It seems that some of the examples we've seen from USSF over the past 2-3 years include some in which the player's arm was in what most people would consider a completely normal playing position, yet because the arm was 'taking up space' (as compared to the player not having an arm or putting the arm behind his back), the 'correct' decision was a penalty kick. That bothers me. The Handling directive (2/2/2009) is one of the most troublesome things ever produced by the referee department. There are just so many things wrong with it, the worst of them being these 2: 1. The whole 'making yourself bigger' as a way of determining handling is absolute rubbish. 2. Even worse is the statement that 'did the player benefit?' should have ANY bearing whatsoever in determining handling. It absolutely should NOT. It flies in the face of everything that referees have been taught for years and years. The 'unnatural position' guidance was very good and is the right way to look at things. Anyway, the directive does NOT say 'deliberately taking up space.' It say 'takes away space' once or twice but actually the focus is on the 'makes himself bigger' phrase. Going back to what I said before -- a player's arm can be taking up space but be in a perfectly natural playing position, and therefore the player should NOT be under any risk of being penalized for handling. Yet the directive suggests otherwise. Even so, a player who purposely leaves his arms at his sides, in a natural playing position, IS 'deliberately taking up space.' He knows where his arms are, he knows they are taking up space. The idea that he shouldn't be able to do this for fear of handling is ridiculous. If we are to assume that USSF's definition of 'deliberately taking up space' is restricted to cases in which the referee feels the player takes up space for the purpose of taking space away from the opponent, as opposed to taking up space being a result of having one's body parts in a normal playing position...well, now we are trying to read the player's intent. And that's not a good idea. Yes, pro players are being punished way too harshly for handling. The fact that we see so many defenders running around challenging 1v1 in the penalty area with their arms behind their back shows that referees worldwide, and the people who shape policy, have gone too far. A player should not need to fear conceding a PK so much that he cannot leave his arms at his side.
This is complete and utter nonsense. You really believe this? If you do I'd say you completely read the player's movement wrong. Did not the ball play the man? Did not Ownyeu make an attempt to twist his body away from the ball? Was not the ball struck with pace from 5-7 yards out? You read malice in his movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I see a player moving in a perfectly normal fashion. You want an example of a player purposely making himself bigger with clear intent see Frings Germany vs USA 2002 World Cup quarterfinal. Again, just because the ball falls at your feet does not mean the hand played the ball. Judging Gooch's action as deliberate is a poor decision. One must judge distance from the ball, the pace the ball was struck and the action of the defender.
He turned into the ball and even extended his arm some. He knew what he was doing. Frings handled the ball but there was a different referee with a different mindset on that game. Last night was handling and a PK. No doubt.
I will agree that the directives are often confusing as hell, but this one isn't as bad as it seems at first blush. It does not say that benefitting from the handling makes it an offense, but only that benefitting from the hand being in an unnatural position should be taken into consideration. Personally, I don't know why they waste their time creating such confusing guidelines.
So I guess the majority on this thread and elsewhere just want to screw the US? Gooch is and always has been a problem player and just needs to go. That was handling and not an accident.
I don't really dispute the call that much, and I'm certainly not arguing against the majority of this board. I could see it not being called as well, but I think about 70% of the time this play is whistled. I also think that 80% of the time the Torsten Frings handling is called. And maybe it is just US homerism from me, but I do think many international referees think the US does not have a legitimate case to be a winning side, particularly against top opposition. On balance, I think the US gets the short end of the ITOOTR stick. As for what a bolded in the above quote, apparently it is quite possible for accidents to be deliberate. We've all seen ball to hand called as handling, and we've all made that call, too. Boy, Gooch did have a howler, though, didn't he? The other PK I recall being called against him was 2006 from the German dentist. Pure dive and one of the worst PK calls I've ever seen. This one, certainly there is a strong argument in favor of pointing to the spot.
