the unintentional handball

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by whipple
... The big problem we have in constency is that as players develop (along with their coaches/parents)they are first exposed to referees with the least competence, skill, judgement and experinece who simply call handling wrong, because they do not know better. ...
And of course, the reverse is equally true. We send newly certified teenagers out to learn the art of refereeing. Often they are assigned as a single center, surrounded by players, coaches and parents, but no peers. They know what they have been taught about "the ball playing the hand vs. the hand playing the ball", but the first time they make the correct non-call, all of these wonderfully supportive, civilized, educated and experienced adults scream HANDBALL at the top of their lungs. The young referee hears this over and over again in his first few games. In short order, he too becomes part of the problem. The truth is that many young referees learn their bad habits (like stopping play for non-deliberate "handballs") from the coaches and parents because we (the collective world of referees, assignors, instructors, assessors and mentors) throw them to the wolves.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by pkCrouse

And of course, the reverse is equally true. We send newly certified teenagers out to learn the art of refereeing. Often they are assigned as a single center, surrounded by players, coaches and parents, but no peers. They know what they have been taught about "the ball playing the hand vs. the hand playing the ball", but the first time they make the correct non-call, all of these wonderfully supportive, civilized, educated and experienced adults scream HANDBALL at the top of their lungs. The young referee hears this over and over again in his first few games. In short order, he too becomes part of the problem. The truth is that many young referees learn their bad habits (like stopping play for non-deliberate "handballs") from the coaches and parents because we (the collective world of referees, assignors, instructors, assessors and mentors) throw them to the wolves.

This is so true. Particularly in areas where there is a shortage of referees. I agree assignors and leagues need to be more conscious about this. This happened to me when I first started refereeing. I felt the heat and I was an adult! I can imagine how overwhelming the experience might be for a youth referee placed in an ironman, single referee assignment.

[penquinref]

In my lower level youth games( usually, U-13 and below)
My pre game instructions to both teams and coaches is the "Hand Ball" Myth.I explain that the rule is "intentionally handeling the Ball",give some examples, as best I can, and hope the coaches and players get it. (and will explain it to their parents on the way home!!!) The most importan thing is to be consistant with the call during the play so the players,(and maybe the fans,and coaches) will know what to expect from you. Teach the kids and hopefully it will "trickel down" to the adults!!

[Greyhnd00]

Originally posted by penquinref
In my lower level youth games( usually, U-13 and below)
.I explain that the rule is "intentionally handeling the Ball" You meant deliberately handles the ball! :)

[penquinref]

I stand (or run a left diagonal) corrected!!!!
Thanks

[dolphinscoach]

How would you refs address these examples from a non-ref:

1) First using the corner kick situation. When I was in college in the 1980s, the coaches and players on my team advocated that the person covering the posts on a corner should (a) place a hand around the post, and (b) let the other hand hang out from the body in a "natural" way so that the person filled more space. Since the person on the post often has no time to react to a ball coming in his/her direction, any ball-to-hand contact would not be viewed as intentional. They argued that this was a way to gain an advantage, and that no ref would ever call a handball in that situation. Sure enough, we did have a game where the opponents header hit the elbow of the defender, with the arm hanging "naturally" so that the elbow was away from the body, and the ball deflected across the mouth of goal to the keeper.

These were guys who had played top club and/or high school ball around the US, plus a couple of guys from Europe and one from Africa. All were in agreement on this matter, and all said that earlier coaches had taught them to play the post that way. I had not been so coached. I should also point out that these guys had also been taught when/how to pull shirts, dive, and worse, in ways that would not be detected by the officials. For many of the guys I have played with and against, the little cheatings are ingrained and come naturally (i.e., they do them without even thinking).

My question for you: Given that so many players have been instructed how to commit infractions without being caught (surely my team didn't get all of the riff raff from the US and abroad), shouldn't the assumption be that players on the post are intentionally handling the ball even though no arm movement occurs and the arm is not waving wildly?


