POTW -- handball questions

Discussion in 'Referee' started by socal lurker, May 17, 2017.

  1. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
  2. Ickshter

    Ickshter Member+

    Manchester City
    Mar 14, 2014
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would say the Call in the MN United game was not the correct call. Defender arm in a natural position, and no time to react to the ball. (and I am a MNU fan). Second one is a bit harder for me to call. Saw the video about if you dive you give up the hand in natural position discussion, which I agree with. player is ALMOST giving himself up but ends up just stopping. Hand seems in a natural position but the arm (as well as the rest of his body) is tracking back towards the ball. I am ok with the no call here but would not be too upset if it was called. Which lends right into the argument that this POTW brings up. I am part of the problem I guess...
     
    cinepro repped this.
  3. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    I wouldn't make either of these calls in most of the matches I do, but the pro game has different levels of expectation than youth.
     
    cinepro, Law5 and djmtxref repped this.
  4. Spencedawgmillionaire

    Mar 2, 2017
    Belleville, ILLLLLLLLINOIZE
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    First video is wrong call, arm in natural position, ball playing the arm 100%. Super harsh.

    #2 I'd say is a handball. Someone posted a video somewhere here, I think, at a national referee training where they discuss a player going down to slide and the ball hitting him in the arm. The arm, I think it was argued, is not in a natural position on the slide because the player is not in a natural position for defending, it's more of a last-gasp attempt and stopped the ball. So why is he not being punished for doing that? This is paraphrasing to the max, but that's how I'd call it because it makes sense.

    threeputzzz is right, though, I'd never call either of these in any of my youth matches.
     
    cinepro repped this.
  5. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I personally think both calls were made incorrectly; Toronto one shouldn't have been awarded, Montreal one should have. I think that's the verdict PRO will have, at least, though maybe they'll say both were penalties.

    I cannot foresee a verdict that says the Montreal one was correct. FIFA has said that a player going down toward ground to block a shot is taking a risk by making himself bigger. Seems like that's exactly what happened here, at minimum.
     
    Spencedawgmillionaire and Thezzaruz repped this.
  6. Ickshter

    Ickshter Member+

    Manchester City
    Mar 14, 2014
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Except that the player never gives himself up by going down. He tries to change his momentum while still staying on his feet. tough to say that he slid to give up his rights...
     
  7. kayakhorn

    kayakhorn Member+

    Oct 10, 2011
    Arkansas
    In the second video I'd consider the arm to be at least close to a natural position, but it looks like he deliberately held his arm in the path of the ball (at least in the slow motion replay). To me it looked like the impact of the ball pushed the arm well away from his body, exaggerating the "biggering" though.

    I would guess that Pro will say both decisions were incorrect - the first should have been a no call and the second a handling/PK.
     
    GlennAA11 repped this.
  8. djmtxref

    djmtxref Member

    Apr 8, 2013
    The second one looks worse because his arm gets knocked away from the body and then it looks like it is in an unnatural position. I'll defer to Mass Ref on what Pro or FIFA says for this kind of match, but if you freeze the frame just before the kick, his arm is fairly close to his body.
     
    BTFOOM repped this.
  9. lemma

    lemma Member

    Jul 19, 2011
    In a perfect world where "deliberate" actually means "deliberate", neither would be called.

    There is no currently applicable world of soccer refereeing in which the first play is considered deliberate.

    In the nonsense world of soccer refereeing that we find ourselves in, we have managed to convince ourselves that the second play actually constitutes deliberate handling, and should have been given.
     
    cinepro, dadman, Doug the Ref and 3 others repped this.
  10. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    In real time I don't think I would give either of these. On multiple viewing I'm conflicted on the second but lean towards calling it.

    Did an upper level U13 girls last night where I bet I had dozen shouts for "handball" from both the players and the fans -- but none from the coaches. I didn't call a single one.

    On the first one I hollered over to the loudest mom (it being U13 after all, and U13 parents still needing a world of educating) "It's not a foul if it's not deliberate, and that wasn't deliberate. No foul." Silence.

    Next one, "Handball ref! That was intentional!" :rolleyes:
     
    RespectTheGame, dadman and IASocFan repped this.
  11. fairplayforlife

    fairplayforlife Member+

    Mar 23, 2011
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In a perfect world soccer players wouldn't try to deceive the referee through hook and crook.
     
    SccrDon repped this.
  12. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I really am curious what PRO is going to say.

    In live action when I first saw it, I though the first one was deliberate -- it looked like his arm was going up toward the ball. But on replay, I don't think it was deliberate -- but the position of the arm and how it moves make it very easy to understand the conclusion.

