Handling Question

[PVancouver]

A defender has fallen on the ground in the "D", the area just above the penalty area inside the penalty arc. The ball rests nearby in the D, just touching the penalty area line. As an attacker approaches, the defender, in a panic, uses his hand to knock the ball to his goalkeeper. His hand contacts the ball outside the box and never reaches the penalty area line. What should be the restart? (For this poll, do not consider related misconduct that might require a caution or send-off.)

If you know of written documentation explaining why your answer is the correct one, please post below.

[Untroubled by Reason]

A defender has fallen on the ground in the "D", the area just above the penalty area inside the penalty arc. The ball rests nearby in the D, just touching the penalty area line. As an attacker approaches, the defender, in a panic, uses his hand to knock the ball to his goalkeeper. His hand contacts the ball outside the box and never reaches the penalty area line. What should be the restart? (For this poll, do not consider related misconduct that might require a caution or send-off.)

If you know of written documentation explaining why your answer is the correct one, please post below.
Direct free kick at the spot of the foul. The bold text answers the question: where the foul was committed (where the hand/arm touches the ball) determines the matter. Please note that inside the "D" is not part of the penalty area. It's only there to help the referee see 10 yards from the penalty spot. Only the box matters in judging a penalty.

Regarding discipline, if in the opinion of the referee, there was a goalscoring opportunity lost, then it would be a red card to the defender. According to the USSF's Advice to Referees, judging goalscoring opportunity involves:
- Defenders - how many defenders between the foul and the goal?
- Distance to goal - the closer, the more likely it's a goalscoring opportunity.
- Distance to ball - that's pretty obvious here.
- Direction of play - has to be toward goal.
Otherwise, it's a yellow for Unsporting Behavior.

[PVancouver]

Despite the poll currently being tied 1-1, should I assume that pretty much everyone agrees with Untroubled by Reason?

[Gary V]

If the ball is in the penalty area, the offense is in the penalty area. Even if the ball is only slightly overlapping the PA line, it's inside. So it's a penalty kick.

From http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/
USSF answer (November 4, 2005):
The correct reasoning in this matter covers two areas, one is the geography of the field, the other is the discretion of the referee.

According to Law 1, the lines belong to the areas they bound. Thus, the lines marking the penalty area (the goal line, the two lines perpendicular to the goal line and 18 yards out from the inside of the goal post, and the 44-yard long line located parallel to the goal line and 18 yards out from it) are part of the penalty area. These lines extend upwards as far as is necessary, just as do the touch lines along the sides of the field. A ball that is within the vertical plane of the penalty area line is in the penalty area. It makes no difference where the goalkeeper’s hands are at the time of touching this ball–they can be inside the area of outside the area. What is important is the location of the ball itself.

[PVancouver]

Thanks for finding that.

I also see:

THE LINES ARE PART OF THE AREAS THEY BOUND
Your question:
1) As the laws of the game state that the lines are part of the area they bound. 2) A ball must wholly cross a line before it is out of play (out of an area bounded by said lines). Please address the following described situations.

A player, in the run of play slides into the area bounded by the goal net, completely out of the penalty area. A ball is rolling toward the goal line. The player puts up his hand, vertically, stopping the ball from wholly crossing the goal line, his hand only contacts that part of the ball that is overhanging the line, outside the penalty area, and inside the area bounded by the goal net.

A goal keeper, in the run of play slides out of the penalty area, still on the field of play. A ball is on the penalty area line, he places his hand on the portion of the ball that is outside of the penalty area, keeps continuous contact with the ball, picks up the ball without ever allowing the ball to wholly cross the line out of the penalty area.

My contention is that the uniform interpretation of TLOG dictates that in both cases, only the location of the ball can establish the status of “in” or “out” of the penalty area.

Situation 1, DGH, Red Card to the player, restart penalty kick, player is interpreted to be on the FOP at the point of contact and is punished as a player not an outside agent.

Situation 2, no infraction the GK is interpreted to be in the PA at the point of contact and play is allowed to continue.

Have I correctly interpreted TLOG? IF not please point out where I am in error and the reasoning for why I am in error.

USSF answer (October 6, 2005):
Situation 1. Even though the hand is outside the line, the ball is still in play and the player on the ground, whom we assume from your suggested answer is a member of the defending team, has denied the opposing team a goal by deliberately handling the ball. Send the player off and show the red card and restart with a penalty kick. If the player who stopped the ball is a member of the attacking team, that player has deliberately handled the ball; stop play and restart with a direct free kick for the defending team, to be taken in accordance with the special circumstances outlined in Law 8.

