the unintentional handball

[blech]

My refereeing of a game this weekend was questioned because of (in my opinion) a couple of inadvertent handballs where I allowed play to continue. On both, a player was coming up for a tackle, and from less than a yard or two, the ball was kicked up toward their hand at the side of their body. In both cases, the hand was off the body, let's say a comfortable 12", and in both cases the ball struck the hand and then rebounded down to the ground behind the player whose hand had been struck.

I felt the ball struck the hand, rather than the other way around. I also in these kind of situations try to ask myself whether I would give a penalty kick for the play if it were in the box (and then apply that standard no matter where it is on the field). I didn't see it, but a parent on one team (who is also a referee in the league) stated that on the second handball the player clinched his fist just before the ball hit it and that this unfairly changed the deflection and would have resulted in his making the call. I didn't see it that way, and am not sure if that would have changed my call. The real question for me has always been whether I feel the player could have gotten his hand/arm out of the way had he really tried.

Just curious as to what other tricks or hints people have for determining when the ball has been handled intentionally.

[kevbrunton]

If it's from less than a yard or two away, I don't think it's humanly possible for the player to have REACTED to the ball coming to their hand and have made a fist. It is possible that he/she clenched his/her fist in anticipation of contact (either with the other player or the ball) simply to keep fingers from getting injured.

For my book, I have to see CLEAR movement of the arm toward the ball or into position to play the ball.

90% or more of the time, the arm is actually moving away from the ball in an attempt to get out of the way when the ball strikes it.

[Statesman]

Most handling cases are not deliberate, and the ones you describe seem to be good no-calls. The main thing to watch for is when the player seemingly makes accidental contact with the ball, but in fact was positioning himself in such a way that the contact was indeed deliberate. For example, the "blocked" goal by the German defender in the WC2k2 match vs USA where he puts his forearm in a "reactionary" position but then actually scoots into the ball to block it. He uses his forearm as an extension to occupy a larger area, and got away with it.

Also take into consideration the experience level of the players. I don't think you'll see any deliberate "accidental" contact until you get into the comp and premiere levels. If they purposely use their arms to occupy more space and it makes contact with the ball, it is handling.

[Greyhnd00]

I love the "im a referee too" people.......If this guy could see a player clinch his fist then he isnt a referee he is superman.....If he is a referee he knows that the result doesnt matter. i briefed a new AR this weekend, "it doesnt matter if it stops a goal, goes in the goal or up the players but, if it isn deliberate or thier hands arent in an unnatural playing position.......no call!"
You have to have guts to make the nocall but if you are consistant the players will recognize it.

[MarioKempes]

Sounds like good calls, Blech.
Please note that whatever call you make, at least 50% of the parents will not agree with it. Most parents are full of crap anyway. Better to ignore them, as they usually don't know the rules and don't understand the game.

[MarioKempes]

Originally posted by Statesman
For example, the "blocked" goal by the German defender in the WC2k2 match vs USA where he puts his forearm in a "reactionary" position but then actually scoots into the ball to block it. He uses his forearm as an extension to occupy a larger area, and got away with it.


That's a pretty debatable interpretation of what happened. I didn't see it that way at all. I saw it as completely ball to hand. In fact, I saw Frings move his hand back a few frames before the unfortunate deflection to reduce the odds of it getting hit in the future. I will have to have a look at the video again to see if I can see what you are talking about.

Ah yes, the handball call of the century, whatever side you're on.

[lanman]

Originally there was no such thing as unintentional handball. A free-kick was given if a player gained advantage from handling the ball, whether it was ball to hand or hand to ball. If no advantage was deemed to have occurred, then it was not deemed an offence. I'm not sure when this was changed, however, but I believe it was a considerable time ago.

[jotadia]

Originally posted by lanman
Originally there was no such thing as unintentional handball. A free-kick was given if a player gained advantage from handling the ball, whether it was ball to hand or hand to ball. If no advantage was deemed to have occurred, then it was not deemed an offence. I'm not sure when this was changed, however, but I believe it was a considerable time ago.

I have a simple question. "Is a handball in the box a penalty?"

[lanman]

Originally posted by jotadia


I have a simple question. "Is a handball in the box a penalty?"

If intentional, yes. Otherwise no. It's all down to the individual referees interpretation of "intentional".

