Four handling decisions last night in Seattle. I think we'll all agree Marrufo and team nail the first three. There might be a little more debate about the fourth, which could pit instruction against philosophy: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...ls-right-seattle-instant-replay?autoplay=true
While bemoaning that there isn't a handball rule, our friendly analysts made it through the whole piece without using the word deliberate once . . . but perhaps what that really points to is the ways in which we have contorted the word by interpreting it, as much as it does to the announcers' knowledge base . . . and I agree with MR re the 4th example
Yeah, the 4th handling decision would never be given as a penalty kick on the defender, but everyone just seems to accept that you can't score a goal with your hand no matter how unintentional it is. As MassRef says, it's just a philosophical thing with the game.
Marrufo gave the caution on the fourth one, by the way. Just wanted to note that since it's not apparent from the highlights. Because I often enjoy chaos, part of me really wishes it was a 2CT to see how that would have gone down in extra time...
Call my cynical, but there was no way Marrufo would give the card there if he was on a caution already. Someone can prove me wrong here, but I think Marrufo last gave a second caution red card like 6 years ago... which borders on statistically impossible.
Umm, wow. An inadvertent handling, transformed mystically to "deliberate" by he idea that you shouldn't be permitted to get a goal that way--and its worth a caution?! So maybe he thought it actually was deliberate? Or did he feel bound to give the caution if he called handling since the ball went into the goal? The latter would suggest he gave it because he felt bound to give it and would have felt the same as a 2CT. (Or maybe would have allowed the goal if if would have been a 2CT?)
I am actually surprised he gave it last night. That's why I noted the caution. I have always said I think the text of the Laws gives a tiny amount of wiggle room on these sort of incidents as the infraction is a "deliberate handball" but the misconduct is "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal." There are cases--maybe not in this instance, but in similar situations--where one could argue a handball was deliberate and the handball resulted in a goal, but that the handball itself was not in an attempt to score the goal. Again, it's an almost impossibly fine line to walk, but if anyone could do it and would try to do it, I think it would be Marrufo. The fact that he felt an obligation to give the caution in the 113' minute of leg 2 of extra time actually makes me think he'd feel compelled to do so as a 2CT. I don't think Marrufo has any inherent fear of 2CTs... it's just an aversion to what he views as unnecessary cautions. But, it's impossible for either of us to be proven correct or incorrect here.
I think it's much simpler than that. If you call this, regardless of whether you think it's deliberate or you have to call it for philosophical reasons, you can only justify it by saying that it was deliberate. And once you do that, the LOTG ties your hands (notwithstanding the semantics argument I try to make above). Shorter: if you score a goal with your hand, it's an automatic yellow card.
Personally, if I'm taking a goal away for a non-infraction, I'd go with the semantics argument myself, though perhaps slightly differently from yours. I would reason that Law 12 refers to an attempt to score and that while the action of the attacker was enough (for metaphysical reasons) to be deliberate handling, there was no evidence of attempting to score with the hand/arm, so no caution is possible under the LOTG. I agree it's thin--but where it is really the thinnest under the laws is taking the goal away at all. The exam answer is that this was a good goal--but certainly not "what soccer expects."
I think we're actually making the same argument, though I'd swap "possible" for "necessary" in your post.
I'm not sure this is correct. I do not think Blanco was booked on that play, it appeared that there was a delay and Valeri was ultimately booked for dissent. However, it was late and I was partially asleep so I may be wrong in that assessment.
Valeri was booked for dissent on the third one, which was the penalty. The fourth incident is the goal, which also got a caution.
I'll say this about Marrufo - I found his refereeing maddening. His threshold for a foul was SO HIGH. But he got through it, confidently, and the end result was a fair result. So it's not my style, but it is a style that worked.
I thought it fit the game pretty well. He was allowing a rivalry game to be played instead of having 1500 restarts because someone fell over. He called the fouls that counted, gave cards when necessary. Overall a well called match. I'm biased, so I didn't think the Blanco handling penalty was correct. His hands were in a position that many players are when they're close to an opponent trying to not push them. The ball cam off of Alonso's knee right into Blanco's hand which was about 2' away. No time to react, not intentional as the ball wasn't traveling towards him, and the ball was heading towards a keeper and defenders. I think Marrufo was feeling the heat after waving off two handling decisions and just couldn't let another go without feeling the full wrath of the players.
I have been told by someone in another forum that the most recent furtuo course specifically calls out that handling should be called differently for attackers and defenders. Specifically the situation in the game where the goal was removed would be an example where handling should be called on an attacker because “it’s what soccer expects”. But if you were to reverse this we should not call it on the defender. I personally couldn’t disagree more. And if Fifa or IFAB want this then they need to put it in the laws and put their money where their mouth is, instead of hide it inside instruction that does go more than 10% of the referee population.
Defenders want to use their hands to make themselves as big as possible to block shots if they can get away with it. Attackers aren't normally trying to touch shots by their teammates. I'm not a referee, but what I want is all goals from handballs by attackers to be negated and the attacker to be cautioned only if it was intentional. If it wasn't intentional, I don't think the attacker should get a card just because the ball went in the goal.
That’s all good and well but if we are going to pretend there is a different standard for attackers and defenders then it needs to be stated in the laws. As it stands now, not deliberate is universal and wouldn’t matter any more or less either way.
Prepare for me to be correct about being wildly wrong. On another note, did anyone catch the incident in Atlanta where Guzan went into the back of an opponent with a knee around 81' or 82'? I figured Instant Replay would discuss it, but somehow that didn't make the cut (while other ridiculous things did).
Of course that knee to the head happened to be against the same opponent who had undercut him about two minutes prior...
Why does it need to be stated in the laws? There's a massive amount of accepted interpretation concerning what's deliberate and what isn't that's not in the laws.
Because interpretation doesn’t have anything to do with completely breaking away from “equality” in the game and holding one team to a higher standard than the other. If the people at fifa want us to treat attackers and defenders unequally then they need to say that. Don’t hide behind an unwritten expectation.