You are starting to get annoying. I’m 60+ (63) had a knee replacement 10 years ago, did 200 matches last year, and still can go box to box in a dual and deep into the corners on a diagonal. Plus, my wife makes me use the money for my car payments! So, I gots to hustle!
Rufus you are one hustling old ass mofo. Frankie and all you other barely-post-pubescents out there take your ref money and dump it into vanguard index 500 in a Roth IRA and forget about it. See how many boats you can buy when you retire with that!
Sorry to annoy you gramps. Didn't mean to hurt your ego. Kudos to you for being able to do this. You're the exception, not the rule.
While I agree the triple punishment isn't a law issue, I believe part of the rationale for this change is that the OGSO is restored with the PK. I don't look at this as adding a grey area at all. We already have plenty to consider, I agree, but this doesn't change any of that - we still have to consider all the factors for DOGSO (no change) and if is then the only thing additional - was it an attempt to play the ball inside the PA - is to me rather black and white.
I would probably agree with you regarding it being black and white but we have plenty of posts on this forum and others that seem to point to the exact opposite.
Set up a class with 30 refs (or 10 National Assessors) and play some tapes. There is NO WAY you will get consensus on whether a keeper diving through a striker and missing the ball, or a defender hockey checking someone of the ball is "attempting to play the ball".
To return to the OP's original question... Ball boys and super fast throw-ins. Ball goes out and you hit the brakes, take a deep breath, and look where the original ball is rolling off to. Meanwhile the play has restarted with a quick throw-in and moved 20 yards down the field. You better get your ass down there.
Except for non-varsity games. There never seem to be any ball retrievers for non-varsity and they want a running clock. You get lulled to sleep - then you better be ready for the Varsity game!
It all depends on where you are. When my daughter was in college in MA, every high school game, even JV, at least where she was, had to have ball holders or else the game could not be played. Around here, we don't require ball holders and they are pretty rare at any game below the state final. I did have a JV girls game last fall with six middle school age ball holders, all wearing red pinnies. (Brand new high school, no varsity in any sport this year. The AD told me that they are 'rehearsing' for having varsity next year. And the AD used to be a boys varsity soccer coach. )
I got the 2018-19 NFHS rulebook in the mail today. I'm glad to see that the NFHS finally made it clear than an instinctive reaction to protect the face and body is not deliberate handling.
They literally wrote that in there? Wow. I know about 12 guys who will ignore it, regardless because, I don't know, they hate everyone.
Here's the text change for those who haven't gotten the new book. 12.2 Situation A: A player, who is part of a wall in a free kick, moves the hands after the kick to protect his/her face from the ball. 2017-18 Ruling: This is a foul for deliberately handling the ball. 2018-19 Ruling: The hand movement is deemed to be a reflex action and is not considered to be deliberate handling. Protecting the head, face, groin, or chest from a hard shot or pass using the hands or arms as a reflex is not considered deliberate and therefore not handling. There's another situation listed that covers the same thing during open play and not just in wall.
Interested to see whether the open play situation similarly buries the referee's determination in the description of the on-field scenario. As written, this allows a defender to put hands in front of their face if the ball takes a ballistic arc from the kicker's foot to a height of 60' and then drops toward the defender. A ridiculous scenario to be sure, just meant to illustrate this one should be a barrel of laughs.
"Protecting the head...from a hard shot or pass...as a reflex" Seems to be pretty clear that the referee still has to decide if something was reflexive. A ballistic arc from a distance would still be deliberate handling.
To be fair, moving ones hands into the path of the ball is being instructed as handling in other governing bodies. The argument that if you have time to put your hands up in defense you have the time to move out of the way is also valid.
This rule will be butchered and misapplied on both sides of the spectrum. That is a simple fact. Interestingly, do you think they mean chest to only apply to the women’s game?
If a youth player (and high school is still youth) makes an instinctive reaction (and by that I mean less than 1/2 second or so) to protect their head/chest/groin from a hard shot then I'm never calling handling. I don't in USSF. I wouldn't in high school (even though I technically should have until now). Now if the ball is crossed in from 40 yards away and you bring your hands up to protect your head and handle it then I'm giving a foul.
12.2 Situation A: A player, who is part of a wall in a free kick, moves the hands after the kick to protect his/her face from the ball. I feel you on this, I really do...what I mean though, is that in the NFL-ification of the NFHS rulebook, as written there is carte blanche to raise hands as long as you are in a wall. 99%+ that will probably be ok but the 1% is going to bite us on the tuchus. IMHO.
I always love the hypocrisy of the NFHS tests that both test of you can read the EXACT words of the rules and also know when they should be understood for some deeper meaning.
This is not official instruction but I use this as a guideline - if the ball is still on it's way up in elevation I let "protective" handling go*. If it's on it's way down then the player had time to protect themselves without using their arms/hands and i call it. *with one exception - this season a player twice raised her arms out in front of her while coming in to challenge an attacker before the ball was even struck, and I called handling both times when the ball was subsequently kicked directly into her arms. The ball was still on it's way up, hard, close range, and her arms were in front of her head. Call it? Let it go? It just didn't seem right. Sometimes we have to go with our own opinion.
I think you are spot on in making that call. IMO, Esse's "taking a risk" concept (which I frankly still struggle with, especially below professional levels) makes that a clear and easy call. Even without the Esse guidance, I think you are spot on: the player is trying to have her cake and eat it too by deliberately putting her ams up to hit the ball while moving forward. I don't think the concept is "protective" but "instinctive protection." And how much that instinct is legitimate varies dramatically by age and skill level. At 10U, generously applied. At professional, very, very rarely applied.
What I'm (hopefully) saying is that, as written, the deeper meaning (i.e. is it reflexive or deliberate) is being neutered by the wording in the Situation. I am not trying to have it both ways...I'm saying the updated wording is going to put us into a situation where following the wording means doing something we know to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Which is my point. By adding the “part of a wall” verbiage NFHS is just as likely to mean ONLY in a wall, or be trying to give a blanket statement for all aspects of play. The problem is we won’t know until it is specifically addressed via a test question.