Amendments to LOTG 2012/2013

What? So basically all handling now requires a caution?

Hmmm... maybe that does make sense. It would surely tend to bring home how much less often handling should be called than is currently the case at many levels.

 

Ok but it's still to prevent an opponent from gaining possession...I would add to that in the midfeild of final 3rd, stopping an attack etc.

Just a pet peeve of mine but some players and coaches think that a deliberate handling foul is a yellow card.

 

Won't they be right now? How often (other than DOGSO) is truly deliberate handling for something other than to prevent an opponent gaining possession? ("C'mon ref, I only did that so I could right foot it instead of left foot!" "Oh, OK, carry on then.")

 

I wonder when CalSouth was going to get this to us.

 

I don't think it's been officially published, has it? The changes aren't in effect yet as I understand it.

 

Since handling should only be called when it is deliberate in the first place, that certainly does sound like all handling would require a caution.

 

It only does if you completely ignore the last part of the sentence. I wouldn't card unless there's a pass intended for a player and an opposing player deliberately stops that pass by handling.

If anything this becomes a very easy call to make. See a handling blow the whistle, see that the ball was intended for a teammate give the card. Simple stuff.

 

IIRC, changes go into effect on July 1 of each year. Competitions that occur run over this date have the choice of converting immediately, or waiting until the end of the competition.

 

What if it is not a pass or doesn't involve a teammate, but a ball played by a player in an attempt to get around an opponent and regain possession himself?

 

Good one...I think that's a good argument for it being tactical. It was called tactical before when you handled it to stop an attack, if this is to stop an attack, I say card him.

 

At a minimum, won't this change result in most handling calls now requiring a caution?

 

Probably, except in La Liga where this seems to have been in effect already..

 

Regarding the dropped ball, is this the windy day scenario where the referee drops the ball and it finds a goal somehow?

Or does this address a player trying to exhibit fair-play on a dropped ball who accidentally scores on himself or an opponent?

 

A DB that goes out of play untouched was always a re-do. This was an effort to address the fair play DB situation. (Well intentioned, but ultimately more problematic than helpful IMHO.)

 

Its interesting to see that the reasoning behind the handling amendment refers to it as a hand ball. I thought that was something they were trying to be careful to differentiate between. It seems to lean towards the whole everything that touches the hand is handling.

 

Under the new wording, what's an example of deliberate handling that would not require a caution?

Maradona's Hand of God falls under the second bullet ("attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball"), but does Henry's? He wasn't trying to keep an opponent from gaining possession, he was trying to keep the ball from going out of touch over the goal line. Indirectly, he was trying to score a goal, of course, but aren't all players always trying to score a goal, at least indirectly? And for that matter, aren't all players always trying to keep an opponent from gaining possession?

Hmmm... how about an attempted DOGSO-H where the defender thought the ball was headed for the net, but in fact it would have missed and gone out? No caution required there.

 

I am going to be perfectly honest I believe we are overthinking the handling amendment. All it said in the write up is that they removed the word blatantly because it was confusing and not needed. As they stated often times handling offenses are very discrete and not blatant. Does that mean no caution? Of course not Most handling offenses are not worthy of a caution. The ones that keep an opponent from gaining possession and are card worthy are going to be subjective but often will be an easy call.

Food for thought, the actual call has not changed and neither is the way it should be applied. They simply made the wording less sticky. My thoughts.

 

I was going to write something similar but was feeling lazy and didn't want to look up the stuff from the time of the IFAB mtg. It means you're not limited to carding the two-hand catch under this provision, but can also card the subtle I-was-hoping-you-wouldn't-see-that handlnig as well.

 

But this is not an interpretation regarding when a caution may be appropriate; it's about when a caution is required. In a nutshell, it says that the only time you can whistle handling and not issue a caution is when you judge that the offender was attempting neither to score a goal nor to keep an opponent from gaining possession.

 

Ok... I guess that is one way to read it. Either way I almost believe 80% of the handling calls we make are still going to fall in the 'no caution' category. As I said, nothing changed, if you wouldn't have cautioned for it before you wouldn't now.

 

Does this not then require the referee to divine "intention?" My understanding is that in the great rewrite that the references to intention were removed for this very reason (so that referees would not be expected to somehow read minds or predict the future).

Thoughts?