Hi - Same as WC 2002... ball deflected off an arm on the goal line. Ball is clearly deflected into arm, but arm is not pinned to body and thus whether the ball played the arm or vice versa cannot be determined. Seems to me this should invariably be a penalty kick. If an arm stops the ball on the goal line, and it cannot be indisputably shown to NOT be the arm playing the ball (ie. arm pinned to side or behind the back), it must be assumed that it MIGHT have been the arm playing the ball, and the ref should award the PK. Hope I'm not being too much of a homer here...
Another thing here... Odd that the presumption is ever that there is no intention by the defender to block the ball in these cases. It's totally human instinct to want to block the ball in this high pressure situation. It would almost be impossible NOT to react with some degree of reflex to at least try to stop the ball. And, also odd that in neither of these cases did the ball deflect off the arm into the goal... it wouldn't take mucnh intent to change a deflection into the goal into a prevented deflection out of the goal.
And... to keep beating a dead horse... on replay, the defender is falling towards the ground, and is body is falling towards the ground. In the process of falling, he swings his arm out. Playing the ball or not, protecting his fall or not, he's creating a wider profile for blocking the shot. Not sure if those factors play in at all, but it does seem to create an advantage for the defense with his arm. Would it be more legit if all defenders kept their arms akimbo, 1/2 ball distance from their torsos at all times? If they did this at all times, then they might have a more legitimate claim that the ball played them, and not vice versa, as that would be their default body posture...
It was the right call for me (easier to say that now ) While the arm wasn't pinned to the side, it wasn't in an unnatural playing position. He did not deliberatly handle it.
Analysis of what actually constitutes deliberate handling aside (and believe me, I expect this thread to go at least 8-10 pages discussing the issue), there's one vital component to this call that is needed to start. And that is, the referee has to see the ball/hand contact. During the next stoppage, you could quite clearly seeing Hester point to his own eye in response to a protest from, I believe, Bradley. To me, the body language indicated that Hester was saying he didn't see it as ball/hand contact and, thus, couldn't make the call. That makes some sense because, although the area of the contact was clear on replay, in real-time with the two deflections, it's not as easy to see as might be imagined. So, specifically to whether or not this call gets made, I think that's the first hurdle--and it's one that just can't be bypassed. With the benefit of replay, I personally do think this qualified as deliberate handling. I see this play as different from the WC02 incident (which I thought wasn't handling). I won't go into multiple paragraphs of dissecting it, but the way the Egyptian was leaning/falling as it hit his thigh first made it a deliberate action for me. It was a very close call either way, though... really a 60/40 call at most and I'd buy the arguments of those that think it wasn't handling, too. There's really not clear-cut answer to whether or not this was a penalty.
IMO, it's one that you could very easily give. Whenever the ball hits the arm, preventing a goal, the referee is under immense pressure to automatically give a penalty. It's almost as if the 'deliberate' part of handball doesn't matter when a goal is prevented. In this situation though, I think the player has tried to stop the ball with his chest, and the ricochet of the thigh has inadvertently hit his arm. Yes, the arm wasn't pinned to his side, but that's natural - he's falling to the ground. And it's very easy to watch a slow motion replay, or worse, a still image, and say his arm shouldn't be there - but in full speed, it all happens in a split second. So to conclude, and without wishing to sit on the fence, it's one that could very easily be given, but IMO, wasn't deliberate, and therefore shouldn't be.
Agreed. He was fortunate. His arm was in a normal position. It is not required to be "pinned to his side or behind his back" as another poster desires. The player should not be penalized for a tough bounce off his thigh. I didn't see the player reach out for the ball or extend his arm into its path. Unlucky bounce for the USA, but the guys got the job done anyway.
As much as I wished the referee had called it, it was a good non-call. The ball was moving at a very high speed and ricocheted off the player's thigh. At that speed, there is very little chance that a player can intentionally play the ball into his own hand. Had the ball struck the Egyptian player's hand directly, without the ricochet, I think a penalty kick would have been warranted, but as it actually happened, it was a deflection into the player's hand and should not be called.
So, if I understand you correctly, you think that a player that's using his hand/arm to break a fall is guilty of deliberately handling the ball just because the ball hits his arm? He didn't deliberately make himself bigger nor were his actions unnatural if he was just trying to break his fall. I can't see how any of this fits "deliberately"
To me, compelling a referee to divine a player's intention is one of the weaknesses of the laws. This used to be a major problem in the NFL, but that league has taken some of the responsibility for judging a player's mind-set out of the hands of the ref. For instance, there used to be two separate facemask penalties, 15 yards for intentional, 5 for unintentional. Now it's 15 yards, period, if you grab another player's facemask. I would not be averse to change in the rule that if a defender is standing on the goal line and a ball strikes his outstretched arm, it is a penalty, period. Given the law as it stands, I don't think this amounted to a penalty. Not nearly as egregious as the PK in Brazil-Egypt.
Another interesting non-call: Dempsey was clearly in an offside position and standing in front of, perhaps in the line of sight of, the keeper on Bradley's goal. Very reminiscent of the Beasley/McBride incident in US-Italy '06. Imagine the uproar had the referee waived off the goal!
What if he's 1 yard in front of the goal line? How about 2? 3? 6? 8? When does the handling need to become deliberate again? Also, not all facemasks are 15 yards. They just no longer call the accidental facemask penalties.
My trap worked. From the USA News and Analysis thread. I wouldn't have given the player a red card but you can't prevent a goal with your hand, intentional or not.
