Another Handling Question

[Mr Martin]

The recent post (linked below) about a new "Handling" memo, got me thinking about a handling situation that has occured to my team recently, but doesn't seem to be addressed in most posters' comments about handling.

Recent Post about New US "Handling" Memo. (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193427)

Twice in the last year my U14 boys (B-team playing fairly low-level travel soccer), has been called for handling inside the box and the other team has been awarded a PK. Both situations were very similar, something like this:

My central defender wins possession of the ball somewhere between the 6-yard box and the PK spot. He decides to clear the ball out of this dangerous location and strikes a clearing kick. At the top our penalty box and slightly to the side, perhaps 10 yards from the spot of the defender's clearing kick, the ball strikes a second defender in the upper arm/elbo and bounces off to the side, remaining in/near the top corner of the penalty box. The defenders arms were not tightly at his side, but somewhat outstretched from the body. In the second case the defender was clearly spinning to try and get away from the clearing kick and his arms were definately extended.

Both times the ref called a PK.

I argued "ball plays hand" and "not deliberate". Ref argues arm was away from the body.

In these cases, it also seems to me that the defensive team's possession of the ball is an important factor. The opposing team did not have the ball, the handling did not occur in a goal scoring moment. In fact, the handling harmed the defensive team in that it stopped a clearing kick and kept the ball within the defensive penalty area, creating a 50-50 ball for the attacking team much closer to our goal than if the clearing kick had been successful.

I know the LOTG don't address which team has possession of the ball when a handling occurs, or whether or not the handling helped or hurt the possessing team's situation. But common sense, it seems, would say that this was NOT a deliberate handling, since it actually harmed what the defending team was attempting to do. Under both the "ball plays hand" concept and the "deliberate" concept, shouldn't the ref have said "play on"?

FYI: In the first game this occured, the PK goal was scored and it did affect the outcome of the game. In the second instance, my keeper made the save on the PK and the play had no effect on the result.

Comments?

[ref2coach]

the ball strikes a second defender in the upper arm/elbo and bounces off to the side, remaining in/near the top corner of the penalty box. The defenders arms were not tightly at his side, but somewhat outstretched from the body. In the second case the defender was clearly spinning to try and get away from the clearing kick and his arms were definately extended.

Both times the ref called a PK. ARRGGG :( A defender "spinning" to avoid a ball has exhibited his "intent" to not handle the ball. Nothing says a defender must play with his arms "tightly" at his side, only that the arms not be in an "un-natural" postion to what s/he may be attempting, to legally play the game.


I know the LOTG don't address which team has possession of the ball when a handling occurs, Because "advantage" is not a consideration when something is not a foul

shouldn't the ref have said "play on"? NO, again because no foul occured. "Play on" should be used ONLY when a foul has occured, but penalizing it at that time would harm the fouled team.

Comments?

I really wish we could all "get on the same page". :rolleyes:

[IASocFan]

I really wish we could all "get on the same page". :rolleyes:


ref2coach and I are on the same page! :) :cool:

[Garkbit]

Sounds slightly harsh, but it's really unfair to criticise a judgement call like that one when you haven't seen it.

[ref2coach]

Garkbit, This is a discussion board. The response is to the situation is "as discribed". As discribed, I do not need to "see it", just understand the discription. "Most" fans and too many referees think "almost all" ball to hand/arm contact should be sanctioned. The reason "handball" is NOT in the LOAF is that, "contact" IS NOT A FOUL, "intentionally handling" is a foul but happens far less often than it is called.

[IASocFan]

Another handling issue which came up in a recent high school varsity game. From outside the area, an attacker shoots/chips the ball towards the goal. It may have been a shot or he may have been trying to get the ball to a teammate closer to the goal. A defender jumps up and intentionally bats the ball away. The obvious restart is a PK.

What considerations would you have in either giving a red or yellow card?

[VaRef]

...It may have been a shot.... A defender jumps up and intentionally bats the ball away.


If the referee determines that it was a shot on goal, then DOGSO
and Red card follows....

[Mr Martin]

Thanks for some of your thoughts, so far. Keep them coming, as I want to think this through some more and your thoughts help.

Almost all discussions about handling involve plays where the attacking team has possession and is either shooting, passing, crossing or dribbling the ball and the defending player's hand and the ball come into contact. That's when, I believe, the whole point/purpose of the handling rule comes into play and referee interpretations become crucial. DOGSO also may come into play.

My situation, occuring twice in the last 8 months, involves a slightly different twist from the typical handling post. The defending team had possession. The defending team was trying to clear the ball, and hit their own player (or their own player interfeared) with the ball. The ball did hit the arm of the defender and I would not argue that fact. It is the ref's call of deliberate handling that puzzles me. It seems that deliberate handling is almost impossible in this case. It seems to me as if the handling rule isn't even intended for this kind of situation. But I just don't see this situation addressed in written discussions of handling.

Thanks again.

[ManiacalClown]

Another handling issue which came up in a recent high school varsity game. From outside the area, an attacker shoots/chips the ball towards the goal. It may have been a shot or he may have been trying to get the ball to a teammate closer to the goal. A defender jumps up and intentionally bats the ball away. The obvious restart is a PK.

What considerations would you have in either giving a red or yellow card?

If the ball is on a clear trajectory towards goal, it must be deemed an obvious goal scoring opportunity, and the defender must be shown the red card and sent off. Otherwise, it is more than likely worthy of a yellow card since it was SO obvious that it has moved beyond a simple handling offense to include unsporting behavior as well, in the same vein that tactical fouls are more often than not punished with a caution.

