The Dyachenko foul as others mentioned is definite red for me. He put his studs right into the ankle and in a situation where he had no chance at the ball and it was very obvious that it came out of frustration. This was a foul almost certain to cause serious injury and I wouldn't argue the red at all. Notice that Dyachenko didn't argue it either. That said, Segaraes shouldn't have been in the game any longer at that point anyway. I was surprised his cynical take down on Gomez wasn't a straight red. Again it was very dangerous and from behind. It was also very clearly done out of anger/frustration because DCU wasn't putting the ball out of play for their "injured" player (the one that jumped right back up and started playing when Marrufo approached. I think everyone in the stadium knew why Gomez got fouled that way and it surprised me a bit when the Yellow came out instead.
So I should be questioning the Segares yellow rather than the Dyachenko red? I could see that. I need to see a replay on Dyachenko now. I don't remember it being quite so severe.
I want to say no, but I have to say I think he got it right. I think Gomez found the ball right by his arm and steered it away from the keeper. If you see the replay on a big screen, his arm moves from left to right on contact with the ball.
Thanks. I've yet to encounter a referee - even one who's a United fan - say that the goal should've counted.
Would a better example for #2 be a player who's walking away from the ball and has his hand outstretched to point where they want a teammate to be standing for the free kick, then the kick is taken unexpectedly early and hits his hand? Or would this still be an unnatural playing positiona nd a handball?
I think this is a very gray area. Here's the latest position paper from USSF on handling offences: http://images.ussoccer.com/Documents/cms/ussf/doc_6_269.pdf You'll notice in the section where it says "What characteristics of ball contact are clearly not handling offenses?" it lists "The ball strikes the hand or arm (i.e., the ball initiates the contact)." But it also says "The contact is accidental (not the result of action by the player)." I think if the hand/arm is moving at all when the defender is pointing to his teammate, then the contact isn't "accidental" because it's "the result of action by the player" even though it is clearly unintentional. If the arm is in a fixed position and there's no movement and the ball is struck into it? Well, then there's a better argument that the handling isn't deliberate, but the memo still says that referees must consider: "The position of the player’s hand or arm at the time of the contact if the hand or arm is carried in an unnatural or unusual position (e.g., high up in the air or, while defending against a free kick, far away from the body), the likelihood of an offense is greater." In short, there's no real black & white answer to your specific scenario but, more often than not, I think referees would be (and should be) calling handling if it occurs. The following should also be noted to those that think Gomez's hand was inadvertently or accidentally in the position that it was: This is the only time you'll ever see "advantage" associated with whether a handling offence is called. But it's not about whether an advantage is gained from a non-deliberate handball. It's whether or not the player makes a subsequent (i.e., deliberate) action with his hand after inadvertent contact. I think it's pretty clear from video that that happened with Gomez. Even if the ball/hand contact wasn't deliberate at first, it's pretty clear that he corralled/propelled the ball down into his path.
If this comes out the wrong way, my apologies in advance. I have a great deal of respect for you and the rest of the referees here and I greatly appreciate the answers and the insight that all of you provide. This is just a view from the other side. If I understand the above correctly then, if the arm is in a natural position and the ball accidentally strikes the arm then there is no handling offense. However, if the arm is in an unnatural position other factors come into consideration. If that is the case, the summary stated by KidRef (or my understanding prior to this thread) is a better explanation compared with "to be handling it must be deliberate" followed by a non trivial explanation of what "deliberate" means. My point is that most non-referees (such as myself) would say that the example in bold above is "non-deliberate" (we are probably wrong from a referee point of view). The reason for this view is that if the same player is running away and as a result moves his arm in a natural position while the ball strikes it - no handling offense occurred. The only difference between the two is the arm being in a natural/unnatural position. In both cases the ball accidentally strikes the arm while it is moving as a result of an action by the player. Total agreement. I think that both of us will agree in almost both cases on what is and what isn't handling. The difference is in how the call/non-call is being explained. While I trust you and the other refs that the technically correct explanation (The whole "unnatural playing position" thing isn't some sort of separate category; myth of unintentional handball) is by the book, I would submit that to the non-referee separating the two and identifying that unintentional contact (as in waving to the GF) might be handing, will make this easier to understand.
