That doesn't solve the field remarking problem.


No need to reline anything. 18 yards is already marked, just spot in line with the PK spot, directly in the center.


----------



## espola (Sep 13, 2019)

coachrefparent said:


> No need to reline anything. 18 yards is already marked, just spot in line with the PK spot, directly in the center.


The "D" is there for a reason.


----------



## coachrefparent (Sep 14, 2019)

espola said:


> The "D" is there for a reason.


Nah, having players 4-6 yards away from the kick spot instead of 10 would make it more fun and dynamic.


----------

