But we saw no video that showed that. If VAR had another angle fine. But the shot we saw there is no way to tell if it hit her arm.
I wonder if the camera angles are definitive as well. Even if we allow the reverse angle shows the ball hit Nealy Martin's arm, it doesn't show whether it deflected off her body first or not (if, big if, that's a key factor or not) But even allowing it hit her arm directly, hasn't the rationale for not calling penalties been the "natural arm position"? Can't Gotham and Martin use the same defense — "where is her arm supposed to go?" I think maybe the velocity of the ball makes a difference here — a looping header as opposed to a driven shot — but with the current approach to handballs, I have to wonder if referees are really calling them "the same at midfield as in the box". The infamous Torsten Frings handball/not-a-handball was brought up a couple months ago in the Referee Forum. It's from the USA-Germany World Cup match in 2002 when Frings prevented a US goal on the goal line with his arm Again, the speed of the ball, the short distance between shooter and defender, and the resulting short short reaction-time may make the no-handball call understandable. But I could argue Frings had vastly more time to anticipate the ball — why did he take up position on the goal line by the goal post other than to expect a ball coming his way towards the net?! The Ref Forum is, of course, a good place to get informed opinions but the current consensus there is in favor of not expecting defenders to put their arms behind their back. One member even described himself as a "natural-arm truther" and they clearly (to me) find ways to rationalize that doctrine. I'm highly skeptical of the bald claim that one of the referees made that One thing we have to think of, when we say we don't think x should be a handball called for a penalty in the box, is what if x happens in midfield rather than in the box and x leads to a counter-attack resulting in a goal? Here it happens, not in midfield, but in the attacking zone outside the box and leads to a goal and lo-and-behold it is a handball. It's not by any means a perfect counter-example to the handball incidents we've been discussing, but it should put us on alert — are we using "natural arm position" the same in midfield as we are in the box?
I"m going to jump ahead for a second to show where I'd like to go with this thread. I want to make some big statements. I want us, as Women's Soccer fans, to start making big statements. The biggest one, whether there's a growing, thriving place for women's soccer and women's sports in general — guess what, we've won that battle. Let's find more battles to win. When it comes to officiating, referees, it turns out handballs might be a good place to start. The point of identifying different types of handball situations isn't just academic. It's to identify which battles to start fighting. The Support-Arm Fallacy, the Natural-Arm Sophistry — These are hills worth dying on. These are hills worth fighting over. It behooves fans and supporters of Women's Soccer to make a fuss of it, to be branded as reformers and dissidents about it — because if we don't, women's soccer, women referees, and women's leagues and competitions will be blamed and they will suffer for it. The men's game won't because the men have a huge fan base of addicts and sports junkies who love to complain but they'll keep coming back for more no matter what. While the women's game will be blamed for being 2nd-rate and inferior over crap calls even when they are the same ones being made at the highest levels of the men's game The major dividing line, or one of them, is between Romantics of the Sport — and Philistines. I've drawn this line before (rather contentious of me, I know, tee-hee!) and I'm going to do it again. Women's Soccer fans by nature tend to be Romantics. We had to be, to fight an uphill battle, to fight for an underdog, to fight on behalf of the intrinsic beauty and value of a sport which many, many others were disposed to despise and dismiss.
Oh, goody, we'll be able to talk about handballs in the penalty area and natural-arm position from the men's Europa Final between Sevilla and Roma. Game was 1-1 at the time, which is the way it ended after Added Extra Time. It went to penalties where Sevilla won Better video will become available, I think, but for the moment I found a GIF Thoughts? https://t.co/9Q7BfO0l3O— W (@_common_W_) May 31, 2023 From what I've seen the last few months in the Referee Forum — Not a handball in Premier League Not a handball in Germany Handball in UEFA competitions This is UEFA but with English Premier League referees both on the field and in the VAR room If this happens in the women's game, there will be many people blaming women and saying women's soccer is a joke
Hand ball, I cannot see how it would be otherwise. If he kept his arm where it was when the ball was kicked, the ball would have passed him without his touching it. But he moved his arm right into the path of the ball. I continue to think the rule should be, It is a hand ball if it hits your arm or hand. Then, the only question will be whether it hit your shoulder or your arm. Anyone who thinks all the attempted refinements can be applied consistently and equally across all games, leagues, and championships is nuts.