There was a long and heated discussion a few months back about this sort of handling -- players pointing and motioning to teammates with their hands/arms above waist level, sometimes above head level. I was in the vast minority, if I recall correctly, who felt that it was NOT handling if a ball struck a player's arm while he was using the arm to communicate with a teammate, e.g. pointing so the teammate could move somewhere on the field to mark an opponent. My feeling was that this IS a normal playing position in this sort of situation. Other people did not agree. I don't remember if the previous thread included analysis of the distinction between the player using his arm but his arm being still vs. the arm moving. To me, it is irrelevant especially if, for example, the player does not see the ball coming his way.
Thanks for this. It is this second factor, IMHO, that justifies the handling call. Gomez directs the ball with his arm down to his feet after the ball hits his arm; exactly what this quote is talking about.
"Intent" is positioning the arm with the goal of intercepting the ball. "Deliberate" means putting the arm in a desired position. Short of a siezure or flailing about after a trip/hold/whatever, almost everything is deliberate. I would say that most "natural playing positions" are the result of deliberate movements, but they may or may not be handling. We can't always determine if a player intends to handle the ball, but sometimes we can and sometimes we can be sure that they did not. My example was to show a player who was completely unaware that he was about to "handle" the ball. If a player were to "wave" while positioned in a likely path of a kick I would blow the whistle.
You know, it might make life easier just to make it an indirect any time a ball touches a hand, deliberate or not.
This whole discussion speaks to a larger issue IMO. That being the players/fans/coaches interpret the rules one way - while the refs ( well the ones who pay attention to the latest ATRs anyway) interpret and apply the rules differently. As we all know, this can lead to confusion and headaches for us. My point being that our FA most do a much better job of disseminating their latest missives to the non-referee community.
Your point about the larger issue is valid. Generally speaking, referees know the Laws much better than fans/players/coaches. The problem with our FA educating non-referees about the Laws is that most of these people aren't interested in learning. They think they already know the Laws, and they don't want to have their misconceptions torn down or be told that they don't know what they are talking about.
I will go even further. Most other sports have pretty black and white rules as well. Soccer gives a lot to the "opinion of the referee", and since everyone has an opinion, everyone is likely to view a situation differently. That is the nature of the beast, but I think the BEST way they could educate the fans is to have a referee in the booth or in the studio during broadcasts to help discuss these things. I'm sure there is a happy medium that could get the referee around the "I shall not criticize a fellow referee". Having Wynalda (among others) in the booth as the liaison of law interpretation is definitely not the way to go.
I was there with you in that thread. I will continue to stress that the 'deliberate' references the 'handling" and not the arm movement, per se. No mention of arm movement in the Law. It is similar to the parsing that goes on in trying to decide what some laws and parts of our constitition mean. There continues to be too much focus on calling this foul in this country, and I'm not sure why, but I think it is because the fans scream it every time there is contact so something must be done. The whole advantage thing is still thought of as being a guiding principle by players who have been playing for 20 years. Yeesh, give it a rest If you watch enough EPL games, you will see that very few ball and arm contact gets called these days. They seem to follow strictly the ball to hand, hand to ball algorthim.
And what exactly is gained by this rule?? As in the situation where a league fines a coach or player for criticism, the outsiders' assumption is that there is something to hide!!
Or perhaps the referee community needs to do a better job of understanding the game and how it is played among the players. Often times when there is contact between players, it is just that, contact. Because someone falls down does not mean it is a foul. It is a contact sport. Same for when there is contact between the ball and a player's arm/hand. It is not necessarily a foul. If it was, then the Laws of the Game would clearly state that any ball that touches the arm/hand of a field player is a foul. How often do we read that a player sold a penalty or a foul? Players on the pitch know damn well when a player is diving. Why is not so apparent for referees? Referees who take the time to understand the game instead of trying to make black & white interpretations are the ones that are good for the game.
