Handling...or not?

[Stan]

I am going to open myself up to cyber-scrutiny...

I did a U-12 second division boys game yesterday. It was a generally clean game, fairly well-played, with the red team holding an edge on play and a 1-0 lead, late in the second half. Red was pressing an attack, with about 8 players from each team in and around the penalty area. Players were jockeying for position as red attempted to cross the ball from the side of the PA to the top of the goal area. A white player in the GA had both hands over his head trying to keep his balance, facing outward, as the ball was crossed. I was watching him, and it did not appear that he saw the cross coming in. The ball landed on the ground about three feet in front of him, and was immediately kicked by red into the white player's arms. The white player had no chance to move his arms before the ball struck him. I am not sure he even saw it coming until the moment it touched him. The kicked trajectory of the ball would have taken it well over the top of the goal. I deemed it inadvertant, and let play continue. No goal was scored. For what it is worth, the game ended 1-0.

I have debated this call with myself since then (I was doing a solo game). On one hand, from what I could discern, and I was at the top of the PA, so was very close to play, there was absolutely no intent to handle, since the kid didn't even see the ball. On the other hand, he had his arms over his head, the classic "un-natural position".

Given the limitations inherent in critiquing based on written descriptions, what thoughts do others have on this scenario?

[macheath]

I am going to open myself up to cyber-scrutiny...

I did a U-12 second division boys game yesterday. It was a generally clean game, fairly well-played, with the red team holding an edge on play and a 1-0 lead, late in the second half. Red was pressing an attack, with about 8 players from each team in and around the penalty area. Players were jockeying for position as red attempted to cross the ball from the side of the PA to the top of the goal area. A white player in the GA had both hands over his head trying to keep his balance, facing outward, as the ball was crossed. I was watching him, and it did not appear that he saw the cross coming in. The ball landed on the ground about three feet in front of him, and was immediately kicked by red into the white player's arms. The white player had no chance to move his arms before the ball struck him. I am not sure he even saw it coming until the moment it touched him. The kicked trajectory of the ball would have taken it well over the top of the goal. I deemed it inadvertant, and let play continue. No goal was scored. For what it is worth, the game ended 1-0.

I have debated this call with myself since then (I was doing a solo game). On one hand, from what I could discern, and I was at the top of the PA, so was very close to play, there was absolutely no intent to handle, since the kid didn't even see the ball. On the other hand, he had his arms over his head, the classic "un-natural position".

Given the limitations inherent in critiquing based on written descriptions, what thoughts do others have on this scenario?

Tough one at U-12. Older players, no question, call it. But you've got a situation with one mitigating circumstance (no "intent") but one clear fault (arms not in "a normal playing position", to quote the Advice). If the kick by the red team was a clear shot on goal, that would tilt it towards making the call for a PK--but you say the kick "clearly" would have taken the ball over the goal. I guess I lean to calling it, as the Advice defines the "deliberate" part of handling to include "...that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time..." But you had to be there, and your call is right! (referee solidarity after all...)

[IASocFan]

It sounds like a pure judgment call. You probably need some clue as to why his hands were in the air. You said there was jockeying position and he was trying to gain his balance. That sounds like a good reason for his hands to be naturally in the air. If he wasn't facing the ball, it's pretty likely he wasn't putting his arms in the air to slyly, inadvertently play the ball - which is why the warning on unnatural arm positions.

It sounds like, in your opinion he wasn't trying to play the ball. Therefore, no foul, play soccer.

[phillips10]

I think you made the right call, no intent to handle..player was off balance while jockeying for position and the ball would have headed well out of play.

not to get off topic but man what I wouldnt give to have parents and even coaches (u-11, u-12) understand the inadvertant hand ball...

[refontherun]

You made decision the handling was inadvertent. From that point on, it's history. If the ball deflected and went over the goal-line it's a corner-kick. Good for the offense as opposed to a goal-kick. If not, they get another try at goal.

I rarely call handling at that age unless it is blatant. Just make sure you signal and say "Play On" loud enough for everyone (players, coaches and spectators) to hear. Otherwise, you paint a target on your back.

[Stan]

Yeah, I was pretty emphatic that I saw it and was not calling it. It helped that I was 20 feet away, and clearly saw it. Also, my call was consistant with other inadvertent handling no-calls earlier in the game. My only problem, and it is something I try to work on, is that I can't work my tongue around the word "inadvertent" while I am running on the field, so I tend to say "play". I also have trouble saying "advantage, but I at least try to stick my arms out so that part of the advantage signal is clear.

[macheath]

Yeah, I was pretty emphatic that I saw it and was not calling it. It helped that I was 20 feet away, and clearly saw it. Also, my call was consistant with other inadvertent handling no-calls earlier in the game. My only problem, and it is something I try to work on, is that I can't work my tongue around the word "inadvertent" while I am running on the field, so I tend to say "play". I also have trouble saying "advantage, but I at least try to stick my arms out so that part of the advantage signal is clear.

