Should a handball be called if it doesn't help the offending team?

[StarCityFan]

I am thinking specifically of the incident this evening in the Washington Freedom - Los Angeles Sol match: A Sol player takes a shot on goal that's going wide. It hits (Freedom player) Cat Whitehill's hand, the only result of which is that the ball goes out-of-bounds in a slightly different direction than it otherwise would have. However, the referee immediately ordered a penalty kick. The game was tied 1-1 well into the second half, and making the PK pretty much sealed the game for LA.

Being a Freedom fan, I may be biased, and I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that handling the ball should only be called if it affects the flow of the game. I would be interested in hearing more expert opinions than mine.

[intechpc]

Well the book answer is yes, there is no component that says a handling offense has to benefit the offending team in order to be called. I haven't seen the incident, but since handling is only called if the referee determines it was a deliberate handball then that should mean that the player moved his hand to play the ball or had his hand in an unnatural playing position causing it to be hit by the ball. At least that's the guidance we have from the USSF.

Having not seen the play in question, I can't say whether or not it could possibly be let go as trifling. From what you describe, there might be a case for that, but even then that's up to the referee to make that judgement.

[DadOf6]

I am thinking specifically of the incident this evening in the Washington Freedom - Los Angeles Sol match: A Sol player takes a shot on goal that's going wide. It hits (Freedom player) Cat Whitehill's hand, the only result of which is that the ball goes out-of-bounds in a slightly different direction than it otherwise would have. However, the referee immediately ordered a penalty kick. The game was tied 1-1 well into the second half, and making the PK pretty much sealed the game for LA.

Being a Freedom fan, I may be biased, and I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that handling the ball should only be called if it affects the flow of the game. I would be interested in hearing more expert opinions than mine.

I think it goes to fairness.

If the referee determines that the handling was deliberate then he should call it. Is it fair to deny a PK because the result of the foul didn't benefit the fouler's team as much as it could have?

There is a recent theme on this board that is related. When should the referee end a half? Should he stop it when one team is mounting an attack? Many say no, that the ref should let the attack play itself out. But is it fair to force the defending team to defend after the ref decides that time has expired?

You have to be fair to BOTH teams, and the way to do that is to follow the LOTG.

[StarCityFan]

WPS just put the highlights video of the match on their fan website at http://fans.womensprosoccer.com/ . It's at about 1:40 in the video. I hadn't gotten a good look at it before. (I'd been looking for some sort of player-to-player contact in the box when watching the replays on television.) However, Whitehill clearly raises her hand toward the ball as it goes by, which is an idiotic thing for a defender to do.

Anyhow, I can't blame the ref for calling it, given that.

[vetshak]

Having now seen the clip, that's a PK and should be a caution as well.

I understand your original question... in a situation where a player doesn't make a clear attempt to move their arm to the ball, a ball heading into touch that is merely diverted in a different direction (but still into touch) could certainly be considered trifling.

Whitehill was attempting to deny a goal by handling. A red card could not be given here because a goal was not actually denied, but due to the player's intent, she should have been booked.

[Sport Billy]

Having now seen the clip, that's a PK and should be a caution as well.

Whitehill was attempting to deny a goal by handling. A red card could not be given here because a goal was not actually denied, but due to the player's intent, she should have been booked.

Spot on.



I understand your original question... in a situation where a player doesn't make a clear attempt to move their arm to the ball, a ball heading into touch that is merely diverted in a different direction (but still into touch) could certainly be considered trifling.

I still remember being about 13. Breaking down the sideline and the pass was over my head. We were on a field on top of a hill. I reached up and caught the ball to prevent it from going way down the hill. I dropped the ball on the sideline and started backing for the throw. To my surprise, the ref came over and carded me for intentional handling - I'll still never understand that logic.

[imasyko]

Spot on.




I still remember being about 13. Breaking down the sideline and the pass was over my head. We were on a field on top of a hill. I reached up and caught the ball to prevent it from going way down the hill. I dropped the ball on the sideline and started backing for the through. To my surprise, the ref came over and carded me for intentional handling - I'll still never understand that logic.

Well, that was soooooooooooooooo long ago, maybe the laws were different then? :)

[DWickham]

One clue in deciding whether handling is incidental (and nothing) or deliberate (and a foul), is whether the defender has a reason to handle the ball in that situation? If the defender can forsee a tactical benefit from the contact, there is a good chance that the defender did it on purpose.

For example, the defender who is completely unmarked and far from any danger areas has no reason to handle the ball. Contact with the ball in that situation has a greater chance of being accidental (e.g., the ball took a wierd hop off a wet or uneven playing surface). Conversely, the defender who makes herself bigger by extending her arms at a free kick or near the penalty area can see a tactical benefit: she guardis a greater area on a shot or pass than with the body alone. Her handling may be deliberate.

Note: sometimes there may not be an actual benefit (the shot otherwise would have gone wide), but the arms were put there in the expectation of a tactical benefit.
Other times, a purely accidental touch of the arm might yield a tremendous benefit (the ball deflects to an open team mate or even into the goal). The actual result (benefit or not) may be less useful as a clue than the perceived tactical benefit.

[flornatref]

Having now seen the clip, that's a PK and should be a caution as well.

I understand your original question... in a situation where a player doesn't make a clear attempt to move their arm to the ball, a ball heading into touch that is merely diverted in a different direction (but still into touch) could certainly be considered trifling.

Whitehill was attempting to deny a goal by handling. A red card could not be given here because a goal was not actually denied, but due to the player's intent, she should have been booked.

Spot on with yellow card and that is what ussoccer advised the referee as well. Also, the caution helps to sell the call even more. Great call by Teddy, courageous because if you are not watching closely, you will not see the infraction.