2) I often see players who attempt to run through a bouncing ball, using the chest to play the ball with the arm tight against the body, whistled as a foul. Have had it called against me, even. Often, it seems to me that the ball does not touch the arm, yet it is frequently whistled. Given the comments about intent, especially in light of the discussion of the young woman (where the ball swerved to her outstretched arms when she misjudged a ball she intended to chest), I wonder why that is whistled so often? Please note that in my example, the person's arms are tight to the body as the person jumps and/or twists to chest the ball.

[JulianC]

Referees generally do not have a problem in gauging whether a handling the ball is intentional or not. It seems to me that the problem lies with the players, managers, coaches and spectators. If this is the case, then we Referees need to educate these people as we go along. I have studied the concept of this question, and if any of you guys are interested, you can visit my HandBall page http://www.carosi.freeserve.co.uk/corshamreferee/law12/law12hand.htm for my advice.
Regards from England to all you guys over the pond.
JulianC
www.corshamref.net

[XYZ]

Originally posted by JulianC
Referees generally do not have a problem in gauging whether a handling the ball is intentional or not.I don't know why referees should have a problem with that. It's not rocket science. As with everyting else, it is the opinion of the referee that matters. I still contend that it is a very simple concept. It hinges on the word "deliberate"
Not much else matters: not position on the field, not percieved advantage, not whether it prevents (or leads to) a goal - not even the stage of the moon.
As with many things, you can make it complicated if you want. It is not inherently complicated.

Sure, level of play can be a factor in deciding what is deliberate. At the highest level, assuming that "nothing is inadvertant" may make some sense. At the lowest level, assuming that "nothing is intentional" may be more reasonable. In either case, the important concept to consider is still "deliberate".
It seems to me that the problem lies with the players, managers, coaches and spectators.It seems to me that the reason players, managers, coaches and spectators are confused is that referees are so inconsistent. Some referees consistently call handling in a way that has no resemblance to what is in the LOTG. They confuse players, managers, coaches and spectators, and make it dificult for other referees to call it correctly.
If this is the case, then we Referees need to educate these people as we go along.Agreed. I saw a referee do a great job of that today. The first time the yells of "handball" were heard, he said, "it has to be intentional."
Right you are, sir!

[gfhh]

I totally agree with you XYZ. As a referee I get very frustrated when I see other referees call handballs on obvious unintentional touches on the hand or arm. It makes it much more difficult for referees who wish to make the call according to the LOTG and ATR. A very large number of players, coaches and spectators, at every level of youth and amateur play, will call "handball" as soon as they see the ball strike a player's hand or arm.

The best way to combat this is to let everyone know, at the first instance, that it was unintentional and that you're not going to call it unless it was a deliberate touch

[Alberto]

If anyone saw the La Liga match we can add announcers that don't know a handball from a hand grenade. Yes, I'm talking about you Max Bretos. The AR raised his flag for a handball, the CR allowed play to continue and a goal was scored. Recreativo went nuts. The CR consulted with his AR and the goal stood. Bretos went on how the CR missed an obvious handball. They showed the replay. The ball was struck from less than 2 yards. Who does Bretos think the player is the Flash. There was no way the player deliberately played the ball. Thanks go to announcers for pretetrating the myth of the handball.

Also, another big thanks to Bretos for proving his stupidity and continuing on his "the refereeing is ruining this match with bad calls" for issuing a send off. They then show the replay and Bretos says oh! He did tackle him from behind. All this time the player is lying on the pitch from getting cleated in the achilles tendon with a sweeping slding tackle from behind. Did Bretos ever play this game? What about waiting for the replay before offering an opinion?

[Statesman]

Originally posted by Alberto
If anyone saw the La Liga match we can add announcers that don't know a handball from a hand grenade. Yes, I'm talking about you Max Bretos. The AR raised his flag for a handball, the CR allowed play to continue and a goal was scored. Recreativo went nuts. The CR consulted with his AR and the goal stood. Bretos went on how the CR missed an obvious handball. They showed the replay. The ball was struck from less than 2 yards. Who does Bretos think the player is the Flash. There was no way the player deliberately played the ball. Thanks go to announcers for pretetrating the myth of the handball.

