His hand could have been stationary, which it was NOT. His hand could have been pinned to, or closer to, his body, which it was NOT. Now if you think Johannson has a valid OUT because his hand was where it naturally should have been for "balance" purposes, God Bless you.
We can round and round on this forever, but suffice it to say, if one of you coaches or players who are commenting on this thread had a defender in your squad who was all arms in the area, I think somewhere along the line you would FORCE him to change his style. Especially in a close playoff match against a veteran team. And to those slagging Geiger, you have absolutely no idea what a competent referee is. Especially the poster who called the USSF "the old boys network". I think Geiger has had his fair share of quality international appointments lately, and has done quite well.
The only time I thought Geiger ”lost” a match was the Philly vs DC match. other then that match, he's a solid ref, who from my view leans to the Letter of the law a bit more then Spirit. If I recall correctly he was MLS ref of the season last year. One thing I think hurts him is that he looks so young. But at 38 he's in the prime of his career. But we can all disagree about style. when I saw this play on ESPN live I thought 75/25 for handling. If it wasn't called, it wouldn't be the worst non call ever, but I thought it was clear. Watching it again, I don't understand any justification against it being a pk, but it is always ITOOR. He carelessly flails his arm trying to block a cross. Had he had any reason to not expect a cross, I might understand the reasoning others have used. But Robbie Keane tries to cross the ball behind Johannson, Johannsons hand knocks the ball the other way.
You can quibble about whats an unnatural position from now until the cows come home but to me there are two scenarios that are NOT handling offenses: 1) where the hand is pinned to the body (always), and 2) when the hand is stationary (almost always). On the flip side, when I see the hand further away from the body than the normal running motion requires and/or the hand moves towards the ball, I'm thinking handling offense. When I see BOTH (as in this case) its ALWAYS a handling offense.
With respect to the defenders left arm it is not playing the ball and the distance from the attacker is such that he truly has no time to react. The right arm is held in a unnatural position and he does have time to move it back or away from the ball and does not. For me, no deliberate handling with the left hand, but deliberate handling with the right.
TWhile I agree the left arm has no time to react, its also away from the body and moving downwards towards the ball (playing the ball as opposed to being stationary or moving away from the ball). That to me is more than enough to vitiate any qualms about the short distance. The fact that the right arm touches the ball is icing on the cake. I think both touches are handling offenses, but the right arm unquestionably so.
I don't think it touches the right arm, and we all know Geiger called it for the left. I would agree the left was handling if it hit his arm at the point it was outstretched closer to 90 degrees. And the fact that you "agree the left arm has no time to react" should vitiate the notion that it is moving towards the ball if you include the word "deliberate" in your consideration of whether or not this is handling. I know you're going to come back with something about how "deliberate" doesn't mean deliberate. I think it comes down to the fact that I don't think Johannsen was making himself big enough at the time his arm was struck to be penalized, and you do. At this point I'm going to agree to disagree.
I'm not saying Johanson is making himself bigger at the point of imapct. I'm saying his left hand went to, and thus played, the ball. Combined with the position of the hand at the time of impact, its more than enough for me to point to the spotm
A little late to this conversation. I'm not a referee, so I won't get into the arguments about whether the handball was deliberate, but I'm going to weigh in on the kind of ridiculous "physics" argument. The way Johansson's arms were flailing may be natural for him specifically, but those arm movements looked really excessive for what was needed for him to keep his balance. If you look at the photos of Puyol someone posted here, his arms look to be extended in natural ways for how he was moving. Now take a moment and watch the entire play that lead to the Keane PK (starting at 3:18 in the highlights). I know the Puyol photos were posted to show that he doesn't always keep his arms behind his back, but the contrast between those photos and Johansson's defending is striking. Not only were his arms flailing ridiculously then entire time he was defending Keane, they stayed extended for a long time when he wasn't moving. Definitely not necessary unless the guy has really poor balance to begin with.
Andy...absolutely spot on. This method of defending is screaming for the referee to watch closely. His hands are windmilling at times. Its really poor technique, but yet the supporters immediately blame the referee. It's bad defending, period.
The supporters also want to redefine the way handling has been interpreted for a LOOONG time. You may run with your arms moving in windmill or butterfly patterns, and that may be natural for you, but its NOT natural for handling purposes. The real key for me, though, is that if you're still undecided about whether this hand position is unnatural, there's NO QUESTION that the hand plays the ball. That put it over the top for me.
Huh? Wait.... AEK, your statements are confusing me. Different versions of "natural"? Any hand moving toward a ball is handling? No time to react, but the short distance doesn't matter? The arm is supposed to be stationary while the defender is in motion? Defenders are obligated to move away from the ball with their arms even though they don't have time to react? Is this a fact? You repped this quote. Do you agree that it is always ITOOR? If so, why such a problem with the OOP (opinions of other posters?)? I'm not disagreeing that Geiger made the right call, just trying to understand the assertions that you are forwarding in the review of this play. Agreed.
His left arm is in a natural position. He is not making himself bigger with his left arm position. I disagree his left arm moves to the ball. As you stated he also has no time to react. Therefore, it is not deliberate handling. Nothing further to respond. We have a difference of opinion. You will not change my mind nor I yours thanks for the debate.
Not having time to react really doesn't mean much if his hand is moving downwards towards (and thus playing) the ball. Of course his hand doesn't have time to react, Nonetheless, that same arm flapping around like an octopus and the fact that its moving towards the ball when contact is made are the determining factors for me. Apparently, virtually everybody else in the forum poll agrees as well. I think a better way of evaluating these scenarios may be if we started with the premise that all hand-ball contact constitutes handling and then look for factors which may nullify it ie hand pinned against the body, hand used for support in a fall, hand close to the body, objectively natural position.....