Just to be clear — in soccer they do not mean the same thing. In most of the rest of the known universe, they pretty much do.
I think my biggest irritation from this incident was having to listen to Twellman and Lalas bleating nonstop that every ball-arm contact within the area should result in a penalty. It started in the first half after the non-call on Hurtado, with Twellman saying, "Well, he had the chicken wing out." Hurtado's elbow was out because he was (1) jumping and (2) simultaneously clearly trying to keep his hand glued to the side of his body. Then Lalas jumped on it during halftime. I can understand former forward Twellman's desire for all penalties all the time, but am having a harder time trying to figure out Lalas' perspective. In his perfect world all an attacker needs to do when hemmed in by defenders in the area is chip the ball up into a hand or elbow, and voila, instant penalty. I don't dispute the call last night, but holy cow if I have to listen to Twellman sniff and say, "His arm was away from his body" as if that's the sine qua non of Law 12, I may... well, I may get even more irritated.
He's a new ref if I understand and I think this is an extremely patronizing and a very condescending way to respond. When you show a yellow card for handling, its done in two cases. First, when it is done tactically to destroy an attacking opportunity and second when it is done to score a goal. In neither of those instances do I recall them being referred to as "intentional handballs".
Looks like you had the same thought as, tog. See above for my answer to this question. As for the point I quoted, an argument could also be made that Gonzalez was attempting to tuck his arm behind his body so as not to handle, but didn't get it out of the way in time. I think both arguments have merit and it's part of what makes calling handling so difficult and frustrating.
Zap, Your real problem is in listening to Twellman and/or Lalas in the first place. I'm not sure anyone has ever talked more and said less about the game than Lalas.
True, aek. I know the mute button's there for a reason--I gotta get in the habit of using it more often.
First of all I am a ref albeit not for long but I am a ref. Second of all I have read the ATR, Guide to Procedures, and I try to challenge myself as much as I can through different literature, dialogue with other refs, and conversations that arise here. I do recognize my mistake that I should of used the word "deliberate" which is the word use in LOTG and ATR insteaed of "intentional". I don't proclaim to know more than others here but it is unfair to question my knowledge on the LOTG. I was simply trying to argue that in layman's terms that "intentional" and "deliberate" essentially mean the same thing. I was unaware that "deliberate" and "intentional" had very different meanings in soccer but I can't find the differentiation in the ATR or any documenation (help me out here?). Edit: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/deliberate-vs-intentional.256093/
This is very funny to me because my team had to re take a pk yesterday when one of my players practically beat the ball to the goal. The retake was saved. Since I'm in NJ and used to work with Mark a lot, and my son saw both the DC and NY incidents this year, he told his teammates that "there's no way you get away with that in NJ. Mark Geiger is from NJ and he calls that every time!" Now none of the kids have any idea what he was talking about, but the referee and I laughed.
To really muck it up, in determining the degree of murder (at least in many states), they also mean something different -- but that may be an almost the opposite of the distinction as we apply the LOTG. but back to soccer . . . .
Boy, after 5 pages (on my screen) of responses, it's shame if I am repeating something somebody else said, but all of the insults and personal attacks... well, I just scrolled down really fast. I didn't think it was a handling offense myself. When the ball hit Johansson, he had pulled his arm in. Geiger wrote in the post-match brief that he felt he was making himself bigger... that still shot certainly doesn't look like it (I mean the left arm, which the ball hit first). And once it hit his left arm and ricocheted, I'd say give the corner. That ball was headed out for a corner anyway, Johansson didn't take away a passing lane on the second touch. Incidental contact. But, alas, I think there is justification for giving it too. Geiger justified it properly, just as Salazar justified not sending off Hainault from the first leg of DC-HOU. Video may prove them wrong (or at least render their decisions questionable), but they have to call what they see on the field and both were in a recommended position to judge those plays. I know Seattle fans will P&M about this and the blown offside call and the (more obvious) missed handling PK in the first leg, but honestly, how many chances did Seattle miss in this match? If you're going to yell and scream (and I don't know if SEA fans are on this thread yelling and screaming, because I scrolled past all of that) about referee decisions, they sure better hold their own players accountable for the dozens of missed chances last night, not to mention some of the most lazy and atrocious defending this year on both of LA's last two goals in the first leg. Or, if EJ, instead of finishing that first goal, simply takes Gonzalez's shoulder tug and goes down, SEA gets a PK plus Gonzalez (unquestionably the key to LA's defense) is sent off 10 minutes into the match. It certainly is fun to dissect the referee decisions, but as for the result of this tie... Seattle has only themselves to blame.
