New USSF Handling Memorandum

[MassachusettsRef]

Nothing earth-shattering from what I can see; just concisely putting everything down in one place. Still, very useful for the uneducated:

http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/handling.htm

[Bambule GK]

I got into a discussion... very cordial and even-tempered* about a PK call that went against my team the other day.

Guy on the other team drilled a shot that smacked off of my stopper's arm. Shot came from about 25, stopper was just inside the 18. Difficult call, but in my mind the ball initiated the contact and my stopper's arm wasn't in some kinda funky position.

So, I walk up and chat with the Ref at half-time. He responded by telling me that intent wasn't part of the ROG. I responded by saying that's a semantics discussion. The point, that this memo clears up, is that intent IS part of the rule, it's just that the word itself isn't expressely writen out.

The thing that really irked me is that the referee said to his AR, as he was walking off the PK, "Yeah, it (the ball) was definitely going towards goal."

???

That has nothing to do with making that call. I mentioned this to him at half-time and he just shrugged. Ah well.

* I have to see the same refs about every 2-3 weeks. Most (if not all) are pretty decent guys. I'm not one of those guys that finds yelling at the refs a) cathartic or b) productive.

[IASocFan]

The memo brought to mind all the complaints about the Frings "handball" in K/J02.

[DerbyRam54]

ISo, I walk up and chat with the Ref at half-time. He responded by telling me that intent wasn't part of the ROG. I responded by saying that's a semantics discussion. The point, that this memo clears up, is that intent IS part of the rule, it's just that the word itself isn't expressely writen out.
As the ATR points out, the word "deliberately" in the context of Law 12 does not mean intentionally, otherwise refs would have to be mind-readers. Think of it more as "deliberately" as opposed to reflexively, accidentally, incidentally etc.

[PVancouver]

I have to say this memo adds a bit to the confusion. To say that it is clearly NOT a handling offense if "the ball strikes the hand or arm" would eliminate 80% of all handball calls. Most handballs arise from the ball striking the arm/hand, not the other way around. The most common question regarding handballs is whether or not the person who handled the ball had enough time to avoid the hand contact, as usually some kind of effort is being made to move away from the ball.

The biggest misconception may be that players think the defense should be penalized in some way if they "gain an advantage" from the hand ball, whether or not the handling was deliberate/intentional.

The word "deliberate" is in the LOTG, and in my mind means the same thing as "intentional". I don't think anyone reading the old LOTG would expect referees to be able to read minds.

Here is one definition of deliberate: "Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional".

And one for intentional: "Done deliberately; intended".

[Alberto]

I have to say this memo adds a bit to the confusion. To say that it is clearly NOT a handling offense if "the ball strikes the hand or arm" would eliminate 80% of all handball calls. Most handballs arise from the ball striking the arm/hand, not the other way around. The most common question regarding handballs is whether or not the person who handled the ball had enough time to avoid the hand contact, as usually some kind of effort is being made to move away from the ball.

The biggest misconception may be that players think the defense should be penalized in some way if they "gain an advantage" from the hand ball, whether or not the handling was deliberate/intentional.

The word "deliberate" is in the LOTG, and in my mind means the same thing as "intentional". I don't think anyone reading the old LOTG would expect referees to be able to read minds.

Here is one definition of deliberate: "Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional".

And one for intentional: "Done deliberately; intended".

Let's clear this up.

Deliberate: The player handles the ball. He moves his arms or hands to play the ball.

Intentional: The player intends to handle. You cannot penalize for intent if the resulting handling does not happen. That is why intent is not written in the LOTG with respect to handling. Just because a player intends to handle the ball does not necessarily mean he will handle it nor can we penalize a player for his intent. He could misjudge the flight of the ball while making an attempt to handle it and if he does not handle the ball there is no infraction.

[Statesman]

Conversely to Alberto's well-written post, a player may not intend for the ball to hit his outstretched arm while in a wall, and yet outstretching the arm is a deliberate act that if it results in handling should be penalized.

I just wish the word "advantage" was not mentioned anywhere in the memo. There's a difference between a player gaining an advantage from an accidental handling (no infringement), and a player taking advantage of an otherwise accidental handling by then controlling or directing the ball with the arm or hand. I have a feeling that any language discussing "advantage" and "handling" is going to continue fueling the misconception.

[Daniel le Rouge]

Conversely to Alberto's well-written post, a player may not intend for the ball to hit his outstretched arm while in a wall, and yet outstretching the arm is a deliberate act that if it results in handling should be penalized.

I just wish the word "advantage" was not mentioned anywhere in the memo. There's a difference between a player gaining an advantage from an accidental handling (no infringement), and a player taking advantage of an otherwise accidental handling by then controlling or directing the ball with the arm or hand. I have a feeling that any language discussing "advantage" and "handling" is going to continue fueling the misconception.
Actually, I disagree.

PVancouver was on to this, but drew the wrong conclusion: it's not a misconception by the players on the ground, rather, the Laws of the Game, as written by the ivory tower intellectuals at FIFA do not in fact reflect any kind of real or realistic situation. Give players something they can understand.

The problem is at FIFA level and is inherent in the word "intentional". Remove "intentional" and replace with "advantageous" and you're on to a winner. The ball plays the man? So what? Does the defender take an advantage as a result? Then you penalize it.

All of those "accidentally" blocked crosses or goals denied or whatever? Gone.

