[PVancouver]

WEEK 15 COMMENTARY

Handling the Ball: Law 12

U.S. Soccer has published a 2009 Referee Program Directive entitled, “Handling the Ball.” This directive, along with nine others, is available at ussoccer.com. Due to changes in tactics and the interpretation of the Laws of the Game, the concept of handling the ball has been revisited and has been amended to cover the increasing number of handling situations in the modern game. I don’t know about a change in tactics, but clearly there has been a change in interpretation, apparently in some ways I am not fully cognizant of yet. For this reason, a clear understanding of the criteria behind handling the ball has never been more important. I agree with this. Within the “Handling the Ball” directive, there are five criteria U.S. Soccer has provided to aid match officials in making correct decisions involving handling. Here is list of the criteria:

1. Making yourself bigger
This refers to the placement of the arm(s)/hand(s) of the defending player at the time the ball is played by the opponent. Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling. Referees should interpret this action as the defender “deliberately” putting his arm/hand in a position in order to reduce the options of the opponent (like spreading your arms wide to take away the passing lane of an attacker).

2. Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?”
Is the arm or hand in a position that is not normal or natural for a player performing the task at hand.

3. Did the player “benefit?”
In considering all the “signs” described above, the referee should also consider the result of the player’s (usually a defender) action. Did the defender’s action (handling of the ball) deny an opportunity (for example, a pass or shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the
opponent?

4. Reaction Time
The less time a defender has to react, the less likely there has been a handling offense. For example, a ball struck from a close distance, or a very fast moving ball, or a ball coming in from a direction which is outside the defender’s view gives little or no time for the defender’s reaction to be
“deliberate.” The referee must take into consideration whether the defender’s reaction is purely instinctive, taken to protect sensitive areas of the body as the face. Distance is a factor in determining “reaction time.” The further the ball, the more reaction time a play may have.

5. Hand / arm to ball
Referees must be ready to judge whether the player moved his arm to the ball thereby initiating the contact. Additionally, the referee should evaluate whether the player deliberately readjusted his body position to block the ball thus intentionally playing the ball with his hand/arm.

Referees must be able to judge each of these actions and determine if any are evident when contact is made between the ball and the hand. If any of the criteria can be identified, then a handling offense has occurred.

The “Handling the Ball” directive did not make clear that this criteria should be applied separately, and if any one of the criteria were met independently of the others, handling should be called. It is terrific that this is finally being made crystal clear here, however, the drawback is that it makes absolutely no sense.

Let’s take #1, “Should an arm/hand be in a position that takes away space from the team with the ball and the ball contacts the arm/hand, the referee should interpret this contact as handling.” The arm/hand takes away space in every hand ball situation, or there would be no handball. If you remove the arm/hand from the play, I am quite sure that the ball would pass through the air that would replace the space undeflected. An arm at a player’s side still takes away space.

And since #1 is to be completely independent of #2, it apparently makes no difference to USSF whether than arm/hand is in a “natural” position or not.

As to “unnatural position”, what if a player puts his hands behind his back, clearly in an unnatural position, in order to prevent potential contact with the ball as much as possible, but the ball is kicked past him and then deflects off another player directly behind him and onto his hands. Is he to be called for handball because his hands were in an unnatural position? Apparently USSF thinks so. Certainly these hands were taking up space, couldn't we just nail him for that?

Does the fact that a player benefits from a handball mean it should be called despite the fact that the hand was in a “natural” position and (although apparently impossible by USSF standards) the player was not deliberately “making himself bigger”? Again, apparently the USSF thinks so.


Video Clip 1: Colorado at Seattle (32:00)

Because so many goals are scored from free kicks (over 30 percent of goals are scored off restarts), defending teams do not want to give 10 yards to the opponent and attempt other tactics to limit the attacking advantage resulting from a free kick. One such tactic is a defender in the wall “making himself bigger” through the use of his arms.

This clip presents a clear example of a defender taking away a passing lane by using his hands/arms to “make himself bigger” and, thus, preventing a free kick shot from going toward the goal. No, it does not provide a clear example. The player used his arms in a natural way to gain height in his jump and then, seeing the ball come directly toward him, deliberately moved his arms in front of his body in order to NOT MAKE HIMSELF BIGGER. By blocking the shot, the defending team “benefits” from the player’s illegal use of his hands. Again, this is an untruth. The defending team did NOT benefit, as the ball would have hit the player in the chest if the arms were not present, with almost exactly the same effect.