I think what he was trying to say is that there's an element of intent involved in the caution scenarios you posted above that's absent from just regular plain deliberate handling.
I don't think you are going to find something specific in the ATR. Prior to the great re-write, all fouls had to be "intentional." I think the word choice of "deliberate" for handling was a way to re-envision application. Idon't think you want to look at the difference between deliberate and intentional so much as you want to focus on the guidance as to what "deliberate" means -- and completely ignore Websters because the usage is very LOTG specific. Your two best resources are probably the ATR discussion of deliberate hadnling and the USSF position paper on handling (which you can find in the downloads section of the USSF site). But just stay focussed on the fact that "deliberate" is a term of art in the LOTG, and if you try to import common sense, dictionary definitions, or how the word is used in other contexts, it is likely to confuse more than to elucidate.
Hi again, I had a terrible night last night (reffed 5 games Sunday, last weekend before playoffs so were all very heated) and was gumpy which resulted in me being a giant dick to you. I really am sorry, it's not how I normally talk to people on here. I share AEK's frustration that so often in this forum we see a bombardment of (non-referee) fans come in after a big game and start barking off about how shitty the ref was, and getting in arguments with the experienced referees here, as if they know what they are talking about. I think it touches nerves here when people do that because as referees we deal with that shit so often on the field, uninformed parents and coaches talking to us as if they know more, and it makes us hypersensitive when we're here in this forum which we hope is an oasis of impartial referee discussion. One of the biggest 'tells' of a non-referee in here is someone who doesn't use proper referee semantics, as most of the referees in here will, so when I saw your post I incorrectly jumped on you thinking you were one of those annoying, biased fans who come in here. Which is ironic, because I myself didn't use proper referee semantics in my reply to you. Go figure. Anyway, this forum is a great place to be as a new referee, as is any place that you can get into these real, deep discussions of the rules. Keep doing what you're doing, and don't let the assholes like me get you down
As a DC United fan and a ref I wanted to chime in here. 1. I have had no issue with Geiger calling encroachment in either game involving DC United. I have issue with Geiger not controlling the post bad PK action well enough thus ending up in Boskovich making the mistake of making Geiger decided that his actions warrented sending him off. However in both cases the players should have been smart enough to stay out of the box. Especially in NY as two to three players were in front of Geiger when Cooper struck the ball. 2. The Seattle PK call boils down to this for me. It the ballonly hits his left arm (first contact) it does not meet the criteria for a hadnball/PK for me. His arm was in a natural positon and he was not making himself bigger, also the distance from Keane to the defender was too close to warrant a call. However if, as in the only replay I have seen so far shows, it hits his right arm then handball and PK. His right arm was not in a natural postion, despite the protests some have made. His right arm is making himself bigger. Let teh record show I have no horse in the race. My side has already be shafted by a missed call in the past week but I can and have looked at this call objectively, from the one and only replay I have seen so far. Now if another replay comes out showing a lack of contact on the right arm I am willing to change my assement of the call.
I really appreciate what you said. I understand the frustration since I have experienced it too in my short time of reffing so far. I admit I am embarrassed I used improper semantics but I realized my mistake, learned from it and moved on. I should of not used "intentional" synonymously with "deliberate" and I know that now. Thank you.