I use the "play" call as well, to let players know that I'm not calling a foul. As distinct, of course, from "play on" with an advantage call and signal--that's easier to say than "advantage" :)

[Ref Flunkie]

I probably would have called it, unless it was obvious to everyone and his brother that the ball was going over the net. I'm trying to imagine U-12 boys and how a kick could hit an arm above a players head but still be obviously going over the net. *Imagining....OHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM*

I also do not think it is necessary to have your hands over your head to gain your balance (I could see slightly out to the side). It also sounds as if he was trying to gain his balance for a good number of seconds. However, it is your call, and if you feel that it was not intentional and that his hands over his head were natural for what he was doing, you were right not to call it. Since it is a judgement call, it obviously will vary from referee to referee.

[JayJay4Pres]

I use the "play" call as well, to let players know that I'm not calling a foul. As distinct, of course, from "play on" with an advantage call and signal--that's easier to say than "advantage" :)


Yea, I usually say Keep playing or something like that...

[intechpc]

not to get off topic but man what I wouldnt give to have parents and even coaches (u-11, u-12) understand the inadvertant hand ball...

Funny you should mention that. This past weekend following a co-ed U12 game, the visiting coach came up to me and my partner following the game to get an explanation on why we hadn't been calling handling (or as he put it handballs) during the game.

The guy was shocked when I explained to him that two of the possible calls I saw were inadvertent. He said every ref he's encountered makes no allowance for that (although he did seem to understand that it was part of the rule). I also told him that I had heard his protests during the game and had been extra careful to watch for them to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Just struck me as wierd (and a little frustrating) to hear that other refs aren't calling that way.

[Ref Flunkie]

Funny you should mention that. This past weekend following a co-ed U12 game, the visiting coach came up to me and my partner following the game to get an explanation on why we hadn't been calling handling (or as he put it handballs) during the game.

The guy was shocked when I explained to him that two of the possible calls I saw were inadvertent. He said every ref he's encountered makes no allowance for that (although he did seem to understand that it was part of the rule). I also told him that I had heard his protests during the game and had been extra careful to watch for them to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Just struck me as wierd (and a little frustrating) to hear that other refs aren't calling that way.

At U-11 and U-12, I'm not surprised.

[Shackleton]

I am going to open myself up to cyber-scrutiny...

I did a U-12 second division boys game yesterday. It was a generally clean game, fairly well-played, with the red team holding an edge on play and a 1-0 lead, late in the second half. Red was pressing an attack, with about 8 players from each team in and around the penalty area. Players were jockeying for position as red attempted to cross the ball from the side of the PA to the top of the goal area. A white player in the GA had both hands over his head trying to keep his balance, facing outward, as the ball was crossed. I was watching him, and it did not appear that he saw the cross coming in. The ball landed on the ground about three feet in front of him, and was immediately kicked by red into the white player's arms. The white player had no chance to move his arms before the ball struck him. I am not sure he even saw it coming until the moment it touched him. The kicked trajectory of the ball would have taken it well over the top of the goal. I deemed it inadvertant, and let play continue. No goal was scored. For what it is worth, the game ended 1-0.

I have debated this call with myself since then (I was doing a solo game). On one hand, from what I could discern, and I was at the top of the PA, so was very close to play, there was absolutely no intent to handle, since the kid didn't even see the ball. On the other hand, he had his arms over his head, the classic "un-natural position".

Given the limitations inherent in critiquing based on written descriptions, what thoughts do others have on this scenario?

Good no call. "[T]here was absolutely no intent to handle." That's the end of the inquiry right there. Hands in an unnatural position is just one indicator [albeit a pretty good one usually] of an intent to handle. If, in your judgment, there was no intent to handle, then it's not an offence.

[phillips10]

Funny you should mention that. This past weekend following a co-ed U12 game, the visiting coach came up to me and my partner following the game to get an explanation on why we hadn't been calling handling (or as he put it handballs) during the game.

The guy was shocked when I explained to him that two of the possible calls I saw were inadvertent. He said every ref he's encountered makes no allowance for that (although he did seem to understand that it was part of the rule). I also told him that I had heard his protests during the game and had been extra careful to watch for them to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Just struck me as wierd (and a little frustrating) to hear that other refs aren't calling that way.

couldnt agree more, especially at that level those teams probably deal with some uncertified refs. I find that problem at the u-11 level where a lot of the coaches/parents are used to the younger rec/non-travel type leagues and the calls they make there. Nothing more frustrating than the soccer mom yelling "hand ball" from 30 yards away on the sideline...