Although not obvious in this clip, the decision to call the handling offense and award a penalty kick is the result of exceptional teamwork and attentiveness on the part of the assistant referee (AR). Well, it was pretty obvious the CR did not call it. The AR in this situation understands the directive on “Assistant Referee Involvement."

Let us first examine the specifics behind the correct decision to award a penalty kick for handling the ball. The defensive player in the wall, which is positioned in the penalty area, starts with his hands/arms against his body to protect himself. However, as the kick is taken, the defender steps from the wall and jumps up. The player uses his arms to leverage his leap but they then take away the passing or shooting lane from the attacker. This action allows the player to “make himself bigger” and the result is he uses the arms to take away space from the attacker. This is all true except that by the time the ball hits the player, his arms do NOT take away space in any rational interpretation of the concept and the player is clearly NOT “making himself bigger”.

Another factor in determining the fact that handling has occurred is the “hand/arm to ball” criteria. Once the defender moves his arms away from his body to an “unnatural position,” he has deliberately moved his arms to the ball (“hand to ball”) initiating the contact. This statement is so whacked that it seems rather pointless to rebuke. The defender moved his arms away from his body in a very natural way to gain height on his jump, in a manner that the “Contact Above the Shoulder” directive declared as fair and legitimate, before the ball is even struck. To describe moving one's arms in this way as deliberately moving them toward the ball simply because contact is made later is a complete failure of logic. This case is different, but if this were a case where the player stuck his arms out, deliberately “making himself bigger”, then did not move them in any way once the ball was struck by the opponent, it would be a total falsehood to say that it was a hand to ball situation, when clearly it would be a case of ball to hand.

By moving his arms away from his body by raising them to take away space, once the contact occurs with the ball, the defender’s action (handling of the ball) denies an opportunity (a shot on goal) that would have otherwise been available to the opponent. I have already made this clear, but it bears repeating. The ball clearly would have hit Alonso in the chest. No shot on goal would have resulted. Seattle did not “benefit” from the handball. And even if they had benefitted, this is no reason to call a handball here. There must be something more to a deliberate handball to be called than the fact that the handling team “benefitted”. Conversely, the handling team need not necessarily “benefit” from the handling in order for handling to be called.



Now that the AR has applied the criteria and recognizes a clear ??? handling offence has occurred (which will result in a penalty kick), the AR must determine whether the incident has been clearly seen by the referee. This is done through eye contact with the referee and a determination of the referee’s position (did this position give the referee a clear line of vision to the foul?). By evaluating the referee’s position and reading his body language, the AR can determine whether he believes the referee has seen the hand to ball contact. If the AR determines that the referee did not see the handling of the ball, the AR should raise the flag and give it a slight wave. This is an indication to the referee that the AR has observed a foul.

Since the foul is game critical and the AR is 100 percent certain of what he has observed, the AR must keep the flag up until it is recognized by the referee. Well, I don’t doubt that the referee was 100 percent sure of what he observed. Clearly, the ball hit Alonso’s arms. I am a little curious how he could be sure that Alex Prus did not see it. I would think the final decision on a call should remain with Prus, if he saw the contact. Once the referee blows the whistle to stop play, the AR should signal that a penalty kick should be awarded by standing at attention and draping the flag across his waist (refer to the picture to the right). The referee’s response to the ARs signal is to point to the penalty spot and move to a neutral position thereby indicating the awarding of the penalty kick for handling.

Remember, prior to his involvement (raising the flag to call a foul), the AR:

• Decides that he is 100 percent certain of the offense.
• Makes eye contact with the referee.
• Evaluates the referee’s position to determine if he believes the referee could have clearly seen the offense.
• Reads the body language of the referee to determine if it communicates whether the referee has or has not seen the foul.

Video Clip 2: New York at Toronto (1:16)

Despite the fact the game is a little more than a minute old, the referee is faced with a game critical decision regarding the handling of the ball in the penalty area by a defender. It is important that the referee does not permit the time of the match to influence his decision.

The following two criteria make this a handling foul and a penalty kick since the foul was committed by the defending team in their penalty area:

Making yourself bigger
The defender’s arm is extended from his body and is placed directly in the ball’s and player’s path to goal. Hence, the arm is used to take make the defender’s body bigger and take away space from the attacker.