Disclaimers: Sounders fan, was at the game. 1) Was pretty much in line behind the AR for the offside goal. My section's semi-non-homer kitchen cabinet all agreed with the AR's call at the time. 2) Disappointed in the handling call, but understand it, especially when AJ is running a bit spastically. For him, I believe that comes naturally. Different people run differently. But! If you run like that, you might want to stay out of the PA. Two key issues for me on this call: a) What is the correct ruling if there is a deflection from one hand to the other? (not saying that's what I saw). For instance, attacker kicks ball at force & at close range to defender, ball bounces off of first hand (not considered to be in an unnatural position) and then ball hits second hand, which is not blocking trajectory of attacker's original kick? b) Following up on tog's commentary about away from body always being ruled as an unnatural position: As a fan, it's very difficult to understand or interpret this logic. I'm guessing most former players here have done a samba drill, twisting the hips, moving from side to side. What's your natural arm / hand position when you do that?
One other comment: the boys harassing Geiger after the game was embarrassing, classless, and unnecessary. I was sorry to see it.
Most of the focus seems to be on the left arm, but I find it interesting that the debate doesn't stop with with the ball hitting the right arm. It seems that there is an undercurrent that it is in fact possible to have a trifling handling infraction in the box. MassachusettsRef did a thread on this a year or so ago. Basically the thought was that a slight deflection on a play that was otherwise obviously deliberate handling as we're instructed should be let go. In that thread, an arm that was over the defender's head contacted a ball that was on it's way out for a GK and the ball continued out. I think the right arm contact would have yielded something similar here. I think the contact with the left arm is a PK, but I might be willing to let the contact with the right arm go.
Then what is to stop a massive pile of 20 players rushing the ball? How do you determine who was involved first? What would be the restart? Etc... It would create more of a mess. The law says no encroachment. How hard is it to follow the law? I give all props to Geiger on enforcing this.
Anyone read the MLS article on the incident? http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/11/19/monday-postgame-handball-law-and-order-debate Not according to MLS.
To me, that's not a penalty. It looked (and still does) to me like the defender was trying to tuck his arm into his body, and his arm was maybe only six inches away from his body when the ball made contact. I just don't see anything deliberate there. He's also so close to Keane when he strikes the ball that there's just no time to react in any way to avoid the contact. His problem is that you can interpret that action very easily, given the timing, as deliberately trying to knock the ball forward with the left arm. So I can see where Geiger's coming from, but it's not a PK for me. I'm also not convinced that the ball ricoched off his left arm and then struck his right arm. If it DID make contact with the right arm, it's a lot more likely to be a penalty. I also had the same thought as MassRef (I wish I'd been around a keyboard to say it first) that if the offside goal was properly allowed, it probably affects the game enough that the 12th minute goal doesn't happen.
It's natural to have your arm out 90 degrees away from your body while taking small steps and not lunging in any direction? Because that's what Johansson was doing. He looked more like a basketball defender than a soccer defender. I understand having your arms angled away from your body for balance, but he frequently had them up at close to 90 degrees away from the body, which strikes me as unnatural. I play soccer frequently and watch lots of soccer as well, and while I admit I've never really looked for it, I certainly don't recall many defenders flailing their arms around as much as Johansson did. All his arm movements look exaggerated and, yes, deliberate. Johansson is certainly allowed to do that, but I have to imagine that Geiger saw the flailing and that it may have played a role in his decision.
I think this has been a great discussion overall, and a very necessary one at that because as the article states, the law and how it is enforced are often two different things. For me, this should not have been given. This is however an extremely tough spot for Geiger, and I don't blame him for making the call. The vote on MLS has it pretty much split down the middle so either way half were going to disagree. The defender thinks Keane is going to play the cross down the goal line so he tries to block it with the outside of his left foot. However, Keane crosses him up and cuts it back towards the middle of the box and it very unluckily hits his arm which is hanging down. (I don't think it then rebounds and hits his other arm either). In real time, judging by the fact that he's a yard from Keane, there is no way this is deliberate. For me, it's also against the spirit of the game to punish the defender for being unlucky. I also don't think that defenders should have to learn to play with their arms behind their backs. As previously mentioned, it's a major disadvantage. Sorry aek, that you had to do that, but just because that is what was done by you and is done by Puyol doesn't mean it's how the game needs to be played. I think refs should be trusted to determine whether the defender deliberately made himself bigger or not.