Situation 2. The goalkeeper has kept the ball within the penalty area and cannot be penalized.

NOTE: Any earlier answers that may contradict this answer should be disregarded.

I thought the last line was somewhat humorous.

I also believe that the Allen's title for this is misleading. Everyone knows that the lines are part of the areas they bound. What isn't clear is that it is not the location of the handling of a ball that is important, but only the location of the ball.

The only things yet to be seen by me is a statement from Allen or the USSF that a PK should be called in the situation I described (obviously, by inference, it should) and that the rest of the world calls it (or has been instructed to call it) the same way.


Here is the full post of your quote:

WHERE IS THE PENALTY AREA FOR HANDLING PURPOSES?
Your question:
What is the definition of the penalty area ie, when is the goalie considered out of the box. Is this an imaginary line straight up from the line? A goalie coming to line to clear a save got called for a hand ball because “as she was preparing to kick it, she put the ball out over this imaginary line”. She did not step over the line until after the kick and the ball never touched outside of the penalty area.

What is the correct ruling here?

USSF answer (November 4, 2005):
The correct reasoning in this matter covers two areas, one is the geography of the field, the other is the discretion of the referee.

According to Law 1, the lines belong to the areas they bound. Thus, the lines marking the penalty area (the goal line, the two lines perpendicular to the goal line and 18 yards out from the inside of the goal post, and the 44-yard long line located parallel to the goal line and 18 yards out from it) are part of the penalty area. These lines extend upwards as far as is necessary, just as do the touch lines along the sides of the field. A ball that is within the vertical plane of the penalty area line is in the penalty area. It makes no difference where the goalkeeper’s hands are at the time of touching this ball–they can be inside the area of outside the area. What is important is the location of the ball itself.

The goalkeeper is expected to release the ball from her hands within the penalty area, but may kick it with the foot even though she has stepped outside the penalty area. The referee is the only person on the field who can decide where this happened. (The referee may sometimes ask for the opinion of the assistant referee on the touch line.)

However, you might also wish to consider the offense doubtful or trifling. Who is to say that, in the process of punting the ball, there was or was not a moment when full hand contact with the ball was made while the ball was wholly outside the penalty area? Even if this is the case, we whistle only if the offense is not trifling. As long as the ‘keeper was actively releasing the ball into play and was not gaining an unfair advantage, so what?

As a rule, the intelligent referee will allow a goalkeeper to kick the ball even if she has released it just outside the line, but will speak firmly and quickly with the goalkeeper about remaining with the area while still holding the ball in her hands. If the offense occurs a second time, then the referee should punish it.

Again, Allen emphasizes "the geography of the field" when it isn't the geography of the field but the treatment of handling, outside of the penalty area, of a ball that is partly inside the penalty area that is important.

How a questioner came up with "the uniform interpretation of TLOG dictates that in both cases, only the location of the ball can establish the status of “in” or “out” of the penalty area" is a little beyond me.

[PVancouver]

This also led me to the appropriate section on Corsham (Law 1, Field of Play):

Question 11b:

The ball is lying stationary, directly on top of the penalty area line.
The goalkeeper, who is completely outside of his penalty area, uses his hand to touch the part of the ball that protrudes outside of the penalty area.
Does this infringe the Laws of the Game?
In other words, should the goalkeeper be penalised for deliberately handling the ball outside his penalty area?
Or should play be allowed to continue? Because as far as the Laws are concerned, the ball is said to be inside the penalty area (even though part of its surface is not).
Answer 11b: The field markings 1st paragraph in Law 1 states:

"The field of play is marked with lines. These lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries."

Therefore, if the ball is on or overlapping one of the boundaries, it is still classed as being inside that boundary. For example, if a ball is placed directly on top of the penalty area line that runs between the touchlines, a part of the ball is directly on top of the line, another part of the ball protrudes towards the goal, and the remaining part of the ball protrudes towards the halfway line. So long as a part of the ball overlaps the penalty area line itself, it is said to be inside the penalty area. The same principle applies to the goal area, corner arc and touchlines etc.
Although this boundary concept is not something new, it was only written into the Laws when they were completely revamped for season 1997/1998.

The goalkeeper in the above scenario has not committed any infringement of the Laws, as the ball remains inside the penalty area. This is how it has always been perceived, regardless of the counter-arguments that attempt to change tradition and the spirit of the laws.

The counter-argument focuses on the literal wording of the direct free kick offence in Law 12, that states it is a direct free kick if a player "handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)."

