I am not saying you are wrong, but did you happen to watch any of the presentation that started this thread? You don't think that you should change the game based on sex, but you are a guy (I assume) Do you change how you call things based on whether it is a U19 premiere team as opposed to a U10 co-rec? I am not saying we need two sets of laws depending on the gender of the game, just maybe how we perceive the two styles of games and officiate the game that everyone wants.
First let me preface that no I didn't get a chance to watch the video and I am male, full disclosure. However, U10 Rec or World Cup final the laws are the same. We make allowances for what amount of physicality equates fouls based on age but the threshold is still careless, reckless, or excessive force. (Yes I know that only applies to 7 of the DFKs) However I am not going to change my threshold of what is a foul given two teams with all things being equal other than one is female and one is male. Center of mass MAY be prevelant to one extreme or another for men or women but I'm not doing a physical diagnostic test before each game to figure it out.
I doubt it. They aren't in session while the high court of proper pizza toppings decides if Gordon Ramsey was right about pineapple.
Fair points. I guess here is my hypothetical (which really isn't a hypothetical, I had this happen in a GV match last night. Girl center back, evertime she ran up to clear the ball her arms were above her shoulders in the "I surrender" pose I talked about earlier. Her running style was normal, but when she would run up to clear the ball her arms would come up like that. Saw her do it 5 times during the match. Now, on the 6th time she clears the ball that is deflected by the girl on the other team, the ball comes up and hits the defender in her arm that is still in the "I surrender" pose. Is that Handling? You just don't see a man need that balance when clearing a ball, nor do you see it from a SKILLED female player, but I have seen it a LOT in D3 HS soccer.
And there in lies the problem I think. Clearly for this player her skill or some strange attribute she does this. I think we could all agree this isn't natural, and while SoCal is correct in that isn't the only factor for handling. Where do we draw the line between allowing variation in play style vs continued allowance of risky or abnormal behavior which we would only deem acceptable for that player and not others? I'm not going to sit here and say we hold a hearing and put every gangly, awkward and unathletic player in trial for these movements but at the same time if you can't learn to play with your arms under control maybe this isn't the sport for you... When does it stop being strange method of balance or form and become willful refusal to correct a flawed technique.
Great points. And how can you not call handling on her, but call handling on someone who raises her arms up when the ball comes to her, but not when she normally clears the ball? You can't. I think you have to call it every time.
No. There is no conceivable torture of the word "deliberate" that would possibly suggest that the ball-to-arm (IFAB's first bullet for referees to consider) here was anything other than inadvertent. She could have had no possible suspicion that she would gain a favorable deflection on a ball she was clearing from that position of her arms. This is a classic example of inadvertent. My answer is based on how I picture your description of a bang-bang play, but I would offer these caveats: If she had time to move her arm out of the way and did not, it becomes handling. (IFAB second bullet) If she moves here arm toward the ball, it becomes handling. (IFAB first bullet) If she takes advantage of the inadvertent contact with the arm/hand to then direct the ball, with the arm/hand it becomes handling (this not being particularly unusual as a follow up to a non-offense, especially on balls above the head -- the temptation can be great!) And an aside: the fact that it appears to have been fortunate that it hit her arm doesn't transform it into deliberate. But, in the right situation, the fortuitous nature can be a clue that suggests contact may have been deliberate. (But I don't see any way in which that clue is useful here.)
Bottom line is that female players do hold their arms in different positions then male players. If you have enough experience doing matches with female players then you get a feel for what is handling and what isn't. Watching videos may give you some ideas but like many things as a referee, experience will get you to where you want to be on what you do or don't call.
That's a good explanation for somebody like me who is not a referee. If you watch on TV and hear an announcer say that a handball should be called because the player's arms were in an unnatural position, that could mean the announcer is claiming that handball should be called every time the arms are in an unnatural position or that the arms in an unnatural position makes it more likely that the handball was deliberate.
I agree with all your points but have issue with this part. It is not a variation in play stlye, it is a physical truth about women and their center of gravity. It is lower, to balance that, a NATURAL reaction is that they raise their arms to balance their bodies. Now, more skilled female players do not do that as much maybe because of playing for so long and being called for too many handling calls. They way that most officials that have done a fair amount of women's matches have seen this happen. I think when it a playing style of a large amount of a specific gender we must make considerations to that when we look at "making oneself larger"
It may be a physical truth about some women and frankly some men as well but not all. Whether you are anatomically predisposed to have poor balance or just not be graceful is not relevant. There are other methods or more controlled methods to balance oneself. You still have to act in accordance with what is allowed in the game. When you are playing a sport that inherently prohibits the use of ones arms or hands it seems logical to me that you might want to learn better ways to control yourself than using your arms. This will always be a case by case thing but I steadfastly refuse to even start going down a road that starts discussing sex or gender based variations on what is and isn't a foul. The fouls are the same.How you commit them may be different but it's still the same fouls.
I always remember when I was coaching a game in which one of my players, U-10 girls, saw the ball coming towards her in the air. She crossed her arms over her chest and the ball struck the arms. The teenage female referee blows the whistle and says, in a very loud voice, "You can't do that!" I think that pretty much permanently settled the topic of arms and hands coming in contact with the ball for all of the players on our team.
I agree that what is a foul isn't gender based. But, in every match, the decision what foul to call and what to ignore will often differ dramatically. IMO, referees who don't see any differences between men and women's matches are missing a lot of information that the players give in very different ways as to what they will accept and what they will not. This article by Sandra Hunt http://www.ksra.ca/men's_soccer_vs_women's_soccer.pdf and this presentation by Sandra Sarafini identify several differences that the wise referee may want to know. http://www.dcvasrp.com/videos/refereeing_womens_games/refereeing_mens_womens_games_1.htm
That Sarafini presentation is absolutely wonderful. Don't miss it. I'm not all the way through it yet, but note that you can pick up the subsequent segment(s?) by substituting different numbers in the URL.