Torsten Frings. Did he intentionally handle a ball to stop a goal? No. So don't send him off. Did he handle a ball, and gain an advantage? UNQUESTIONABLY. Penalty.

If the test is advantage, rather than intent, you not only give referees an out when it comes to sending players off (which they undoubtedly need, since few have the courage to send a player off absent an incident that under normal circumstances would require police intervention and a five-year jail term), you also give them an out when it comes to intent: "So what if it was intentional; you gained an advantage". It's hard to argue that a defender doesn't gain an advantage if the ball doesn't go into the goal.

Similarly with a cross. Which is more advantageous? The ball falling at a defender's feet, or a ball falling at an attacker's feet six yards from goal?

Put the entire situation in terms of advantage, and I think you'll be amazed at the lack of confusion.

All that said, this is not the fault of the USSF memo--rather it is the fault of FIFA, by failing to take a clear and obvious step. When you are talking about human beings and judgment, the closer you can get to black-and-white, the better. I think advantage is clearly easier to judge than intent.

[Ref Flunkie]

Actually, I disagree.

PVancouver was on to this, but drew the wrong conclusion: it's not a misconception by the players on the ground, rather, the Laws of the Game, as written by the ivory tower intellectuals at FIFA do not in fact reflect any kind of real or realistic situation. Give players something they can understand.

The problem is at FIFA level and is inherent in the word "intentional". Remove "intentional" and replace with "advantageous" and you're on to a winner. The ball plays the man? So what? Does the defender take an advantage as a result? Then you penalize it.

All of those "accidentally" blocked crosses or goals denied or whatever? Gone.

Torsten Frings. Did he intentionally handle a ball to stop a goal? No. So don't send him off. Did he handle a ball, and gain an advantage? UNQUESTIONABLY. Penalty.

If the test is advantage, rather than intent, you not only give referees an out when it comes to sending players off (which they undoubtedly need, since few have the courage to send a player off absent an incident that under normal circumstances would require police intervention and a five-year jail term), you also give them an out when it comes to intent: "So what if it was intentional; you gained an advantage". It's hard to argue that a defender doesn't gain an advantage if the ball doesn't go into the goal.

Similarly with a cross. Which is more advantageous? The ball falling at a defender's feet, or a ball falling at an attacker's feet six yards from goal?

Put the entire situation in terms of advantage, and I think you'll be amazed at the lack of confusion.

All that said, this is not the fault of the USSF memo--rather it is the fault of FIFA, by failing to take a clear and obvious step. When you are talking about human beings and judgment, the closer you can get to black-and-white, the better. I think advantage is clearly easier to judge than intent.

There may be a lack of confusion, but changing it to advantage, IMO, makes it a very unfair law. So basically, I am a defender, minding my own business with my arms at my side...a ball flies at me from 2 feet away, hits my arm, drops to my feet. In your view, it is a DFK (or worse, a PK) because I gained an advantage from the random luck that the ball hit my arm that was in a natural position. If the law was changed to advantage and I was a coach...I would coach my players to kick the ball at defenders arms in order to get free kicks because I knew the referee would have to make the call everytime the ball ran into a player's arm and gained them an advantage. Just because fans and many youth coaches/parents/players don't understand the law doesn't mean it should be totally changed to something easier to understand yet unfair to inforce.

[whitehound]

Nothing earth-shattering from what I can see; just concisely putting everything down in one place. Still, very useful for the uneducated:

http://www.ussoccer-data.com/docfile/handling.htm
All of this information has been concisely located in one place since the ATR came out in 1997. We should teach the ATR and we would have 90% less problems with consistancy.

[Ref Flunkie]

All of this information has been concisely located in one place since the ATR came out in 1997. We should teach the ATR and we would have 90% less problems with consistancy.


It's funny, I have rarely heard the ATR even mentioned at recert/certification clinics as places to go to find good information. I am amazed at how greatful referees are when I show them such a document exists.

[DerbyRam54]

To say that it is clearly NOT a handling offense if "the ball strikes the hand or arm" would eliminate 80% of all handball calls.
You have hit the nail right on the head there. I recall reading on another board a statement to the effect that if you never called handling at all, 90% of the time you'd be correct.

[IASocFan]

Conversely to Alberto's well-written post, a player may not intend for the ball to hit his outstretched arm while in a wall, and yet outstretching the arm is a deliberate act that if it results in handling should be penalized.

I just wish the word "advantage" was not mentioned anywhere in the memo. There's a difference between a player gaining an advantage from an accidental handling (no infringement), and a player taking advantage of an otherwise accidental handling by then controlling or directing the ball with the arm or hand. I have a feeling that any language discussing "advantage" and "handling" is going to continue fueling the misconception.

I think the point being made is that sometimes a player can not avoid the ball hitting his arm, but may be able to slightly move the arm so that when the ball hits the arm, it's to the advantage of the player. This should be called a handball.

This will happen much more often in higher level games than in U9.

[Statesman]

I think the point being made is that sometimes a player can not avoid the ball hitting his arm, but may be able to slightly move the arm so that when the ball hits the arm, it's to the advantage of the player. This should be called a handball.

This will happen much more often in higher level games than in U9.

Yes you are correct, I agree with what you have written. My point wasn't that it wasn't correct, just that by using the term "advantage" to describe it may promote confusion :)