[Statesman]

Originally posted by MarioKempes


That's a pretty debatable interpretation of what happened. I didn't see it that way at all. I saw it as completely ball to hand. In fact, I saw Frings move his hand back a few frames before the unfortunate deflection to reduce the odds of it getting hit in the future. I will have to have a look at the video again to see if I can see what you are talking about.

Ah yes, the handball call of the century, whatever side you're on.

That may be the case, but the way I described it does illustrate my point nicely and is a situation I'm sure everybody is familiar with. That was my intention rather than bringing up the controversy behind the actual non-call itself and "what REALLY happened." To discuss the actual occurance itself should go in a new thread, of which it would join quite a few on the exact same topic discussed to death previously.

[655321]

I think if it is cleary not on purpose, the next step is to decide whether or not it gave the offending player some form of advantage. If it did, stop play, free kick. If it didn't, move on.

[Craig the Aussie]

Advantage has NOTHING to do with it

If a ball bounces off your hand and goes in the goal - good luck to you, you just scored. So long as it wasn't deliberate in the refs opinion.

[whipple]

Originally posted by lanman
Originally there was no such thing as unintentional handball. A free-kick was given if a player gained advantage from handling the ball, whether it was ball to hand or hand to ball. If no advantage was deemed to have occurred, then it was not deemed an offence. I'm not sure when this was changed, however, but I believe it was a considerable time ago.

Yes, it was, if you consider 1863 a long time. It was during the first meeting of the associateion in London that it was decided by all but one school (Rugby) that one could not play the ball with their hands. It was never decided that the ball could not come into contact with the hands, or that if it did so, it was a foul for it to play to one team's advantage, in part, becasue there were few fouls only a couple of laws, and no referee. The laws, and referee all came later and evovled with the sport.

If there is a change, it is the relatively recent misunderstanding of the Laws and, particularly the offense of handling (or as the profoundly clueless call it "handball") followed in second place not by the offiside infraction (translation for the clueless "offsides'), but rather by the concept of advantage.

The manner ahd prohibition aganst handling has not changed in about 139 years, and yet, we still seem to fail to grasp this incredibly simple concept. A player cannot deliberately play (ie. punch, catch, trap, slap, control, parry, juggle, deflect, strike, stroke, fondle, throw, pitch, poke or prod) the ball with his/her hands (includuing the arm and up to the top of the shoulders), execept for the goal keeper within their own penalty area.

The laws don't say that the ball cannot touch the hand or arm, or play off any part of a players body (though if it plays off certain parts it can be quite painful) so these are probably less desirable than other parts, the point is that if the ball plays off a hand or arm it is nothing. Play goes on.

I think the biggest problem referees have is that even if they understand the concept, they overthink it. They hear the spectators' moronic outburst and react rather than observe.

[Andyrey]

Originally posted by 655321
I think if it is cleary not on purpose, the next step is to decide whether or not it gave the offending player some form of advantage. If it did, stop play, free kick. If it didn't, move on.
Wrong. If it is not deliberate, it makes no difference if it gives the player an advantage or not. There is nothing in law XII about giving the player an advantage.

The classic example is shown in the 'Myths of the Game' video. It shows an attacker that is about 6 yards in front of the goal and not in an offside position. There is a shot on goal. The keeper deflects the ball and it hits the attacker on the arm. The ball falls at the attackers feet and she kicks it into the goal. It is a goal, because the attacker did not commit a foul.

[Chicago1871]

I have looked for ways to explain to parents, young players, and other refs the exact way a hand-ball works, and the best explanation I have heard to date that simplifies the situation is this: "If the ball plays the hand, it should not be called. If the hand plays the ball, then it should."
Strangely enough Ty Keough said it.
(i.e.) if the hand/arm is attempting to play the ball (even as protection of the body) it is a foul and should be whistled. If the hand is passive and the ball contacts the hand, then no whistle is required.

[Statesman]

Originally posted by Chicago1871
if the hand/arm is attempting to play the ball (even as protection of the body) it is a foul and should be whistled.

Players are allowed to use their hands and arms for protection so long as there is no deliberate force applied to the ball upon impact (directing its deflection).

[whipple]

Originally posted by Chicago1871
I have looked for ways to explain to parents, young players, and other refs the exact way a hand-ball works, and the best explanation I have heard to date that simplifies the situation is this: "If the ball plays the hand, it should not be called. If the hand plays the ball, then it should."
Strangely enough Ty Keough said it.
(i.e.) if the hand/arm is attempting to play the ball (even as protection of the body) it is a foul and should be whistled. If the hand is passive and the ball contacts the hand, then no whistle is required.