The hand/arm is in an unnatural position
The player falls down but the arm is extended from his body. Notice that the arm is not used to break his fall down to his side (a natural position). The defender reaches out with his arm to block the path of the ball (unnatural position).

Given these two factors are present, the referee correctly awards a penalty kick for handling the ball. The referee’s position aids in his ability to correctly make this decision.

Considering that Stammler did not move his arms to play the ball until after it was kicked by Vitti and Stammler himself, to declare that this was a “making yourself bigger” or “unnatural position” handling is counter productive. It was simply a hand-to-ball handling. Had Viiti kicked the ball after Stammler extended his arm, then these factors should be considered. But to consider them here is irrelevant, IMO. Had Stammler handled the ball only as a result of him breaking his fall by placing his arm in a “natural” position, USSF leaves unanswered whether or not a handball should be called.

USSF also failed to note that the video comes from Week 13, and not from the Week 15 game between the same two teams shown in the very next video clip. While I recognized the play from the prior weeks and the lack of pink jerseys was a dead giveaway, this oversight was very annoying.


Injury Leading to a Throw-In: Law 15

Video Clip 3: New York at Toronto (42:56)

Yada yada yada. I do credit USSF for showing Toronto’s internet version of the misplay, which was not nearly as clear in the televised game feed.



Game Management Model – Providing Flow Through Advantage: Law 5

Video Clip 4: Chivas USA vs. San Luis – SuperLiga (17:48)

In this SuperLiga match between Chivas USA (MLS) and San Luis (Mexico), the referee is provided with an opportunity to incorporate flow into the match by applying the advantage clause. Instead, the referee decides to call a foul and must then give an avoidable yellow card.

This situation is a classic “wait and see” scenario. The goalkeeper is challenged in the air for the ball. But, the goalkeeper retains possession of the ball. This is not a severe offense and the referee’s whistle diminishes the chances of an immediate and dangerous attack. Why? It is more advantageous for the goalkeeper to maintain the ball in his hands so that he can initiate a quick and effective counter attack than it is for the keeper to place the ball on the ground and restart with a free kick (which gives the opponent time to get back into solid defensive position).

By using “wait and see,” the referee has time to evaluate the potential for attack. The goalkeeper’s actions are important. Even after he is fouled and retains possession of the ball, the goalkeeper’s actions signal that he wants to advance with the ball in his hands so that he can initiate a distribution up field. If the goalkeeper stops advancing with the ball, the referee can stop play and award a free kick.

The counter argument to all of this is that by allowing the player to foul the goalkeeper and not call it, it encourages similar play in the future, i.e. rough challenges on the goalkeeper. This diminishes goalkeeper safety. Perhaps there was an opportunity for a terrific counter attack here ruined by the referee, or perhaps there wasn’t. But USSF seems to only allow for the consideration of a quick counter attack, and not the affect that not calling a foul on a goalkeeper might have in later play. Plus, it appeared that the goalkeeper may have bobbled the ball, which would be another good reason to blow the play dead quickly.

Since the referee stops play, the attacker (who claims to not have heard the whistle) plays the ball after the keeper puts it on the ground for the restart. This action “delays the restart of play” and requires the referee to caution the player. I don’t believe #11 actually played the ball, although he certainly looked like he thought about it or maybe even intended to play it. Why doesn’t USSF mention that fact that the foul clearly occurred inside the goal area, but the restart was taken from well outside the goal area? As sensitive as the USSF is to the location of restarts, I would think this should have been noted. It isn’t completely clear from the video, but I don’t believe the ball leaves the penalty area before it is played by an opponent. That opponent was not carded, but the ball would have been dead as soon as it was played by him, regardless. #11’s subsequent play of the ball was irrelevant, as the ball should have already been dead. (Or was this where he delayed the second restart?!?) Regardless, while a caution in this case is certainly reasonable, I don’t see how a caution is “required”. If the referee believed that the player might reasonably have been not aware that play had been stopped, or if he agreed that he was only trying to prevent a restart from an obviously inappropriate location, the referee is under no obligation to card him, IMO. If a player accidentally trips or was accidentally tripped and falls on the ball, should he be a cautioned for delaying a restart as well? OTOH, the referee should hardly be blamed for carding a player who very well should have known that play had been stopped and that he actually was interfering with a restart. To blame a referee for issuing a well-deserved card because of a questionable but reasonable prior call is counter-productive. It is exactly the type of inane argument a player might make.