The directive definitely is confusing, but more than that, it contains some flat-out bad advice. It goes much further about the player benefiting than what you wrote. The directive reached way too far, past what many referees would consider pretty sacred boundaries -- that gaining an advantage, I.e. benefiting, from the ball/hand contact has absolutely NO bearing on a handling decision.
I agree, intent is only a complicating factor for refereeing which is already difficult enough as is. I think this bottom-line approach is sensible. What matters is the difference between the event the referee has to judge and how the play would have progressed had that event not occurred. Ultimately I think that is the spirit of what refereeing is trying to accomplish in any such game. With fouls there is the added measure of recklessness and other factors. Thinking back to bluedevils' objection - I sort of agree on the wording issue he brings up. Essentially whether the arm is deliberately near the body or stuck to the body wouldn't matter to me. What would matter would be the difference between the ball striking the arm versus what would happen if the arm had been in a non-intrusive position. (And of course, this language already indicates that the wording would have to be fleshed out further). But then I disagree with bluedevils later when he says "did the player benefit" should have no bearing on the call. I think that makes all the difference in the world. I understand that running around with arms behind your back looks silly and unnatural, but what if a player is running and his arms are in a perfectly natural position, swinging back and forth and at the peak of that swing the ball happens to hit him in the arm. I don't see how you cannot call that just because the position is natural. The result of the play would be that the ball drops to the defenders feet and an offensive play is countered by something entirely unintentional and natural but against the rules of the game. There has to be room for calling a handball on a naturally positioned arm that kills a play unintentionally. Now, I also think that's extremely difficult to decide when you have, for example, a player holding his arms by his side - where is the line? At what point is the arm too far form the player's side so that a ref must conclude that if it were in a different position the ball would have made it past the player? I happen to think eventually technology will help with that (limiting refs to only being on the field is nonsense in this day and age and the idea that anything else will delay the game is also nonsense) but that's entirely another discussion. Anyways, TLDR: Intent doesn't matter. Where the ball would've ended up otherwise should matter in my opinion and I think the move from intentional to deliberate in the 90s is a move in the right direction but doesn't accomplish what it should in every situation.
I watched this play several times. It's clear to me that before the ball is kicked Ownyeu has his arms at his side in a natural position. When the player winds up to kick it for the shot Ownyeu starts moving his arm up and follows through until the ball hits his arm. To me this is him playing the ball with his arm, if he didn't want to make himself larger he would've tucked them in not up which is what he did. People can talk about Football Law theory, but under the current Laws and interpretations this is a handling foul in my opinion. He deliberately brought his arms up in an attempt to make himself larger to block the shot.
I've been bitching about this directive since the day it was issued. Clearly written by people have never kicked a ball IMO. To think that you should be able to run or jump or slide tackle while keeping your arms locked to your sides is just preposterous. Surprised this directive didn't also authorize the wearing of f upper body straight jackets too because this basically is the end result of its issuance.
I dissent. I really don't think the problem with the directive is the ideas in it so much as the ideas are in several places, IMHO, poorly expressed. gaining a benefit is, I think, the perfect example. I believe that the ideat that was trying to be expressed in the directives is that certain actions, behaviors, and results provide clues to the referee as to whether the handling was deliberate. When the potential handling knocks away a teammate's clearance to the feet of an attacker, it is a pretty good clue that there was nothing remotely deliberate about the handling. But ifthe R is waffling on whether a particular handling was deliberate, and it broke up a through ball on a promising attack, it is more probable that it was deliberate. I think biggering and unnatural position are likewise clues about the deliberate nature of the handling -- if the position of the arm is unnatural, why? - gee, maybe because the arm was deliberately taking up space that the defender thought the attacker would want to use and the attacker figured it woudl be ball-to-hand if the ball was kicked that way and there wouldn't be call. I think the directives were responses to sneaky ways players were trying to get away with handling per the over-simplified ball-to-hand rubric. But while well intentioned, I think the execution of the directive created more confusion that it resolved. (I seem to recall hearing that USSF recognized the flaws in the directive, particularly as to the gaining an advantage element, and intended to re-do it -- but that was some time ago, and may have slipped by the wayside or been bad info.)