And yet, although it would hugely simplyfy things, I don't think it would be fair. Sorry to recur to an hyperbole, but let's imagine that we set a rule in penal trials that when a man causes the death of another man it's always premeditated homicide and always gets the maximum sentence.No more unpremeditated homicide, let alone unintentional manslaughter: you just have to determine if a man caused the death of another man and you don't have to enter anymore the intricacies of what he did really want to do. Simpler? Sure. Satisfying? I don't think so. Because human actions and motivations are complicated: artificially eliminating those complications in the name of operability doesn't erase them from the world; it simply creates a wonderfully outlined geometric image of the world, that's anyway way far by the complexity of the real one. Then you build your house in that world, settle there and decide to ignore everything outside. But this doesn't make the world outside less complex, it just cleanses your conscience. As someone mentioned above in one of these threads, the laws of the game are there to grant a fair competition and they appeal to a notion that, as fuzzy as it is, has a meaning for many of us: the notion of integrity of the game. Of course, we can't always tell what respects it and what doesn't, as much as we can't always make a correct judgement in a trial; but it would be much worse, in my opinion, if all of the unjust judgements would depend on a built-in oversimplification instead of on human fallibility. If a FW would enter the box and, since he's being cornered in an useless position and can't really shot, would deliberately aim at the arm of an opponent who happened to slip on the ground and can't do nothing to avoid the ball, in your world it would be a clear penalty. In mine it would be unfair to give it and I wouldn't want any rule in the game forcing to give it.
It doesn't look like we're going to get better video to share on the handball incident in the Europa League final between Sevilla and Roma, but, following some of the conversations on Twitter, I can say one of the key dividing lines is what I mentioned a couple of comments ago — the conflict between Romantics and Philistines. It's of course perfectly fair and pertinent to point out that "no handball" is either the correct call under the recent changes to the Laws of the Game or, at least, could easily be interpreted as a correct call. It is the Dunderhead move, the blockhead move, to stop there and be satisfied with it, to simply dismiss with disdain the fans who can't understand how it makes sens, going around smacking their wrists with rulers or, like Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter, putting them in detention and forcing them to write with a special quill pen "I will not tell lies" which magically etches in blood the words on the back of their hand. The biggest villains are the Poobahs at FIFA, IFAB, and the other governing bodies, but blame also goes to a large set of fans, especially in the men's game — Philistines. Philistines come in different forms but what they share in common is no attachment to aesthetics, no compelling vision of beauty. In this case, we're talking about fans who are conformists, who simply like to be right — which we all do but they do without any compelling sens of beauty but rather are mere apparatchiks of power, conformists who seek validation in an Official Party Line. Again, I know this makes for a strange thread, at least so far. For now I'll just add these are themes, motifs, which we will see repeated again and again, handball controversy after handball controversy. Women's Soccer fans are, by their nature, driven to the sport by a sense of aesthetics, a vision of sport's beauty — it makes Women's Soccer a natural place to resist the soul-crushing conformism of Philistines of sport at large. We are by nature rebels in spirit, at least to some degree — our sport, Women's Soccer, would not be where it is today without us resisting all the naysayers we have faced in the past and continue to face. *** as far as putting Romance into Rules, the posts of @cpthomas and @blissett remind me that they're ahead of me on addressing this question and to them (and others) I say, Please carry on
A slightly better version of the handball incident from the men's Europa League final yesterday between Sevilla vs Roma (And again, if this happens in a women's game, there are people who are going to blame women, women referees, and the women's game) I'd still like to see it, of course, at full speed and a little bit longer time span to see if the ball was ping-ponging around so fast that the defender had no chance to react properly. Also, of course, different angles although I think this one is good enough. I mean, the claim is being made by some that the Sevilla player (Fernando?) is putting his arms behind his back — Sure... Now... When it began more in front of his body so that in putting them behind his back, he's timed it to move it towards the ball — or the path of the ball. Which raises another question I never see adequately addressed, even among referees. The Laws say it's a handball infraction if the hand or arm moves towards the ball, but I've never been able to figure out if referees interpret that to mean towards the path of the ball, or whether it means towards the origin of the shot, ie towards the shooter This is a case where, if for no other reason, it's a handball by virtue of his hand moving towards the ball as long as we understand the Law as meaning towards the path of the ball land not to where the ball originally came from. *** There's some discussion of it in the Referee Forum but so far I don't think it's particularly useful, though hte moderator makes the point that in putting his arm behind the back, he may be momentarily bringing his arm out further from his body (that's for sure). The Ref Forum, though, is largely made up of "natural-arm" adherents who, in line with recent IFAB decisions, don't think defenders should have to put their arms behind their back, which as @CoachJon has pointed out is a most unnatural position. On this I depart from the conventional thinking in the Ref Forum. I'd like to see a longer clip, but the Sevilla defender appears to have positioned himself to block or deflect a pass or cross into the box. He has time therefore to be putting his arms behind his back before the ball gets to him. Regardless of whether it is now the "correct" decision, why do we want to encourage such cynical use of the arms and hands, so completely contrary to the basic element of the sport, where it be played with the feet and not the hands? Only Philistines can be content with such cynical and ugly play.