I really have no disagreement with any of the above EXCEPT the statement about diving ( in referee parlance: "Simulation"). Until you pick up a whistle my friend you may never fully comprehend how hard it is to consistently get these calls correct, particularly at the higher level. This form of cheating is becoming a scourge on our beautiful game and presents a major threat to the integrity of our beloved sport IMO. I'm all ears if you have a viable solution for correctly and consistently identifying it. Of course the closer the ref is to play the better (usually, but NOT always) but I haven't seen a ref yet that is as fast as the ball have you? And how about this for a novel solution for prevention of this diving pandemic : Coaches must not encourage it from the git-go. Is that too pie-in-the-sky???
For what it's worth, I'd pretty much ignore whatever Falc says about refereeing. Just read his stuff in the playoff "post-game" thread, and you'll see why I say that.
Point taken, but to put it all on the referees would be a huge error. For every 1 referee -- and there are MANY of them -- who does not understand the laws very well, there are 10 or 20 or 100 fans, coaches, and players in that same category. For every 1 referee -- and there are MANY of them -- who does not understand the GAME very well -- there are 10 or 20 or 100 fans, coaches, and players in that same category. I mean, really -- the percentage of fans and players in this country who really understand the game at a decent level is quite low. The percentage of coaches is probably higher, but it is still way too low. Every group -- including but not limited to referees -- of people with an interest in soccer in this country could stand to learn more about the laws and more about the game.
One thing about judgment calls I'll point out: You simply can't take them all the way out of the game. Here's a good example. I once saw the Carolina Dynamo's Scott Schweitzer run about 30 yards and hit someone shoulder-to-shoulder. The ref blew the whistle. Schweitzer half-hearted argued that it was a legit shoulder charge, but he knew he wasn't going to win that argument. It was a violent play. How would you specify, in the Laws of the Game, the distinction between a legit shoulder charge and a violent play? Is it a 5-yard run-up? 10? The ref simply has to judge. The Law: "in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force."
Why make the assumption that I have not picked up a whistle? Had the whistle in my hand last weekend. You are correct, the cheating is getting bad. But a good deal of it is obvious. In the match last week, Carr pushes the ball to his left but continues to run towards Perkins. Is that the natural result of playing the ball? He was not looking to score. He was looking to get fouled. And players understand that. On the hand ball concerning Gomez, the defender was doing everything to prevent Gomez from reaching the ball. He attempted to play the ball himself. In fact, he was trying to hold Gomez back so his keeper could pick up the ball. Now Gomez made contact with his arm on the ball. But to ignore the pushing and shoving that was going on and call it an intentional hand ball, the referee shows lack of understanding how the game is played. He may know the rules well, probably better than most people but he also needs to understand what is going on between players. That is the mark of a very good referee.
Obviously this won't help at lower levels, but I truly believe the only way to eliminate diving is through post match replay (similar to what the Scottish FA wanted to do). After the match, the match referees should all sit down and evaluate every challenge using replays. At that point, any diver would be given a post match yellow card for each infraction (and a red if they do it twice). This would very quickly get players suspended for picking up too many yellows (or a red for 2 dives in the same game), and I think for the most part, the behaviour would end (except of course for say the last game of an elimination tournament. I would extend this to embellishment as well (when their is a foul, but the player over sells it), but that is a different debate that also requires a change in how referees referee. Far too many referees let these minor fouls go unless the player sells it, even when the minor foul has an impact on the play. For an example, look at how many shirt pulls get called if the player stays on his feet, even if the player is legitimately impeded. So for now, I would stick to the outright dives. Unless something is done, diving will get worse. It is often a very smart play for an attacker who plays the ball too far away from themselves or a defender who is hoofing the ball down the field. In both situations, players have made their play, and by going down, they can improve the outcome over staying up. Defenders are just as bad as attackers at diving, yet they virtually NEVER get called for it!