For those who saw the Ching handball last night

[Justin Z]

How come an indirect free kick from the spot of the violation wasn't awarded, instead of a PK? Given the situation -- he was all by himself, had plenty of time to do something with the ball, and the handball appeared entirely unintentional.

Thanks.

~Justin

[refontherun]

First, you can't award an IDFK for a penal foul (DFK), of which handling is one. Second, Ching's arm was in an unnatural position. This, in itself makes the likelihood of getting the call more certain. Not to mention that he appeared to move his arm toward the ball as it came off his chest.

I think it's all irrelevant now since the Panamanian botched the kick.

[PVancouver]

Justin, if you really thought the handball was "entirely unintentional", then no call should have been made. I thought it was a good call. Ching made a mistake and instinctively tried to correct for it, and got caught.

[njref]

You have two choices - PK or nothing. You are right that it was a strange play, it seemed inexplicable that he would handle the ball given the circumstances, but it sure looked like he moved his arm towards the ball. I am guessing that the arm movement was almost a reflex, but it still counts as deliberate.

[Justin Z]

For some reason I equated Ching's violation to a situation in the U-17s against North Korea -- an indirect free kick inside the box. Maybe it was something besides a handball and my memory's faded, but there was definitely an occurrence of that (the U.S. scored).

Being relatively new to soccer, especially compared to many of you, I was also going by something I read here which I thought made a lot of sense -- "A violation against another player is a direct kick; a violation against the game itself is indirect." I considered handball to be a violation against the game rather than another player.

~Justin

Edit: I also am not sure I'll ever understand the distinction between "intentional" or "unintentional" handballs. Maybe a better way to look at it would be if the player was "unaware?" Obviously Ching was aware of the ball when he handled it.

[blech]

i had an AR ask me this very question about a pk that i awarded three or four weeks ago, so it is unfortunately a common misunderstanding. hopefully the answers in the preceding posts get out to the masses - there can be no indirect free kick for handling.

i also would have awarded the pk last night, as i thought Ching's arm moved to knock the ball (and it almost looked like the ball had gone off the inside of the other arm on the initial contact with the chest). i don't know if others would agree, but this also seems like the kind of situation where you have to take into account the skill level of the players. the fact that Brian was uncontested on the play and was taking a ball in the air from a long distance (i.e., no bad hops involved) have to factor into the consideration that he was responsible for what happened. a similar play at u12 rec might be deserving of a no-call for a ball bouncing off the chest and then directly into the arm, but you have to judge the arm position and any subsequent arm movement and everything else to make the judgment call of whether it was deliberate or not in each particular situation.

[PVancouver]

I was also going by something I read here which I thought made a lot of sense -- "A violation against another player is a direct kick; a violation against the game itself is indirect." I considered handball to be a violation against the game rather than another player.This is a generalization. Handling is an exception. Impeding and dangerous play are also exceptions.

Edit: I also am not sure I'll ever understand the distinction between "intentional" or "unintentional" handballs. Maybe a better way to look at it would be if the player was "unaware?" Obviously Ching was aware of the ball when he handled it.If your hand/arm is in an unnatural position it is considered deliberate. If you do not attempt to move your hand/arm out of the way it is considered deliberate. If you have no time to react or are reasonably unaware of the play, it is not considered deliberate. Moving your arms out from your body while chest-trapping a ball would be seen as natural play, because it helps a player settle the ball with his chest. However, the player is responsible for avoiding contact with his hands and arms regardless. Ching would have been given more leeway in his own end than in the offensive end, but Ching clearly raised, not lowered, his arm, and a foul had to be called.

there can be no indirect free kick for handling.Unless it is the goalkeeper that does the handling, in the case of picking up a released ball, holding it for more than 6 seconds, or handling a kicked pass or throw-in from a teammate.

[Justin Z]

This is a generalization. Handling is an exception. Impeding and dangerous play are also exceptions.
Okay. The only thing I remain confused on then (the rest of the post was excellent, thank you) -- I looked up the play I was trying to remember in the U-17s, and if I'm not mistaken a Korean player was called for a high kick in the box, which resulted in the IDF. Is that not considered "dangerous play?"

~Justin

[blech]

***

Unless it is the goalkeeper that does the handling, in the case of picking up a released ball, holding it for more than 6 seconds, or handling a kicked pass or throw-in from a teammate.

we're splitting hairs at this point, in the sense that the infraction/foul is not "handling" but rather is one of the other calls identified in your post, but you are absolutely correct that these are the few instances where a kick is awarded in connection with the handling of a ball and only an indirect kick is awarded.

good catch!

[NHRef]

Okay. The only thing I remain confused on then (the rest of the post was excellent, thank you) -- I looked up the play I was trying to remember in the U-17s, and if I'm not mistaken a Korean player was called for a high kick in the box, which resulted in the IDF. Is that not considered "dangerous play?"

