I would say that “accidental” is being used as a synonym for “not deliberate” here, while not meaning “not unnaturally bigger”. That said I also think there’s a strong possibility of #1, I mean MLS was pretty much publicly stating that as of a few years ago (before the law change, anyways, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s still the internal instruction). Also, if any leagues internally instructing that any arm that blocks a goal is punishable, I think they should at least be explicit and public about that announcement. It’s a pretty big rule that should be well known to all teams and players (let alone fans, commentators, etc.). But then of course they’d have to admit they’re making their own stuff up and not following IFAB’s laws anymore.
Part of the problem is that the whole concept of "biggering" equating to "deliberate" is very questionable to start with. Likewise the whole attempt to determine what is/is not a "natural" hand/arm position. Because the reality is that there are many hand/arm movements and positions which are completely natural despite the fact that they make the silhouette of the body bigger. And players should not be punished for putting their hands/arms in these completely natural positions just because the ball happens to hit them (often from close range and/or after a quick change in direction) before they have the opportunity to react to the flight of the ball and move them out of the way. If you want to reduce the number of controversies, then the LOTG regarding handball need to be re-written to remove as much subjectivity as possible.
But they're not equated. They are completely distinct. There is one clause about deliberate handling. And then there is a separate clause about "unnaturally bigger," which ends with the justification that offences under this clause are because the player has "take[n] a risk." The unnaturally bigger clause can effectively be called "non-deliberate punishable handball." The Laws used to justify unnatural position as an implied (and instructed) sub-category of "deliberate." Enough people didn't like that and wanted more clarity that we ended up where we are now, where unnatural position is it's own type of handball; the entire point, now, is that it doesn't have to be deliberate. Right, and the Laws quite literally say that "unnatural position" does not come into play when such a position is "a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation." The Laws 100% agree with what you're writing here, so you either haven't read them or you just don't like how some referees have applied this standard in certain situations. I can only surmise you slept through World Cup 2018 and the era surrounding it.
Unfortunately I can't find a full replay of the match with the commentary from USA Network, but from the way the announcers were talking it seems like this is some sort of PL interpretation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what was said, but it seemed like the announcers were very much on the same page of what the announcement ended up being (which doesn't directly prove anything, but does seem to suggest that the CR and VAR were on the same page). If anyone can dig up a recording, let me know what you think.
Only from the official sources of the PGMOL article (link) on ESPN and Dale Johnson (link). The former remains ambiguous enough to suggest that could be a misinterpretation of the LotG by PGMOL. As a matter of personal opinion, I disagree with what Johnson wrote and think that this situation was correctly solved (Pen +YC): the defender was entering into a 'goalkeeper' scenario at which point if he blocks the ball (even partly) using his arm, he should be punished for it. Also, it seems that PGMOL have ruled that Manchester City should have been given that penalty.
I think we're missing an important fourth possiblity that the IFAB forgot to make the changes to their simplified rules site to coordinate with current instructions. I skimmed through the entire Q&A section for 25/26 on the LotG app, and I did not see that exact scenario.
Only one angle so far but this seems very very offside to me. BETO RESCUES A DRAW FOR EVERTON IN THE FINAL SECONDS OF STOPPAGE TIME. pic.twitter.com/qTqwIYI8AA— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) January 31, 2026 Is the player in OSP really not interfering or is this a case where everyone forgot it still mattered even though the initial shot didn’t go in?
I'd bet money on the latter. Because the goal scorer himself wasn't in an offside position on the initial shot, I imagine they simply failed to ask whether the player who was in an OSP interfered with the original shot.
Right. I mean the player in an OSP has to jump out of the way on the initial shot. That's almost certainly offside. But because the ball didn't go in, they likely didn't dwell on that component. Or, possibly, a tortured argument about how since the ball was saved, the goalkeeper wasn't actually interfered with (which is inherently not true, because the goalkeeper could have made a better save that didn't concede a game-tying rebound).
I’m not sure without seeing a direct line replay. The attacker doesn’t try to play the ball. I don’t think, in this case, avoiding the ball is a clear action, so it’s a question of whether the GK vision was obstructed on the shot. Not clear to me that it was from this angle. I don’t have enough to call OS here. (Though it certainly could be obstructing vision.)
A shockingly non-sensationalist response from the keeper in question: https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/verbruggen-gives-keepers-eye-verdict-045700434.html
30' in Man Utd - Tottenham - Romero is sent off for a for SFP. I certainly agree with this being a red card but I am honestly surprised it's given in the EPL.
11:43 of video, penalty given via VAR for Newcastle: I went looking to see if the card color was red or yellow, because I think the debate would be interesting. But that was silly, because this is England and why would you give a card?
Wow this is literally identical to a PK I gave in a HS game last night. Cross from the same area, right in front of goal, defender from behind takes down attacker in the same way basically stumbling and tripping him. I decided to give a YC because I believe the red card DOGSO PK should be really egregious. And of course England didn’t give a card. As an aside, how are those jersey colors allowed to be played with? I couldn’t even tell who was who from the camera wide shot.
To be honest, I think red would be the worst answer here. It’s a tripping foul, and it’s during an attempt to challenge for the ball. It’s an ‘honest’ (or at least, not blatantly dishonest) foul. I think the more interesting debate is whether or not this is DOGSO. The tripping happens before the pass is even made, so I really think you could make an argument either way here. I can totally see why they went with no card.
How do you get to that being an attempt to challenge for the ball? The ball isn’t remotely in the vicinity at the time of the foul.i think this has to be at least a caution. I think the intellectually pure answer is red. The attacker is almost certain to get the ball, which satisfies the criteria—the only reason he doesn’t is that he was fouled from behind. Nonetheless, DOGSO off the ball is so incredibly rare that I could love with calling it SPA yellow, even though I don’t think it is the technically correct decision.
Pretty darn hard for the ball to be close enough to the attacker to be DOGSO but too far from the defender to not be a challenge for the ball.
100% disagree. The consideration for DOGSO is likelihood of keeping OR GAINING control. The victim doesn’t have to be close to the ball to satisfy that. But to challenge for the ball does require the ball being somewhere around.
How/why? The ball doesn’t have to be “close” to the attacker for DOGSO. He has to have a likelihood to gain control.