I think in the clip, the slow motion is deceptive. The defender looks as if he did not try to avoid the ball, however in real time I am sure the play was pretty bang-bang and even a professional athlete with great fast-twitch muscles might not have enough time to pull his arm away from the ball. I would argue that this defender was not making a cynical or ugly play, it was just a play. As was pointed out above, had the ref called for a hand ball infraction, there was not enough shown in the clip that would compell such a call to be overturned. ... I suggested a timer in the VAR booth previously, and now I am thinking the VAR should not have slow motion or stop action and be obligated to see the play the way it happened, only with the advantages of different angles and a second or third look..... Getting back to the integrity of the game, the Romance, if you will - jogo bontio and all that: FLOW is the essence of football. Slow motion and stop action are antitheses of flow. Hand ball calls - why does anyone care, really? Because "no one knows what a handball is anymore." An ecumenical committee of fans, players and referees from all confederations needs to be formed to fix the rules regarding how Law 12 should be applied. HOLD THE BUS- Lookee at this from the IFAB website:https://www.datocms-assets.com/4362...chosen_en.png?auto=format&q=90&w=1920&fit=max That there defender should have been called for a hand ball in the penalty area. [Using this picture falls in the category of "explain it to me like I'm a third grader."]
I may be changing my absolutist position. However, it seems to me that if the handball rule is going to have nuances, then there are going to be differing interpretations by officials and different applications in similar situations. So if the rule is going to have nuances, then I say to complainers who also wanted the rule to have nuances, Get over it! You asked for it, you got what goes with it. Or, to put it in more scientific terms, you do not get to choose both the cause and the effect.
If even @cpthomas is dropping an "absolutist" position perhaps it's about time for some of us to start envisioning what the Laws of the Game should look like regarding handballs, or "handling" as it used to be called. I think some of you have thought further along these lines than I have, but here's a few thoughts about drafting such laws We can always treat some of the trickier aspects (like deflections) as exceptions, at least for a rough draft. An an extreme example, a rough draft can even leave the question of deflections up to "In the Opinion of the Referee" (ITOOTR) There's been an understandable movement to relying less and less on the idea of "deliberate" or "intention" of the player suspected of handling the ball — on the presumption we can't read people's minds. BUT we could (and this is something where attorneys like @cpthomas can help us) possibly borrow the legal concept of "willful negligence". When handballs seem particularly benign or minor, like when the ball seems headed outside the box or aimless, perhaps it's possible to give referees the option of penalizing the handball with an indirect free kick rather than with a PK?!
My first thought about crafting new words/rules about handling was that, in 2023, such things must be composed with the understading tht VAR exists and will be used to interpret and enforce the language, not just the center referee. My specific thought on the benign or minor situations was that, in the past, the center could simplly say "I didn't see it," (whether truthfully or not) and that would be the end of it. With other infractions, like a keeper punting the ball while releasing it from her hands inches outside the penalty area, officials often used the concept of "trifling infraction," meaning that the game would not benefit from a strict enforcement of the Laws in that situation. (Verbal suggestion to stay in the box given to the keeper at the next opportunity). With VAR, officials can no longer use "not seeing" as a way to manage and promote the flow of the game and we have all seen how "trifling" infringement of the offside postion can be no longer interpreted as "the attacker was even." P.S. Sorry about the enormous size of the graphic in the earlier post - CJ
Handball controversy in a MLS Conference semi-final match today between Houston Dynamo / Sporting KC. The defender appears to block the ball on the goal line on the follow-up shot. MLS, like NWSL, seems to want to play down controversies in their highlight video so they don't show the reverse-angle/ behind-the-goal camera. Play at 3'46 of the highlight video. I don't know how long this will stay available on the internet but here's the behind-the-goal view on X-Twitter It’s wild to see an arm rattle like this and it not get called a handball. 😳 #HOUvSKC #mlscupplayoffs pic.twitter.com/kjfSK0oRh0— The Cooligans (@SoccerCooligans) November 27, 2023 There's a big division among fans and even some disagreement in the BigSoccer Referee Forum. Many fans are simply shocked how this can not be a penalty. But others take the view the arm is in a "natural position" down near the defender's side — "where is their arm supposed to go?" is their argument.
