I think the most likely time you'd see this is late in the game when the losing team getting the goal kick. Then the GK usually spins to the ball kid, demands the ball, and quickly rolls it to about the right position and steps up to kick it. If you've got an attacker who was on the ground from the attack and is getting to their feet they may have legitimately not cleared the box in that time despite not attempting to linger. Now the flip side is that when they're moving that fast the odds are the GK isn't going to take a short goal kick, they're going to want to boom it down the field to get the ball into the attacking third as quick as possible, so the odds of an interception, barring a complete shank by the GK, are pretty minimal.
Agreed, on all counts. The provision is there to make it consistent with free kicks in case something crazy happens. But a lot would have to "go wrong" for this to ever occur.
I agree with this. I was going with the short version. I also didn't want to get into the player 3 yards away who get hit by the quick FK vs. the player 3 yards away who sticks out his leg... But, there you made me do it.
I know this addendum is about goal kicks, but I'm assuming the trick is still "legal" prohibited for IFKs and DFKs in the penalty area? From reading this it has to be? Right? Can't wait for ANOTHER addendum. This is classic and textbook example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Absent further clarification, I think it has to apply to both. There is no different logic for the two. But classic IFAB shortsightedness in not saying so.
1992. The YC/IFK for "trickery" was in a circular (nr 488 I believe) that came about a month (or so) after the publication of the Laws.
I’m not putting this in the MLS thread because the red card is easy. But I think we have another law of unintended consequences issue regarding the new LOTG, when it gets coupled with VAR. Watch this: https://mls.app.link/xIroj22FRY The defender heads the ball and it hits the attacker, including part of his arm/hand. The defender then commits a blatant DOGSO foul. Per the new Laws, the NYRB has committed a punishable infraction before he’s fouled. The ball has come in contact with his arm and a goal scoring opportunity was created. This is now black and white. The inadvertent handball now trumps the blatant red card offence that follows. But no one would ever call this in real time. So no big deal, right? Except VAR protocols mandate that the APP get checked on DOGSO reds. So this has to be called. There’s no wiggle room. The attacker gained possession after it touched his arm and a scoring opportunity was created; the new Laws say this is an offence with no exceptions or caveats. Great job again IFAB—I’m sure the soccer world is begging for a reversal of this red card and a DFK coming out here.
Not that I disagree with you, but would your view be any different if he had not been fouled and had scored, and VAR reviewed the run-up to the goal and called it back for the handling offense?
No. And that's a good point. My issue here isn't so much the handball related to DOGSO. It's the handball related to VAR. If this new portion of the Law was written in the pre-VAR days, it is not as consequential. Any ball-to-hand contact that is clearly visible to the crew in real-time and creates a goal or goal-scoring opportunity gets whistled immediately. Reasonable people can debate the philosophical merits of the change, but at least it's a pretty clear standard and people know what to expect. In your hypothetical but without VAR, the offence gets whistled immediately if it is seen, so there's no goal to annul... and if the goal gets scored, there's no post-goal frame-by-frame analysis. But by bringing forward this change in the VAR era, IFAB has introduced another potential offence that will be akin to the NFL's "did he get both feet down while in possession of the ball?" question. Every goal is going to need to be checked for any contact between the ball and the hand/arm of an attacker in the build-up. I think what IFAB has done is set up the professional game to have a number of goals disallowed on unintentional "offences" that no one notices in real-time. In this incident I've cited, absolutely no one appeals for a handball offence and I don't think anyone suspected one in real-time. It's a total non-issue. Next year? Or this season in Europe? Totally different story.
I'm thinking this is probably something the AR keeps the flag down on, even if seen, but then maybe alerts the center to when the goal is scored? Or even that VAR maybe sees and acts on similarly? It's perhaps trifling (is there still such a thing?) if no goal is scored, but hardly so under the new rule if the ball ends up in the net.
But we aren't supposed to be acting upon outcomes (notwithstanding the situation where the ball goes directly into the net). The new Law says if a goal-scoring opportunity is created after a player gains control/possession from the ball touching his or her arm. If you see it, you have to call it. You can't wait to see if a goal gets scored (or not scored). What happens if it results in a corner kick or a penalty kick, for example? Not sure what you're saying here. The VAR cannot intervene for handling alone. In the VAR's case, a penalty or red card or goal would need to result for intervention. So if any of those three occur, then the VAR is obligated to check the APP and recommend the referee annul the goal/penalty/red card as appropriate. That's the point I was making in the initial thread. But there is no trifling on this. It's black and white. Ball-hand contact that leads to control and a goal-scoring opportunity is an offence. If it gets missed by the officials, that's one thing. But if it's seen it should be called immediately. The presence of a VAR is where this gets messy in the professional game.
From all the changes that IFAB has implemented this year I have no problem with exept for the double standard handling. I must say that I really don't like it and as Massrefs MSL post has shown, it will create unintended consequences. The local MBB league is actually using the new laws already, and I already had some issues trying to explain to the players that there is a double standard when it comes to handling (not using those words but still). It's not fun and it leads to some confrontations. It's noting but trouble.