    For the second, I think the play is completely different from a sliding defender. IMO, if that is supposed to be considered deliberate, we are moving into the world where defenders have to put their arms behind their back (an unnatural position . . . ) in order to not be called for handling.

    I know many referees who would call both of these and not think they were close calls . . .
     
    Ickshter repped this.
  13. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    May 27, 2004
    The first is never a penalty. I don't think the defender even sees the ball.

    The second...I'm going with a 2-2 score line late as a mitigating factor. That's a penalty.
     
    cinepro repped this.
  14. GlennAA11

    GlennAA11 Member+

    Jun 12, 2001
    Arlington, VA
    my bar has always been pretty high - especially when it ends up in a PK. I don't think either one of these is deliberate.
     
  15. tomek75

    tomek75 Member+

    Aug 13, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In my opinion both calls are correct.

    In the first video the arm is in an unnatural position and appears to make a movement toward the ball. The arm is rigid and there is a clear motion that propels the ball. I agree that there is not a lot of time to react, but to me it's a hand to ball situation.

    In the second video, the defender is trying to stop and switch his direction of movement. Once the ball hits his hand, you can clearly see the hand swinging back from the impact, this is what tells me that it is not a deliberate act. If it was a deliberate act the arm would be rigid and would show minimum movement from the impart.
     
  16. akindc

    akindc Member+

    Jun 22, 2006
    Washington, DC
    Your arm can be in an unnatural position, and not be rigid.
     
  17. tomek75

    tomek75 Member+

    Aug 13, 2012
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True, there are several factors to take into consideration while judging if the handling offence is deliberate, this is just one of them.
     
  18. roby

    roby Member+

    SIRLOIN SALOON FC, PITTSFIELD MA
    Feb 27, 2005
    So Cal
    Glad to see there is 100% agreement from the Refs in this thread! :)
     
  19. Bio-Hazard

    Bio-Hazard Member

    Jun 15, 2015
    Seattle, WA
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I can understand the 2nd call. 84', tied 2-2, potential for "making himself bigger" but it'd be hard for me to potentially give the game away for that.

    The first call is harsh, but it might be a case of "everyone is expecting it" so just give it.
     
  20. RespectTheGame

    May 6, 2013
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    I agree with both calls. The first arm is out away from body and moves towards the ball. At that level of play they know better. Second one I"m more iffy on - while I would agree it was not a deliberate conscious attempt to intentionally hit the ball, he does meet the gains advantage by making himself larger unofficial standard...lol. Don't think I would call that in my games, but at that level I could see either way.
     
  21. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    PRO says both calls were correct, yet completely undermines that verdict by saying, "You could make a case for whatever the decision the referee made and he could be supported either way, and would not be overturned by VAR when that starts."

    http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2017-week-11.php

    So if VAR wouldn't overturn any of the four possible decisions, that means a "clear and obvious error" is impossible here. Okay, that's fair. But if PRO is also saying either decision could be "supported," that means a referee wouldn't even get docked on an assessment for any of the four possible decisions. If VAR wouldn't overturn and PRO wouldn't declare any decision objectively wrong, what in the world was the point of identifying these two incidents and giving PRO's verdict? It seems like in an era when FIFA and USSF are trying in vain to establish consistency on handling decisions in the penalty area, the referee governing body for MLS saying "yeah, those are tough calls--could go either way" has a hint of counter-productivity.
     
    cinepro, threeputzzz and socal lurker repped this.
  22. kayakhorn

    kayakhorn Member+

    Oct 10, 2011
    Arkansas
    So my prediction was slightly off. :oops:
    No VAR jobs for me in the near future.
     
  23. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Mar 2, 2012
    Yep, Atlanta
    Club:
    Atlanta United FC
    Very helpful. :rolleyes:
     
  24. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I don't necessarily disagree with PRO's statement, but I wish they had framed it differently. Ultimately, they are saying ITOOTR. I think this would have been much more helpful if they had shared the basis on which each referee made the call, and discussed the thought process referees should be using in forming their (infallible under the Laws) opinion.

    I do like the message that VAR will not be used to re-litigate these types of calls. (Of course, we'll have to wait to see what happens in actual application.)
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  25. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Despite me thinking this week-long poll and verdict being a bad idea, I'm actually very glad they included the VAR language. Because the point here is that debatable handling penalty calls won't even be reviewed (other than the required spot check). A "clear and obvious error" on a handling call is going to be something like video showing the ball hitting a player's face, rather than his hand.

    In other words, as long as you'd be capable of saying "this is debatable, call stands," you might fit fine in a VAR role.
     
    cinepro and IASocFan repped this.

Share This Page