[Ref Flunkie]

Another handling issue which came up in a recent high school varsity game. From outside the area, an attacker shoots/chips the ball towards the goal. It may have been a shot or he may have been trying to get the ball to a teammate closer to the goal. A defender jumps up and intentionally bats the ball away. The obvious restart is a PK.

What considerations would you have in either giving a red or yellow card?


I would say your use of the word "may" pretty much gets rid of the red card option. You can't send off every handling offense for any ball that is heading in the direction of the goal. If it is definitely a hard, obvious shot, then sure, DOGSO.

[MassachusettsRef]

There are a lot of variables that would go into deciding whether or not it would be a red card in IASocFan's situation. However, even if you determine it wasn't a shot on goal, it doesn't mean the possibility of a red card is erased.

I believe, in fact, one of the DOGSO diagrams in the Laws deals with the scenario of the last defender reaching up to handle a chipped ball that a second attacker is running on to.

So, if you determine that it wasn't a shot, but the 4 D's are still met (ball heading to goal, attacker close enough to get to the ball first, attacker close enough to goal, and there are no more defenders), you still have to give the red card--despite the fact that the onrushing attacker never possesses the ball.

[JohnR]

Mr. Martin -

This is part of a larger pattern, in which PKs are treated differently at the youth level than at the senior/professional level.

That is, while it is customary if not strictly LOTG to award PKs at the senior/professional level only when a real goal-scoring opportunity exists, it is absolutely routine at the youth level to give a PK for a routine, humdrum violation.

Instances that come immediately to mind -

1) Defender is shielding ball past the end line, is called for obstruction because he stuck his butt out toward the attacker who was trying to get at ball.

2) A (gentle) forearm in the back on a player who is trying to get a head to the ball, on the edge of the box, with back to the goal, three defenders in the area, and no attackers in immediate support.

3) Ball hits a rough patch on the ground, bounces into the forearm of a U10 defender who is holding his arms at his side & trying to chest the ball down, no attacker within 20 yards.

Annoying stuff. I keep waiting for the kids to get old enough where common sense starts to be used.

[Ref Flunkie]

Annoying stuff. I keep waiting for the kids to get old enough where common sense starts to be used.

Can you remind me when this occurs again? I keep waiting. ;)

[NHRef]

Can you remind me when this occurs again? I keep waiting. ;)

Well I have a 14 year old honors student son, and heck his common sense gets less and less every day :eek:

[VaRef]

Mr. Martin -


That is, while it is customary if not strictly LOTG to award PKs at the senior/professional level only when a real goal-scoring opportunity exists, it is absolutely routine at the youth level to give a PK for a routine, humdrum violation.

Instances that come immediately to mind -


2) A (gentle) forearm in the back on a player who is trying to get a head to the ball, on the edge of the box, with back to the goal, three defenders in the area, and no attackers in immediate support.

I am with you in general, although I would call the violations you describe as "Trivial" instead of "humdrum" (just because it fits with ATR guidance better :) )

However the hairs on the back of my neck went up with your example number 2. I hope your intent is to describe a situation where the foul occurs on the penalty area line so the referee could call either a PK or DFK, not that you think the foul (physical contact to the back of an opponent who may be airborne or at the least focused on the ball) need not be called if it is "gentle." :confused:

[DerbyRam54]

However the hairs on the back of my neck went up with your example number 2. I hope your intent is to describe a situation where the foul occurs on the penalty area line so the referee could call either a PK or DFK, not that you think the foul (physical contact to the back of an opponent who may be airborne or at the least focused on the ball) need not be called if it is "gentle." :confused:

We're a bit off-topic here but the kind of physical contact described shouldn't go unremarked. Last fall I went to a high school playoff game to observe the refs, noted a player give her opponent a gentle push in the back every time the two of them were challenging for the ball. Due to the referee's positioning, he never saw any of them. Eventually the other girl had had enough, turned and gave her opponent a hard two-handed push that sent her flying.
I'm not sure if women react to this kind of thing differently than men (my O-30 women get really upset by this stuff), but it seems to me to be one of those things that can easily escalate if you ignore it.

[JohnR]

I hope your intent is to describe a situation where the foul occurs on the penalty area line so the referee could call either a PK or DFK, not that you think the foul (physical contact to the back of an opponent who may be airborne or at the least focused on the ball) need not be called if it is "gentle." :confused:

No, my intent is to point out that in a relatively high-level soccer game of any age (U12, U17, professional) an arm is in somebody's back every 20 seconds or so. You want to make that call, fine, but don't give away a goal in doing so, unless that arm is used aggressively and truly affects the play.

To answer your question, the play was clearly inside the box, by a yard or so.

[ref47]

on the card issue - we need to apply the 4 d's, or we need to determine that but for the handling the ball was in the goal. either one or both need to be considered to decide if a rc is appropriate. if no rc, certainly a yc.

and, as i have stated before, too many handling callls out there. we really need to do better on determining who handles the ball vs who was hit by the ball and follow the atr, etc.

[JohnR]

but it seems to me to be one of those things that can easily escalate if you ignore it.

Totally agree. You are correct, a referee who ignores escalating tensions is courting trouble. I love it when a referee recognizes & takes control of the emotional atmosphere. However, a PK in a 0-0 game in a tournament final is not the way to signal that the teams are starting to become overly physical. A cautionary word or two could have accomplished the same task in a much less intrusive manner.

At any rate, in this particular game the PK accelerated tensions rather than calming them. The play got more physical & bad tempered from that point onwards.

[DerbyRam54]

A cautionary word or two could have accomplished the same task in a much less intrusive manner.
Absolutely! I've found that a quick word with a player, either in private or more obviously in public depending on the circumstances does more for game control than just using the whistle and saying nothing. Pointing out that they are skillful enough to play without holding shirts/pushing/whatever usually stops stuff before it gets bad.