We tend to focus on VAR implications a lot here lately. But there is another pretty big practical implication for the 99.9% of other matches that have ARs... If an AR catches ball-hand contact in a crowded situation that leads to a goal, there is an obligation for that AR to flag. Let's take a corner kick, for example, where an attacker heads the ball down toward goal and it glances off his own hand and into the net. Referee is screened and can't see that final touch. But the AR can. Prior to the new Law change, it's an accidental handball at best and we award the goal. With the new Laws, if the AR is looking straight at an infraction that should negate a goal, it's now a missed KMI if the AR ignores it. So that AR is obligated to flag, no matter how tough of a sell it might be. The accidental handball leading to goal/goal scoring opportunity has a lot of real world pre-game implications for referees.
And where does the line get drawn on how far back in the APP meets the criteria of creating a goal scoring opportunity? As written, I think it is only intended to be if the player who accidentally handled does something that creates the opportunity, as opposed to simply being in the APP. But how much does he have to contribute?
An equally good question, when you take the text literally... what happens if the player who creates the attacking opportunity (Player A) does so without any aid of his hand/arm and the player who scores the goal (Player B) does so without any aid of his hand/arm, but... the ball glances off the hand arm of an attacking player (Player X) in between Player A and Player B creating and scoring? So Player A dispossesses his opponent and dribbles toward goal. Crosses the ball to Player X who heads it down and inadvertently off his arm. Player B then runs onto the ball and scores. Has Player X committed a violation? He didn't create the opportunity. He didn't score the goal. Technically, it doesn't seem like he has. But--particularly in the VAR world--we will have a clear ball-to-hand contact available for everyone to clearly see and it will be about 1 second before a teammate puts the ball into the net. So, now what?
Yup. I think the spirit would say it is a handball--I also think this is flat out something they didn't think about when they were drafting the language. I think most referees are going to give a handball, either because they don't realize the nuance of the drafting or because they think this is a gap that falls into the SOTG/what soccer expects rubric. (But VAR is more interesting as it makes it harder to depart from clean application of the Laws.)
We've discussed this before, what's going to happen when a ball inadvertently hits a defender in the penalty area and a goal is scored on the other end via counter attack? The Fernando Torres goal versus Barcelona is actually a great hypothetical and potential example. (See the 15:00 minute mark of the video) Ball bounces up on the defender (it doesn't hit his hand, but it comes close). Let's say for the sake of argument it did hit his hand. Does the example above not classify as an "immediate" goal scoring opportunity? Via VAR shouldn't this goal be disallowed and a penalty kick be awarded? Or is the distance just to great to count as "immediate" goal scoring opportunity? Ball bounced up on defender who "controlled" ball with his hand and he booted up to an attacker to be one on with the goal keeper. If this happened 30 or 20 yards from goal, it's an easy decision. Even better what happens when the defender kicks the ball onto his hand (the Laws now clearly state that it is not a handling offense) and then clears it to an attacker one on one with the goal keeper? That right there practically crashes the Law (if it were a computer so to speak). Again, these hypotheticals in our games without VAR are pretty easy to solve and manage through, but these will create real structural problems in games with VARs.
It sounds as though in your hypothetical he also maybe doesn't fit within the "gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then" part of this CF. That might be a more significant limitation as it would seemingly apply even if the offending attacker is the one who creates the opportunity, if he does it without gaining possession/control. To clarify further (as I'm thinking through this as I type it): Ball inadvertently touches attacker's arm/hand and falls to his feet, he possesses, creating GSO – offense. Ball inadvertently touches attacker's arm/hand and falls to his teammate, thus creating a GSO – no offense.
Our SRA hosted a webinar on the new changes, and I couldn’t figure out how to ask a question or two, but I have a couple. On the uncontested drop ball: how long before the “sporting gesture” of playing it back to your opponent goes away? Handling: 1) it seems that if the ball first strikes a defenders leg (or any portion of the body) and then hits an arm, we don’t have handling? 2) does distance to the ball matter on the making yourself bigger situation, meaning arms out beyond the silhouette a yard away, ball hits arm? Is that handling? The build out line will be fairly comical for awhile in the small sided games with the new goal kick rule.
One of my Georgia assignors said unless there is a directive from USSF, we are still to not allow opponents to cross the build-out line until the ball leaves the PA. I will ask that question in my Alabama recert class Sunday.
dropball is manufactured now, so why not let both teams know the first time that the team getting it can start an attack? Handling 1) wasn't that there before? are you asking about attacker in GSO? 2) shouldn't that be considered? If player is looking to handle ball > handling.
There's two clauses in the handball law that talk about this. Under the "usually an offense" section, there's an exception made when a player deliberately plays the ball (e.g. an action we would associate with resetting offside) and then it goes on to strike their arm/hand which is above their shoulder or in an unnatural position. Think about a case where a defender goes to clear the ball and they kick it into their outstretched hand. This isn't an offense. The other clause goes like this. Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm: • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot) What does "except for the above offences" refer to? The main ones being the part about scoring a goal after having the ball touch the hand, having the arm above the shoulder, or having the arm in an unnatural position. So if the defender goes to block a cross/pass/shot and it hits their leg and bounces off their leg and into their arm which is in an unnatural position, then it's still an offense. This is where watching the IFAB presentation that goes line by line through the handling law and shows examples really helps to understand the logic flow of the law.
Unnatural position isn't in the laws and I'm need to train myself on the new language still. Making oneself bigger is what I meant by unnatural position
Looks like my campaign strategy worked and they decided to make it illegal temporarily. I’ll keep up the pressure to e sure it becomes Law