By reading the play and by applying flow, the referee avoids the caution while engineering flow into the match. Apparently USSF’s idea of “engineering flow” includes endangering the safety of goalkeepers by not allowing the referee to make clear that contesting unwinnable balls with the goalkeeper will not be tolerated.

[MrRC]

This FIVE point "handling" memo is the 2nd worst piece of written "information" to be disseminated to the soccer referee community by the USSF. (The worst was their concept of the "iron triangle" and new interpretation of the passback violation, which completely ignored the reason behind the rules introduction to the game--timewasting.) Only two are the five are new, and they are not only utterly worthless, but probably actually detrimental because they will cause unneeded grief and problems.

1. If I hear another referee say "making yourself bigger," I'm going to slap him. The USSF does an awful job of trying to define this concept. It could really mean anything. They give an example of spreading the arms out wide. That's nice. We already have "unnatural position," so how does this add anything meaningful?

2. Unnatural position has been around for a long time. We all understand it. Why try to fix what isn't broken?

3. Did the player benefit? Again, so vague that it could mean anything and thus has no meaning. One could argue, as the OP did with taking away space, that any contact provides a benefit. I guess that's true unless the ball deflects into his own goal or directly to an opponent, but then we have the advantage clause already. So why do need this bit of wisdom? It also directly contradicts what has been preached for years in the ATR. The benefit was of no concern in determing a handling offense. I can't wait until someone uses this in an attempt to justify penalizing a player who blocks a fast approaching ball from striking his face because it happens to drop at his feet? I might kick him.

4. That brings us to Reaction Time-- another concept that we already have. Nothing new here. The USSF put out a memo several years ago that said that "purely reflexive" motion to protect oneself was clearly not handling.

5. Hand/arm TO ball -- yep, yet again, an old standby that has been tested and found to be excellent in helping a person decide if an action was deliberate and thus an offense. Too bad that the authors of the memo write exactly the opposite in point #1. Wouldn't hand to ball cover "making yourself bigger" just fine?

Who deemed that handling needed a reinterpretation anyway? My opinion is that someone is desperately trying to put a personal stamp on the US game by tinkering with stuff that doesn't need it. All this is doing is creating problems.

[andymoss]

Oh, this could be really, really good!

All we need now is for OldAndNew to get involved....

I'll sit back and watch the show - just like Saturday night......

[Elizondo]

As a USSF Instructor, I will sit on the sidelines during public debates about the efficacy of a particular document.

However, I must point out that you have distorted a very important point made in this directive.

The crux of the directive is this:

The following 3 criteria should be the primary factors considered by the referee:

1. Making yourself bigger
2. Is the arm or hand in an “unnatural position?”
3. Did the player “benefit?”

After applying the aforementioned criteria, if the referee is still uncertain as to
whether handling the ball has occurred, the referee should then incorporate the
following two criteria as part of his decision making process:

4. Reaction Time
5. Hand / arm to ball

In other words, it's a two-stage process if you cannot decide if a DFK should be awarded after contemplating the first three parameters.

[vetshak]

I agree that the Seattle player in the first clip was not "making himself bigger" when the ball actually struck him. Sadly, this is not the first time that the WiR has said one thing and shown another.

The weird thing about this... don't call them out on it. I tried to argue Sasha Kjelstan's slide tackle on Colorado's Keimara (sp?) in Week 1 was a red card offense for all the reasons Hall stated in the podcast that such a challenge should be red, and the response I got was, "We decided it's a yellow card." No further explanation.

The play where Stammler stops the ball on the ground... eh, I suppose you could argue hand to ball, but I do think USSF's stricter interpretation of what should be called makes our lives easier, especially in circumstance such as this one. The ball hits Stammler's arm, and he clearly benefits, by dispossessing Vitti. I realize defenders don't like this, but I do believe application of the "making onself bigger", "unnatural position", and "benefitting" clauses reduces the potential for inconsistency.

(Except for when a defender with his arms pulled in jumps and the ball hits him in those arms, and we're told he's making himself bigger. Alas )

Whether it actually improves the game remains a fair topic for debate.