Also, another big thanks to Bretos for proving his stupidity and continuing on his "the refereeing is ruining this match with bad calls" for issuing a send off. They then show the replay and Bretos says oh! He did tackle him from behind. All this time the player is lying on the pitch from getting cleated in the achilles tendon with a sweeping slding tackle from behind. Did Bretos ever play this game? What about waiting for the replay before offering an opinion?

This is yet another example of why I feel the announcers should stick soley to calling the action and providing interesting side information about the teams and players. Nobody gives a damn about their "opinion" of the game itself. They are nothing more than an ill-informed "parent" with a microphone.

I would love to have the ability to caution and eject an announcer for abusive language or dissent.

[IASocFan]

Some of this discussion is making me question some of my practices. Let me know your thoughts.

A player has his arms out and is trying to field a bouncing ball. The ball plays off his thigh and bounces off his outstreched arm to his feet. I have always considered this an intentional handball, because he played it into his own arm that he chose to have in a position where it could affect the play. Would you make this same call?

[kevbrunton]

Originally posted by IASocFan
Some of this discussion is making me question some of my practices. Let me know your thoughts.

A player has his arms out and is trying to field a bouncing ball. The ball plays off his thigh and bounces off his outstreched arm to his feet. I have always considered this an intentional handball, because he played it into his own arm that he chose to have in a position where it could affect the play. Would you make this same call?
I know what you're talking about -- the players arm is up for balance as he raises a leg to play the ball with his/her leg/thigh and it deflects off the thigh up to his arm -- is that about right?

My opinion is that this is NOT handling. The arm is in a normal position for balance, not to attempt to "backstop" the leg just in case the leg misses.

[whipple]

Originally posted by IASocFan
Some of this discussion is making me question some of my practices. Let me know your thoughts.

A player has his arms out and is trying to field a bouncing ball. The ball plays off his thigh and bounces off his outstreched arm to his feet. I have always considered this an intentional handball, because he played it into his own arm that he chose to have in a position where it could affect the play. Would you make this same call?

Nine times out of ten, not handling, no foul, nothing, nada....

... but, every now and then, the ball bounces up off the thigh,and the skillful player brings the arm or hand in to deliberately guide the ball. If this is obvious to you, blow the whistle, but you must be vigilant.

If there is any doubt in your mind, no foul.

[DC47]

I get the notion that intentionality is required for a handling call. That's a simple concept, though not simple to execute as it requires a sophisticated understanding of play when reffing higher competitive levels.

But what if the handling actually produces an immediate disadvantage for the player who commits the act? For example, if the other team immediately gets possession of the ball despite the handling? Do you still make the handling call?

[code1390]

2002 eh?

[boylanj64]

But what if the handling actually produces an immediate disadvantage for the player who commits the act? For example, if the other team immediately gets possession of the ball despite the handling? Do you still make the handling call?

Yes, you still call the foul, by holding your arms straight up and yelling "play on"

[DC47]

Is there a term for this foul+play-on call?

[code1390]

Is there a term for this foul+play-on call?

advantage

[refontherun]

I get the notion that intentionality is required for a handling call. That's a simple concept, though not simple to execute as it requires a sophisticated understanding of play when reffing higher competitive levels.

But what if the handling actually produces an immediate disadvantage for the player who commits the act? For example, if the other team immediately gets possession of the ball despite the handling? Do you still make the handling call?

I try to avoid dealing in semantics, but in the case of handling in futbol, we really must.

It is not a matter of intention, but deliberation. We know not what the player intended to do in regards to handling the ball, but we can judge whether or not the handling appeared to be deliberate, as in the wording of the law, "Deliberately handles the ball". In other words, deliberation on the part of the offender is required in order for there to be an infraction. Sounds pretty simple....it isn't.

To answer the second part of your question, we want to interfere with the game as little as possible. If an infraction, no matter how deliberate, appears not to have affected the flow of play for the opponent, why take any action at all?