It bothers me that so many refs (and fans) argue, Where are his arms supposed to go? — totally ignoring that he could put them behind his back, totally pretending that there isn't a reasonable (and obvious) reply. Or that the shot is from a short distance, he has no time to react — as if when players always wait until the ball is kicked when they do put their hands behind their back. The defender is taking up position on the goal line and he's doing it for one purpose, to block the shot and keep it out of the goal. He is anticipating a shot coming; he doesn't wait until the ball is kicked before positioning himself on the goal line. From the Referee Forum: From X-Twitter: Ball comes in at close range, no time to react, no movement to the ball, not making himself bigger, absolutely no handball, I just had this exact situation come up in a referee clinic taught by a PRO referee coach, decision was no foul— chuck hohenstein (@rrac) November 27, 2023 Fortunately, there's disagreement with this in the Referee Forum (and everything is based on the assumption that the ball didn't hit the defender's chest before hitting the arm, which may not be completely clear from the angles shown on TV), but it illustrates something I mentioned before on the Referee Forum before I was banned — that when there are big divisions between fans and referees, sometimes it isn't a question of who knows the Laws of the Game better, it's a question about the Spirit of the Game. Is there anything much more fundamental to the Spirit of the Game than that only goalkeepers should be able to use their arms and hands to stop a goal? *** Fortunately, as I said, there's disagreement among the referees — and there's also disagreement among the fans. No doubt many here in WoSo who think this is not a handball — I never presume to speak for the majority. This, then, is also a difference I've mentioned before — a difference between the Romantics of the sport and, for lack of a better word, the Philistines, the ones obsessed with conforming to external forms — and the letter of laws — and who thereby miss the Spirit.
It may seem right now I'm talking to myself , but it's OK; I'm laying down some points of reference which we can turn to when more people start talking when the new NWSL season begins, or when the US national team gets embroiled in referee controversies. Somewhat surprisingly, the referee organization (PRO) discussed the handball incident in Houston / Sporting Kansas City even though VAR did not call for an on-field review.. I was also surprised that they came down on the side of favoring a penalty being called, contrary to the decision of both the center referee and the VAR. (They actually took my side???!!!) *** Opinion was about evenly divided in the Big Soccer Ref Forum (and probably still is). Earlier in the week, one ref posted the text of the Laws of the Game and asked how the defender violated it. (Bold mine) To me, this is primarily a conflict between the (ever-changing, constantly tampered with ) letter of the law versus the Spirit of the Law and I'm content to make this primarily a fight over that difference. And yet, even here in the letter of the law, there seems some acknowledgment of, some nod towards, the Spirit of the Law. What is the "player's body movement" which makes the position of the defender's arm "justifiable" (or a consequence of it)? The defender is positioning himself on the goal line for one reason — to block the ball from going into the goal. Does it help clarify things if we add the word "legally" as in, "the defender is positioning himself for the purpose of blocking the ball legally" Or are we just inviting circular logic — his arms are in a natural position to block the ball from going into goal, therefore it is justifiable, i.e. legal. Balderdash, sez I. But this is sophistry and I'm no Socrates. All PRO said, though, was *** I agree with @SouthRef who wrote earlier in the week — Link (Again, I can't quote directly because I've been excommunicated by the Church Elders ) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2...feree-discussion.2128497/page-5#post-41862184 The PRO discussion is on their weekly Inside Video Review. Discussion of the handball starts at 4'58
They don't know what they're doing I mean the experts, the ones with credentials. They, the "higher-ups, happened to release a statement on the handball incident which I happen to agree with, but if their reasoning (if you can call it that) isn't how the center ref and the VARs — the very people "they", the higher-ups, selected for the conference semi-finals in MLS — they're just making it up as they go. It's a shambles. And just like the Fire Vlatko / Reverse Jinx threads, it shows that we lowly WoSo types can (sometimes) talk a hell of a lot more sense than the people with credentials. Credentials and expertise can be very important (you wouldn't want me as an actual ref, I promise you), but on some things, the crucial difference isn't a matter of credentials. When it came to Reverse-Jinxes (!), it was a matter of candor rather than credentials. The crucial difference here is a matter of Romantics vs Philistines; and that's a schism just as prevalent among referees as it is among fans. Why? Because fans can have a truer sense of the Spirit of the Game than those who draw paychecks for having credentials. *** One of the refs stated this morning in the Ref Forum: Again I can't quote directly from the Ref Forum because I've been deemed an unacceptable person by the Powers That Be up there, but here's the link https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/2023-mls-quarterfinals-referee-discussion.2128497/page-12