the unintentional handball

[DC47]

That's an interesting distinction.

I agree that the intentions of a player can only be inferred. Sometimes this is not challenging, due to the circumstance and the physical action. Often times it is a challenge.

I'd appreciate it if you would say more about how 'deliberation' is determined.

[refontherun]

That's an interesting distinction.

I agree that the intentions of a player can only be inferred. Sometimes this is not challenging, due to the circumstance and the physical action. Often times it is a challenge.

I'd appreciate it if you would say more about how 'deliberation' is determined.

In my own words, when a player makes a purposeful effort to redirect the ball with any portion of the hand/arm below the top of the shoulder. USSF ATR Paragraph 12.9 states, "Deliberate contact means the player could have avoided touch, but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an intially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage."

In an effort to simplify this idea, the referee community has coined the phrases "ball to hand", signifying a lack of deliberation, as opposed to "hand to ball" signifying the player making an deliberate effort to redirect the ball. Simply because the hand/arm is in motion when it contacts the ball, however, does not automatically mean that the contact was indeed deliberate.

For example, a player jumping in the air looking over his outstretched right arm attempts to head the ball away from his own goal. The ball skims off of the back of the players head and makes contact with his outstretched left arm. This, IMO, would not be deliberate handling even though the arm making contact with the ball was undoubtedly in motion.

[DC47]

That's very helpful.

If it interests you, by way of additional examples I'd appreciate knowing how you'd interpret the two controversial plays in yesterday's Chelsea-Barcelona match in which balls hit arms in the box, but handling was not called.

[chrisrun]

The latest information from USSF on handling the ball can be found as one of the 2009 Referee Directives:

Handling the Ball (http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Handling%20the%20Ball.pdf)

[code1390]

That's very helpful.

If it interests you, by way of additional examples I'd appreciate knowing how you'd interpret the two controversial plays in yesterday's Chelsea-Barcelona match in which balls hit arms in the box, but handling was not called.

In my opinion the first was a stone cold 100% no doubt about it penalty.

The second one I'd say no.

[o5iiawah]

I'll throw my $.02 in the ring.

As far as the Defender jumps towards the attacker to block shot scenario: I am calling it, and here is why.

Lets look at the Attackers point of view. She's just been denied a goal chance by a defender who unfairly made herself bigger by extending the arms. Thats what I think makes this intentional handling. The Defender brings her arms out in an effort to make herself bigger. Lets not feel bad for the defender having her hands in an unnatural position and consider the attacker who lost a GSO.

[refontherun]

That's very helpful.

If it interests you, by way of additional examples I'd appreciate knowing how you'd interpret the two controversial plays in yesterday's Chelsea-Barcelona match in which balls hit arms in the box, but handling was not called.

This is copied from my post in the thread dealing with that game.

Looking at the slo-mo, it looks like Pique was changing direction and his arm was already in that position when the ball was struck by Anelka. I can see how the ref could say "ball to hand". He could have called the PK, but it would have been a bit harsh IMO.

The last second handling looked to be more deliberate. Even thought the Barca player's back was turned, he knew where the ball was headed and he threw his upper arm and shoulder up to meet it. I can imagine the ref was thinking that if he gave the penalty it would have to be another send-off for DOGSO-H.

[bofahey]

The latest information from USSF on handling the ball can be found as one of the 2009 Referee Directives:

Handling the Ball (http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/Handling%20the%20Ball.pdf)
This is a very interesting document. I've never seen any LOTG interp before that specifically says you should consider whether the player benefited when trying to determine whether a handball was deliberate.

[bofahey]

The last second handling looked to be more deliberate. Even thought the Barca player's back was turned, he knew where the ball was headed and he threw his upper arm and shoulder up to meet it. I can imagine the ref was thinking that if he gave the penalty it would have to be another send-off for DOGSO-H.
It seemed to me like it was more that he was scared of the ball hitting his face, so he turned to protect himself for that reason and was kind of using his shoulder/upper arm to shield the side of his head. But by leaving his arm extended, he was certainly reckless enough that he wouldn't have had much of a complaint had it been given.