~Justin

"high kick" would be termed played in a dangerous manner, which is an IFK

[nsa]

... i thought Ching's arm moved to knock the ball (and it almost looked like the ball had gone off the inside of the other arm on the initial contact with the chest). ...I was at Foxboro last night. Ching botched this one completely. His first touch pinched the ball between his chest and right upper arm sending the ball back towards the melee in front of the US goal. So he brought up his left arm, probably to ward off any players coming to the ball, but he whacks the ball with the arm as it comes up. :(

I thought "PK" immediately for the right arm trap even before I saw the replay where the left arm play was clear.

When they look at the tape it will be clear to Ching that he had no need to play the ball at all. He was under no pressure and there were no red shirts behind him so he could have let the ball just run through.

[macheath]

[QUOTE=Justin Z](snip)...Being relatively new to soccer, especially compared to many of you, I was also going by something I read here which I thought made a lot of sense -- "A violation against another player is a direct kick; a violation against the game itself is indirect." I considered handball to be a violation against the game rather than another player...(snip)[QUOTE]


Easy mistake to make, but it's covered in the Advice to Referees:

"12.1 WHAT IS A FOUL? A foul is an unsafe action committed by a player against an opponent or the opposing team, on the field of play, while the ball is in play. Deliberate handling of the ball is committed against the opposing team, not against a particular opponent..."

Once you recognize that a foul can be committed against either a specific opponent, or the opposing team, it falls into place. Fouls, of course, are on the field, against an opponent or the opposing team, and while the ball is in play.

[macheath]

This is a generalization. Handling is an exception. Impeding and dangerous play are also exceptions...(snip)

(snip)...Unless it is the goalkeeper that does the handling, in the case of picking up a released ball, holding it for more than 6 seconds, or handling a kicked pass or throw-in from a teammate.

Uh, not to be pedantic, but handling is a foul against the opposing team, which the Advice to Referees says is a foul just like a foul against a player. Not an exception. Impeding and dangerous play are also fouls--against opponents, on the field of play, while the ball is in play, so they are consistent with the definition of fouls.

Also, the goalkeeper who is holding the ball for over six seconds is not "handling"--there is no "handling" offense by the goalkeeper in her own goal area. The violation for six seconds is unnecessary delay of the game/time wasting.

The LOTG actually are usually pretty logical and consistent, although often very poorly written.

[jkritchey]

Isn't handling the ball always supposed to draw a card? I was surprised there was no card given, surpirsed ESPN didn't mention it, and surprised it is not mentioned in this thread. Am I wrong that deliberate handling (deliberately redundant ;) ) should draw a card of some color?

[HeadHunter]

Isn't handling the ball always supposed to draw a card? I was surprised there was no card given, surpirsed ESPN didn't mention it, and surprised it is not mentioned in this thread. Am I wrong that deliberate handling (deliberately redundant ;) ) should draw a card of some color?

No- you only get the cards when the handling was done to break up on attack (yellow) or prevented an obvious goal scoring oppertunity (red).

[Grizzlierbear]

Isn't handling the ball always supposed to draw a card? I was surprised there was no card given, surpirsed ESPN didn't mention it, and surprised it is not mentioned in this thread. Am I wrong that deliberate handling (deliberately redundant ;) ) should draw a card of some color?

Actually no.
Cards are a management tool and are not always by definition manditory. However, criteria exists that referees apply based on our training and understanding of what constitutes USB.

In the case of deliberate handling if the incident was done to take away potential or good attacking play or a shooting opportunity we refer to those as professional fouls in that it appears to all it was done with that purpose in mind. These are cautionalbe actions and a showing of the yellow card for the ACT itself. It is more like we recognize the true thoughts of the defender because of his actions.

In cases where the shooting opportunity is obvious and that shooting opportunity is lost because of the deliberate handling we apply DOGSO criteria and IF the criteria is met we MUST show a red card.

The truth is most deliberate handling incidents are not worthy of a card in fact there is this in additional information within FIFA law under

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR REFEREES,
ASSISTANT REFEREES AND FOURTH OFFICIALS

Deliberately handling the ball
Referees are reminded that deliberately handling the ball is normally
punished only by a direct free kick or penalty kick if the offence
occurred inside the penalty area. A caution or dismissal is not normally
required.


Preventing a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment
arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but
from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal
being scored.
Cautions for unsporting behaviour by deliberately handling the ball
There are circumstances when, in addition to a free kick being awarded,
a player must also be cautioned for unsporting behaviour e.g.
when a player:
• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent
gaining possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

[jkritchey]

Thanks, that's why this is a 'must read forum' ...