[Gary V]

I rarely call handling at that age unless it is blatant. Just make sure you signal and say "Play On" loud enough for everyone (players, coaches and spectators) to hear. Otherwise, you paint a target on your back.No, don't say that. "Play On" means you have seen a foul, but are invoking advantage. Far better to say, "No foul". And maybe wave your hands like a baseball "safe" signal, if your voice doesn't carry to the sidelines and they're screaming, "Handball!"

"No foul" is short and sweet, let's the players know you saw something but it doesn't need calling. "Inadvertent" is too hard to get your tongue around during fast play - and really we should be saying "Not Deliberate", since they changed the Laws about 10 years ago now ...

As for "missing" all the "handball" calls - if you never made another handling call in your life, you'd be right at least 90% of the time.

[Metrostars19]

As was brought up earlier in the post, someone had mentioned that their call might have changed had the ball been going toward the goal instead of clearly over the net. However, according to the advice book, in section 14.1, it says, "there is no requirement as to...the likelihood of a goal being scored, or any factor other than the commission of the foul itself inside the defender's penalty area." Does this mean that as referees we should gauge whether the foul happened and not take common sense and whether the ball was being sent over the crossbar into effect?

[njref]

As was brought up earlier in the post, someone had mentioned that their call might have changed had the ball been going toward the goal instead of clearly over the net. However, according to the advice book, in section 14.1, it says, "there is no requirement as to...the likelihood of a goal being scored, or any factor other than the commission of the foul itself inside the defender's penalty area." Does this mean that as referees we should gauge whether the foul happened and not take common sense and whether the ball was being sent over the crossbar into effect?

As you stated, the law does not require a shot on goal. You could argue that the handling was trifling and did not affect the game, because the shot was going out of bounds. Besides knowing that the ball was going out, you would have to be certain that no player on either team would have played the ball before it left the field.

So theoretically it is possible to view the handling as trifling, but as a practical matter, I have never had that degree of certainty on any handling call I ever made on a shot heading towards the goal. I suspect that some would view handling a shot as so unsportsmanlike that it can't be treated as trifling, even if it had no impact on the game.

The defender did not know the ball was going over or else they would not have handled it. At least some of the people involved with the game are not going to know it was going out, all they will see was deliberate handling on a shot that was seen by the ref and no call. So treating handling as trifling in this circumstance is dangerous.

On the other hand, I would feel comfortable with no DOGSO-H if the ball was going out.

[Statesman]

Does this mean that as referees we should gauge whether the foul happened and not take common sense and whether the ball was being sent over the crossbar into effect?

If it isn't handling, it isn't handling! Regardless of if the ball is heading towards the goal. You can't penalize for something that isn't there simply because it blocks a shot.

The intangibles such as direction of ball, potential scoring opportunity, and outcome of the impact only influence judging if the foul is trifling, and if not then if there is an advantage. But if the foul isn't committed in the first place then you obviously cannot call it!

[jkc313]

I probably would have called it, unless it was obvious to everyone and his brother that the ball was going over the net. I'm trying to imagine U-12 boys and how a kick could hit an arm above a players head but still be obviously going over the net. *Imagining....OHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM*

I also do not think it is necessary to have your hands over your head to gain your balance (I could see slightly out to the side). It also sounds as if he was trying to gain his balance for a good number of seconds. However, it is your call, and if you feel that it was not intentional and that his hands over his head were natural for what he was doing, you were right not to call it. Since it is a judgement call, it obviously will vary from referee to referee.

I'd agree that you don't HAVE to put your hands above your head to gain balance but you certainly be in a situation where you could. Agree with everyone else NOT to say "play on". When there's no foul I usually yell "play" but with possible handling violations "inadvertant", "not deliberate", or "accidental". Yes, it would be nice if parents understood this but, then, they also are clueless about offside.

[vabeacher]

Had a similar non-call in a woman's league match this weekend. I was working as AR. A hard cross was played into the penalty area on the ground. A defender who is all alone goes to play the ball, it bounces off her foot straight up into her arm, she continues to play the ball and clear it out of the area. I had a perfect view of it, her arm was right in front of her, waist high. Had it not hit her arm she could have easily played it off her chest with the same result. I took a quick look at the CR, saw that he also had a clear view of it and that he made no motion to call it. Of course, there were some complaints by the attackers but it was late in a one-side game and no one was too excited about it. I spoke to the CR after the game, he said he saw it, but was not about to give a PK for a trifling foul. He said if the same play had happened at mid-field, no one would have complained.

[wwdudley]

I had an amusing handling call over the weekend in a U14 girls game. Ball bounces several feet in front of the player and towards her head. Both arms come up in what may have been protective but the ball would have bounced right over her. Instead, she caught the ball with both hands and held it for a couple seconds with a completely shocked look on her face. Obviously I had to call the foul, but luckily it was midfield so no PK. Everyone on and off the field got a good chuckle out of it.