If it had been given, would the ref really have had to send him off for DOGSO though? I don't think it was clear at all that the ball was headed into the net, so I'd think he could have just given tke PK without implicating a DOGSO red.

[refontherun]

This is a very interesting document. I've never seen any LOTG interp before that specifically says you should consider whether the player benefited when trying to determine whether a handball was deliberate.

That seems to be a change to what had been directed before. As I recall, and as it had been explained to me, once you had determined that the handling was not deliberate, the handling incident became history and whatever happened after that, whether advantageous to the handler or not, didn't matter. They are just making it more confusing using more words to say basically the same thing. Ah, USSF.

The word "deliberately" is still being emphisized. Bold, in qoutes, italics, and underlined.

[Jumbo1]

I don't like the "benefited" wording, because it's fuzzy in that it could cause confusion because many will take the new USSF position to mean any ball that hits the hand or arm and not what happens if the hand or arm moves the ball for benefit.

Here is the USSF position in 04/2007:

This is the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) Position on handling from Alfred Kleinaitis dated 04/27/2005. He is/was Manager of Referee Development and Education.

"What are the characteristics of a clear handling offense?

- A player deliberately carries, strikes, or propels the ball with the hand or arm

-It is the player's action that initiates the contact with the ball

What characteristics of ball contact are clearly not handling offenses?

- The ball strikes the hand or arm (i.e. the ball initiates contact)

- The contact is accidental (not the result of action by the player)

- The contact is the result of a purely reflexive effort at self-protection)

What are the standards of judgment which the referee will apply when the handling offense is not immediately clear?

- The distance or time within which the player had to react to avoid contact - if there was time to avoid the contact - the likelihood of an offense is greater

- The position of the player's hand or arm at the time of the contact - if the hand or arm is carried in an unnatural or unusual position (e.g. high up in the air or, while defending a free kick , far away from the body) the likelihood of an offense is greater

- Directing the ball after initial accidental or reflexive contact - if the player takes advantage to control or push the ball away, a handling offense has occurred

The referee, with input from the assistant referees, must take the immediate decision based on the best available evidence in an increasingly fast-paced game. This difficult decision must be respected and final."

[CDM76]

I don't see the use of the word "benefitted" in the same light as some of the prior posters.

Here's the exact text:

3. Did the player “benefit?”
In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also
consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the
defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a
pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the
opponent? Did the offending player gain an unfair tactical advantage from
contact with the hand/arm which enabled him to retain possession? In other
words: Did the player benefit by putting his hand/arm in an “unnatural
position?” The referee needs to be able to quickly calculate the result of the
player’s action to determine whether an offence has been committed.

The "signs" described above have to do with the position of the player's arms in terms of "making yourself bigger" and "unnatural position".

IMO, this means something more along the lines of was the player attempting to control more space by putting their arm(s) in position(s) which limited the opposing players opportunities to play the ball to a specific teammate or portion of the field.

Keepers are regularly taught to "get big" by spreading their arms wide from their body. This is obviously inappropriate for a field player (or the keeper outside the PA). Regardless of distance or ball-to-hand, this type of action should result in a handling offense being whistled.

A number of posters have mentioned the scenario where a wall holds arms straight up over their head to make the wall taller. This, for me, would fit this "benefitted" context as well.

I believe there is an attempt to differential pumping arms while sprinting or extending an arm as a counterbalance from spreading arms or extending elbows to limit passing/shooting options.

[Jumbo1]

CDM76,

Fair enough on the explanation. I guess I just wanted to get clear in my mind that the benefits point is in relation to making oneself bigger and not the whole context of the law. To me, the ball can hit the hand/arm and the player gain an active tactical advantage, as long as they weren't making themselves bigger or have their hand/arm in an unnatural position. That is my understanding from what I read...