Yep...I couldn't resist replying to that one in the thread. Complete incompetence in the LOTG and its application. No wonder people think refs do poorly. I once sent 2 coaches for the same team before figuring out why. They were from a small town playing in a tournament and it was an easy game that they were yelling about constantly. As they were walking off they were trying to explain to me how this is a non contact sport and I should have been calling a lot more fouls when players touched or slid tackled
IMHO, it was quite "deliberate," however unintentional. Defender leaned right, made himself big and got the deflection off his thigh. Fine. But the arm under consideration was not down by his side (the way Frings' arm was in 2002). It was angled about 30 deg away from the vertical. That's too far, in my opinion. As for one poster's suggestion that it is natural to reach for a ball--well, too bad. The players are specifically trained to keep their arms and hands down when in the PA.
I think the way the laws are interpreted now, it allows for it not to be given. I think it's against the spirit of the game though. It's the players own poor skill that knocked the ball into his own arm. Players should not be protected against their own poor skill by the LOTG. The thing about ball plays hand or hand plays ball is supposed to be about unintentional handling when someone hits the ball at a player from so close they can't help but handle it and there's no intent in that setting. Using the law to protect that player against his own poor skill in playing the ball off his leg without requiring the arm as well to keep it out is not what the laws should be doing.
Standing on the goal line only. At least there is no judgment of intent to be made, just a physical observation. Not that I'm calling for this change, but I wouldn't mind seeing it. I have seen a lot of what would have been called five-yard "incidental" facemasks flagged as 15-yarders since the change in the rules.
Agree with this train of thought . . . Brian Ching got called for handling in a qualifier I think several years ago and the reason why is because he attempted to chest trap a ball in his box and it ended up rolling off his arm. With a lot less experience with this forum I came on here up in arms stating that it was clearly NOT Ching's intention to handle there. I was rightly chastized a bit and then a discussion about the difference between deliberate and intentional ensued . . . For those who remember the Ching incident, how do you feel this is different? Misplayed ball subsequently hits the arm -- one gets called and the other does not. Why?
Poor skill is one thing, but... this wasn't a failed attempt to control the ball, the player was blocking a fairly powerful shot.
A FIFA referee in the Confederations Cup prepares properly for every match. When this incident happened, the prepared referee should already know that Egypt had already attempted to prevent one goal by handling in this tournament. Obviously, as Massref said, if he didn't see it, he can't call it. If we can assume for a second that he did see, it, the Brazil/Egypt situation should have sprung to mind. For me, the previous incident makes this situation much less likely to be an accident. I think that his arm was in an unnatural position. WHen you flail out to the side like that, even if you mean to use your chest or thigh, you run the risk of playing the ball with your hand, however unintentional. Since the defender deliberately moved his leg to play the ball, I feel that he probably deliberately moved his arm to the position where it was. Although I agree that he did not "intentionally" handle the ball, I feel that he did "deliberately" handle the ball. The player made himself bigger, thereby preventing the ball from proceeding past him where it would have had the arm not been there. I think the arm was in an unnatural position. THe defender definitely benefited from the ball contacting the arm. He prevented it from entering the goal. I'm not buying the argument that this was an involuntary reaction. The defender had enough where-with-all and reaction to move his leg into a position to block the ball, therefore I think that he forfeits the ability to claim that he did not deliberately move his arm to the position that it was. This defender deliberately moved his arm to a place where it shouldn't have been and benefited from the fact that it was there when he played the ball with his arm therby preventing a goal. The fact that Egypt had already tried this previously during this tournament makes this instance even more suspect. IMO, PK and send-off for DGH. Luckily, in the end this was not a game-changing incident, but the scoreline when this happened could have contributed to the USA not advancing if things had been different. Based on the play of the USA in their first 2 matches compared with Egypt's performances, I'm amazed that we made it through in the first place.
The reason I thought it should have been handling was that the player's arm had no give. At all. IOW, I am pretty sure he stiffened his arm to keep the ball out. OK, given the sequence of events, he stiffened his arm in case the ball happened to ricochet into his arm, which it did.
I don't think a stiff arm proves anything. If you were facing a rocket like that from 12 yds I think it's a natural reaction to stiffen your whole body up.
Ha! I love issues like this, especially on BigSoccer. No clear answer, but it's always good to get MassRef's and EnglishRef's perspectives. Your right, it is not required, except that... in the box... that's exactly what people are trained to do. If you're doing anything else, I think your motives (or whether it was "deliberate" or not) are legitimately at question, as pointed out by lmorin: I also think the questions about "natural positions" are moot in the case of a moving or out of control player. The defender was marking a beeline towards putting himself in position on the line and didn't have time to either set up for a stable position or to stop in control, which is why he was falling down. Should a player be able to deliberately dive in the way of a ball and inadvertently block it with his arm if the arm is in a "natural position" for a sideways dive across the mouth of the goal? I don't think so. The player may not have deliberately put only his arm in that position, but he clearly deliberately put his body in the way of the shot, was clearly out of control, and clearly inattentive to where his arms were, perhaps "deliberately" inattentive. Using the paragraphs before your first quote, in this case, my answer is "yes, that's what I think." For example, you can't intentionally fall down, put your hand to the ground (stiffly, as pointed out by Colins1993) to brace your fall and then block a shot. lmorin & I both disagree: I would also contend that a falling motion is part of a "wishful" dive of making yourself largely and hopefully blocking the shot with some legitimate part of your body or with some illegitimate part of your body (!) and getting away with it. FWIW, I wouldn't have been upset at all if Dempsey's offside position had been whistled. At the time of the play, I couldn't see how we got away with that one, as branko97 points out.