"HANDBALL"

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

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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The ATR is no longer used.
 
Surfref said:
The ATR is no longer used.
Click to expand...

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 What published guidance superceded this?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.
 
@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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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)

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.
Click to expand...
The Baharmast interpretation is the USSF one.
 
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)

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.
Click to expand...

So whether it is called handling or not depends on which referee is involved, which I have known for over 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top