The Law 12 wording is ambiguous, but nevertheless, the ball must be seen as a whole object. The Laws have never been written to be applied apply differently, depending on which part of the surface of the ball is touched; that would be a nonsense, and completely unworkable.

"That would be a nonsense, and completely unworkable."

I am sorry I have to be rude and dismissive, but it annoys me that Julian Carosi is so often rude and dismissive.

His site does not appear to directly address the issue raised above, either.

[PVancouver]

From Anyone fancy a little debate on where the keeper can handle the ball? (http://www.footballreferee.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=823&p=1)

Buried in my email to FIFA 11-01-98 12:22 was the observation about those who hold the "new" view; most seem to think that a defender handling a ball “in the penalty area” should not concede a penalty unless his hand is in the penalty area, thus creating another inconsistency.

If the keeper can handle the ball while it's "in" the penalty area (but his hand is outside) does a defender concede a penalty if he handles the ball while it's "in" the penalty area (but his hand is not)?

The law says the DFK offence of handling becomes a penalty if it's committed in the player's own penalty area. Maybe the phrase "irrespective of the position of the ball" is a get-out, but (unless you think it should be a penalty) you still end up with "inside/within the penalty area" meaning two different things in law 12.
(I'm afraid there's no mileage in trying to find a linguistic distinction between inside and within - the wording in both cases is exactly the same in Spanish and French LOTG.)


USSF has clarified that the touching with the GK's hands must be inside the PA to avoid handling foul. As a USSF licensed referee, I fully agree with them so I can stay licensed.

However, that leads me to this question: If the keeper may only handle the ball by touching it inside the penalty area, has he committed a handling foul and DOGSO if he stops a ball withing millimeters of scoring by placing has hands inside the goal (off the fop) to stop its progress? Does he have to have suction cups and grab it only on the field side?

I hate it when FIFA and USSF are inconsistent about "lines belong to the areas of which they are boundaries" and the effect on handling.


karps, can you direct us to the USSF authority for that? Because (as I've said ad nauseum) the USSF changed their minds and said the keeper could handle the ball so long as it hadn't wholly gone out of the area, so if they've now reverted to the "trad" interpretation, it would be nice to see the evidence.

FIFA had never made any pronouncement about this - but the USSF suddenly adopted the "new" interpretation and it was becoming popular in the UK. Apart from those still willing to bend the obvious meaning of the new AR positioning diagram, and if USSF has gone back to the trad view, there should now be no inconsistency...


Meh, I'm just going to jump in and repeat myself, and state that if a player handling the outside edge of a ball travelling along the touch line is still considered a DFK even if the contact occurs off the field, then a keeper handling the outside part of the ball on the PA line cannot possibly have committed a foul - and a defender handling this part of the ball will have conceded a penalty kick!

It's all about consistency. To argue that the consideration is where the contact occurs, but to agree that you would give a free kick in regards to handling a ball that's going out and handling the part of the ball that's off the field can only be inconsistent.


Well, if Rogue's still dreaming...

No, it's not about consistency. It's about law - you start with the law and do what it says (and to my mind obviously means), then you ask "but what about this anomaly?" You're wanting to start with something that the law doesn't cover, take a bit of the law that says something about something else, and then apply that to interpret another law in a way that doesn't match what that law says....

The law says the GK can handle the ball within his own penalty area. It says a defender committing a DFK offence in the penalty area concedes a penalty. Nothing there to support extending the words to an extra area outside the lines of the penalty area (and now a diagram with what seems to me capable of one interpretation).

Now you can ask, but what about where an offence is committed off the FOP but the ball is still in play? If obeying the literal letter of the law (the extra guidance) then a defender who punches the ball off the goal-line from behind the line (the ball is in play but the offence is outside the FoP) concedes but a dropped ball, or an IDFK if the player "leaves the field of play to commit the offence" (whatever that means).

What do you give if a player, running outside the touchline to keep the ball in play, is tripped by an opponent and the trip is outside the touchline? No doubt there will be some who'll argue it's a dropped ball or IDFK not a DFK, but I hope they are few and far between. So we've already taken the law about when the ball is in play, and applied it so that if a DFK offence is committed against a player who is playing a ball in play it's going to be a DFK.

In other words, it's not explicit that handling the ball outside the lines of the FoP while the ball is in play is a DFK offence, but what's the alternative? Not giving a penalty if a defender punches the ball out of goal from behind the goal-line?

But having got to that point, it's a non-sequitur to extend that understanding to a part of the field where the law is explicit. "In the penalty area" means "in the penalty area" and there's no reason to extend the reasoning needed to deal with touch-line offences (simply deem them to be committed on the FoP) to anywhere else on the field.