While I would agree that we need some device to use as an explanation to parents, such as that from the ATR (not Keough, but Allen, et al.) "hand playing the ball/ball playing hand", as referees we must have a even greater standard for consistent applicaiton.

Your point, on protection, for example, is poor instruction. Unless it it obvious to you that the player is deliberately using their right to protect themsleves from injury as a ruse to circumvent the laws and play the ball with their hands, then there is no foul. If there is doubt - no foul.

Here are the guidelines from our SDA and Natinal Instructor, Ed Rae:

How to judge?

Did the ball hit the hand? No whistle
Was it an instinctive, reflexive reaction? No call.
Protecting vital body parts? No call.
Was it just an aimless, bouncing ball? Nothing then.
Accident? No call.
No fault? No call.
Not on purpose? No call.

Did hand hit ball? Rare. But it might happen. If, in the
opinion of the referee, it was deliberate, then, and only then make the call.

Go here to read the entire article:

http://www.massref.net/msr_er11.htm

We all screw up sometimes and make a bad call. We often unfairly penalize an innocent player who committed no foul or misconduct becasue they had the bad luck of haing the ball come into contact with their hand or arm. When this happens it is a tragic mistake, and hopefuly we, as referees will learn from it and do better the next game we do.

But, if we then, rather than learning from it or admitting our mistake, make up a rational or justification that "oh the hand was in an unnatural position" or, it played to the advantage of...", etc. , then we have now turned a simple mistake into a crime against the game. We give up our place as referees and become frauds, imposters, and charlatans, perpetuating lies.

The point is we are never going to get it right every time (or in my case I'm shooting for at least half the time), but we must not deceieve ourselves. Be honest and call it as you see it adn don't make excuses.

[Andyrey]

Originally posted by Statesman
[B]

Players are allowed to use their hands and arms for protection so long as there is no deliberate force applied to the ball upon impact (directing its deflection). [/BE]
This is true, specially on a kick that is going to the players face (or other sensitive area) and the intent of the player was clearly to protect him or herself. The way I make this judgment is to see if the hands moved to that area palms facing toward the body and clearly with the intent to cover the area, instead to pushing the ball away from the area. This indicates to me that the player has not deliberately played the ball, but has deliberately tried to cover the sensitive area so that the ball would not hit it.

You need to take into consideration how much time the player had to react to the kick and the level of play (skill) of the players. The less amount of time that the player had to react (kick close to the player), and the lower the level of play the less likely I am to call a hand on the above circumstances. For example, in an u14 recreational game a ball is kicked from a couple of yards in front of the player and is going towards the player's face, and the players hands go to his/her face palms in as if to cover the face, and the players body motion indicates the he/she is trying to get away from the ball, I will not call a hand ball even if the hands make contact with the ball while they were traveling up to cover the face and therefore 'hit the ball' instead of the ball hitting the hands.

Please note that after I posted this, I noticed Wipple's excelent post (it was not there when I started to reply). I beleive that what I have said above complements his post.

[Preston McMurry]

Originally posted by Statesman
Most handling cases are not deliberate, and the ones you describe seem to be good no-calls. The main thing to watch for is when the player seemingly makes accidental contact with the ball, but in fact was positioning himself in such a way that the contact was indeed deliberate. For example, the "blocked" goal by the German defender in the WC2k2 match vs USA where he puts his forearm in a "reactionary" position but then actually scoots into the ball to block it. He uses his forearm as an extension to occupy a larger area, and got away with it.


The German player did no such thing. That was a good no call by the ref.

[Stan]

I had a game last week (U-13G) where the ball seemed to be bouncing off arms every 5 minutes, but none of them seemed to be anything other than inadvertant contact. The ball was kicked into arms from close range, it took spin-bounces into hands, and so on, all game long. I have never had a game with so much ball-to-hand contact. The sidelines rumbled for a while, but as the game rolled on and it became apparant that I was calling it the same both ways, they quieted down, except for one coach. I finally had to tell the coach to settle down, which she did.

I will call handling on kids who flail their arms in the air as the ball approaches them, who could have avoided the ball but didn't seem to make an effort or who nudge the ball with their hand or arm when it hits them. Otherwise, it is "play-on".