You're talking Gooch here right? He turned his back to the ball, and just as you or I or almost anyone else would when turning he pulled his arms up from hanging at his side, raising them and bending at the elbow in a manner completely consistent with turning his torso. I've already said that, based on the ref's angle I think he made the call he had to. But based on the multiple angles disagree very much that "he knew what he was doing" if that means intentionally put his hands in the path of the ball. It was an instinctual and reactive move. You stand in a spot, drop your left foot and try to turn your back to the spot in front of you and slightly to the right. lemme know if you can do that without your left elbow leading the way. Now try it in a half second, which (with my feeble hand timing) is about the time from the touch setting up the shot to contact with Gooch's arm. The time from the shot to contact is less than 0.2 seconds.
Since I have too much time on my hands I decided to post a few screenshots and let them speak for themselves. Before the shot!
A bunch of experienced referees watch a play over and over in slow motion and can't agree about whether a player deliberately handled the ball. How the hell, then, does it make any sense to criticize the decision of the referee who had one look, not knowing what was about to happen, at game speed.
Honestly, it is part of the game. You need to be able to beat that (playing fast one touch helps a lot) in order to be able to win a major competition. I think a clear cut case of stopping an counter attack should be an yellow. What I tried to say is that when done correctly the tactical I was speaking of kills a potential counter attack (even before the team starts a recognizable counter). as in. defense clear a conner and when the ball goes to a player, before this player can look up and try to pass the ball to start a counter attack, you close in aggressively on him (not in a violent manner or anything just close in fast and with purpose).
Because, if you had such indecision when looking at the play, you should not call anything and allow play to continue without interjecting a completely subjective decision based on assumptions and not the reality of what one saw. This is one of the major problems in officiating and one we should strive to correct. Judge the play, do not jump to conclusions. I offer that everyone should watch the play in real time. Put away the super slow motion replay. For me, I see no foul. There is no time for the defender to react and to deliberately handle the shot. The defender does not make his body bigger.
But isnt that why we have a referee to make those decisions? Seeing it in real time, I thought it was deliberate handling and even after numerous replays, I can be sold either way. This was not a black and white decision. You saw no foul. It doesnt make you wrong. However, the referee, and me watching from my couch, saw a foul. I did not see indecision on his part. He made a decision based on the information at hand and I cannot in good conscience say it was the incorrect decision, whether I agree or not.
Let me rephrase my response, given that the decision required numerous super slow motion replays and there is an apparent lack of consensus from a number of posters on this thread, it appears the referee also had a similar decision to make that was more gray than black and white. With that lack of certainty are we not instructed not to award a penalty unless we are absolutely sure?
You can be instructed a lot of things, but if you see an are come up and a ball hit it, it looks like a penalty. I never like this idea of "absolutely sure" what does that mean exactly? He can't conduct an experiment...he can't see the play again. So if he sees what he sees and he calls it, that's really a sure as he can be.
Really who expects an experiment? You must rely on your experience and specifically what you saw in that instance and avoid subjective thoughts. Calling a penalty with the difficulties inb scoring goals is a big decision. You should never make assumptions in these cases. You need to be 100 percent certain that was you saw was a deliberate handball. The referee hesitated before making his decision in this match.
I don't agree that he hesitated. He looked pretty decisive to me. I also have a huge problem with the concept of not making a call because of the difficulties in scoring goals. If you think its deliberate handling based on the criteria given to you, make the call no matter where on the pitch. Dont not call it because there might be a % chance it wasnt deliberate. Would you call it at midfield? Then calling it in the box should be no difference. ITOOTR if its handling, make the call.
He hesitated? I don't see that, he brings the whistle to his mouth, blows, and points while running in. I think you're trying to find fault with his process because you disagree with the call. You are free to disagree, but I'm calling this in my matches. The logic here is you cannot use your arm to stop the ball. That is what in my opinion happened, he brought his arm up and stopped the ball.