By HM's argument, it's a penalty if a defender handles the edge of the ball eight inches outside the penalty area (if the ball is hanging over the line) but holding an attacker just outside the line is only a DFK. That is not what the law says, because neither offence was committed in the penalty area.

I really don't know when or how the "new" interpretation gained hold, but it causes more problems than it solves.

[Caesar]

Don't you ever tire of overcomplicating things?

[PVancouver]

This subject isn't complicated.

It also isn't well communicated or understood.

What is your position on the subject?

I don't object to improving the game. I object to pseudo-lawyers trying to turn the LOTG into a watertight contract. It's simply not possible to eliminate every element of perceived ambiguity, and if we tried to then we'd just end up with a book that's a foot thick. Common sense works pretty well.

Yes, I do perceive some ambiguity here I would like to have eliminated, but that doesn't mean the rule book willl have to become a foot thick to do it.

[PVancouver]

Here is Jim Allen's response:

FOUL ON THE PENALTY AREA LINE
July 14, 2008

Question:
A defender has fallen on the ground in the “D”, the area just above the penalty area inside the penalty arc. The ball rests nearby in the D, just touching the penalty area line. As an attacker fast approaches, the defender, in a panic, uses his hand to deliberately knock the ball back to his goalkeeper. His hand contacts the ball outside the box and never reaches the penalty area line.

Should a direct kick or a penalty kick be awarded to the opposing team? That is, is the handling considered to be “in the penalty area” because the ball is “in the penalty area”, even if the actual contact occurs outside the penalty area?

USSF answer (July 14, 2008):
If by “just touching” you mean that the ball was overlapping the penalty area (PA) line, that placed the ball WITHIN the PA, so it makes no difference that the hand contacted the portion that was outside the PA. The correct restart would be a penalty kick — after the player was been properly punished.

The correct punishment depends on the position of other players during the event in question. If the deliberate handling did not deny the attacking team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity, then the punishment is a caution for unsporting behavior.

Has anyone ever seen a play like this? It will be interesting to see the reactions to a call for a PK.

[Caesar]

The goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball when it is within the PA. Lines form part of the areas which they enclose and a ball touching the line is therefore within that area. Ergo the GK may handle the ball.

Very straightforward. This thread is unnecessary, and confusing to people who may not be completely familiar with the laws.

[PVancouver]

The goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball when it is within the PA. Lines form part of the areas which they enclose and a ball touching the line is therefore within that area. Ergo the GK may handle the ball.

But that is not how the law is phrased. It says...A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player...
handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred.

Corsham recognizes this point:The counter-argument focuses on the literal wording of the direct free kick offence in Law 12, that states it is a direct free kick if a player "handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)."

Somehow you come to the conclusion that it is not the location of the contact with the bal that is important, but only the location of the ball. I don't know how one can conclude this from reading only the Laws.

Suppose an attacker has one leg in the penalty area and one leg out, and a defender kicks the attacker's leg that is outside the area to trip him. Where did the foul occur? Why should it be any different for a ball halfway in and halfway out?

You think having a PK called against you, for deliberately touching, outside of the penalty area, a ball that is mostly outside but partly inside the penalty area, is straightforward? Have you noticed that the poll is currently 5-2 in favor of a direct kick being called in this situation?

What about the comments by Untroubled by Reason and bloovee? I am not whistling completely in the dark here.

[Caesar]

The laws are not watertight unambiguous, and logic dictates. You're siezing on minutiae to unnecessarily create confusion.

I wish you'd give up with the pseudo-lawyer thing. Surely you have better things to do with your time.

[PVancouver]

The laws are not watertight unambiguous, and logic dictates. You're siezing on minutiae to unnecessarily create confusion.

So your view is that the laws are ambiguous, and should remain that way?

In this case, it is the opinion of the referee that should count?

You certainly don't seem to think goalkeeper handling outside of the box of a ball still partly inside the box is ambiguous.

[Caesar]

:rolleyes:

The laws aren't designed to be a watertight legal document. They are designed to be read with a modicum of common sense, which you seem to lack. You would rather pseudo-lawyerise it for some bizarre reason.

I would prefer that you stopped complicating issues in a way that is only going to confuse people, but unfortunately I don't really have the time or the inclination to chase your threads around and point out to readers how stupid they are. So I shall leave you to your devices - I only regret that as a moderator I am not permitted to use my ignore list.

[PVancouver]

I would prefer that you stopped complicating issues in a way that is only going to confuse people...

How am I complicating the issue?

How am I confusing people?