I have been engaged in an interesting discussion reguarding the word deliberate as it applies to handling. Is the intent of the player really is of little consequence for a referee to be of the opinion it was deliberate or accidental? Even though at times the intent is obvious there are times when it is not. Since we are not Kreskins(mind reader from old TV show) ;o) Could we judge the deliberateness of the act in PLAYING the ball with at least SOME measure of CONTROL and EFFORT? Do we look to see if the skill or time factor could have allowed for a different solution. I will pose a few examples and state the circumstances. (1a)A young lady at the age of 12 sees a rocket of a shot heading in her direction she raises her arms to cover her chest, stops and grimances as she turns her head away and allows the ball to impact on the arms crossed on her chest. The arms do not move Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (1b)A young lady at the age of 12 sees a long ball heading in her direction she raises her arms to cover her chest, stops and grimances as she turns her head away and allows the ball to impact on the arms crossed on her chest. The arms do not move Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (1c)A young lady at the age of 12 sees a long ball heading in her direction she raises her arms to cover her chest, and runs forward and grimances as she turns her head away and allows the ball to impact on the arms crossed on her chest. The arms do not move. Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (2a)A ball smashed towards goal from a few yards away the young 12 year old arcs back away raising an arm across the face. The ball strikes the arm covering her face and rebounds away from goal. The ball likely would have struck her in the face. Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (2b)A ball smashed towards goal from a few yards away the young 12 year old arcs back away raising an arm across the face as she turns partially turns exposing her elbow which the ball strikes and rebounds away from goal. The ball likely would have entered the goal. Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (2c)A ball lobbed towards goal from a outside the penalty area the young 12 year old ducks down arms over the face hands on top of the head which the ball strikes the clasped hands and rebounds away. Deliberate handling? Would it change if the young lady was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? (3a)In a wall a player stand with one arm over the privates and the other with a L shaped fist on the forehead arm in front of the face. The ball is shot and hits the hand covering the head and deflects out of play over the goal. Deliberate handling? Would it change if this was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? Assume a player is setting for a shot during active play and the defender freezes in front assumming the same position as in the wall earlier and the ball does the same. Deliberate handling? Would it change if this was say u-18 or part of a world cup squad? We all know OPINION but if you are TEACHING what is or what is not a deliberate handling JUST what description do you give the word deliberate so as to make an educated opinion. In the inclusion of the ATR section clearly stated in 12.9 " Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made." IS this ONLY a USSF interpretation or would you think other national interpretations agree with it? Is moving your hands/arms into the path of the ball always a handball? Have you deliberately played the ball with your hands. Appreciate any and all comments. I know this is a much hammered subject I have read all the USSF data I could and the great article By MR ED RAE among others just wanted to see a few more thoughts put to pen.
In my clinics I define the word deliberate seperate from the word intentional. We judge if the action is one of deliberation, not if the result was the intention. The majority of the time a player will not intentionally handle the ball. However they may place their arms in a position with deliberation. This is where the idea of an "unnatural position" comes in. If the arms are in such a way that the person is deliberately placing them there, i.e. it is a conscious action, and the ball strikes them, then that is a deliberate handling of the ball. Their intent may not have been to actually handle the ball, but their action was done deliberately with the result being the handling. This is a foul. A player instinctually moving his or her arms for protection is not an action done with deliberation. It is a reflex, built into our psyche as a natural reaction when objects are about to strike us. Thus it cannot be punished. However, a more experienced player will know the ball is not a harmful object and can override this reflex in the majority of cases (pointblank shots being the exception). If the player, seeing the oncoming ball, decides they will use their arms for "protection" regardless when they are not required, the action becomes deliberate and is punishable. However, there are particular places on the body that do indeed require protection, deliberate or not, and that should always be allowed.
Here's my opinions... 1a - not handling and still not handling at u18 or WC -- I'd consider this instinctual protection 1b - not handling at u12, but at the older ages, they should have had time to move in such a way as to not have to chest it if they didn't want to. I'd call handling at u18 and WC 1c - same as 1b - at u12 in this situation, even though she ran up to the ball, she could have likely misjudged it and then had to cover up to protect herself. 2a - I wouldn't call handling for a u12, but probably would for the older ages 2b - same 2c - same 3a - no this is not handling when players cover up in the wall. these shots are going to be coming at them 70 to 90 mph and covering up is a reasonable thing to do -- age and level doesn't matter here -- you see this all the time at the professional level 3b - here it's a much tougher call. covering the privates is one thing -- you see guys stretch their leg out to attempt to block a shot and as they do this, one hand goes to the privates because they are very exposed in this position. A ball played off the arm in front of the face will likely not get called at the younger ages (protecting themselves) but will likely get called most of the time at the older / professional level. If they have time to raise their hand, they have time to duck or turn away would be the reasoning. Statesman's comments about the difference between deliberate and intentional are very good.
Flame On! I'll bite, just to get the discussion rolling... 1. a) yes, DKF 1. b) yes, DFK 1. c) yes, DFK, Yellow (UB) 2. a) yes, DFK, Red (DGH) 2. b) yes, DFK Red (DGH) 2. c) yes, DFK 3. yes and yes, DFK, Yellow (UB) I look forward to the replies...
My take In most of your situations I would say no to deliberate handling. Reason being is that the ATR says that we are not to penalize the natural instinct of protecting ones body from a rocket shot to the face or body. The "natural instint" is to cover the face or the chest ( especially for the younger women). Maybe I have an outdated version of the ATR though. So, 1A - No at age of 12. As they progress in age the skill of chesting the ball should be there. Even so, I would still likely not call a DFK on it. 1B - No again 1C - still no All situations in 2a,b and c seem to center around a smashed ball towards goal. Again I would not call it. Not even at the older age groups for a and b. C talks about a lobbed ball. Could happen with the younger ages but not likely at the older ages.
I warn the u14 girls I ref that if the arms leave the chest, it's going to be called. I also warn them if it's clear that there were other options, it will be called. Other than that, be my guest. I just can't stand when coaches teach them that this is the way to "chest" the ball down, with your arms.
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated "I may not know how to define pornography but I know it when I see it!" I'm not sure that any amount of lecture can teach this in a way that the rookie ref will feel comfortable. Things happen so fast that you react from instinct and experience rather than by running through a mental checklist "Terminator" style. I keep the mantra "Hand to Ball or Ball to Hand" in mind and look for hands and arms in natural playing position. And I steel myself to the outraged howls from the nimrods in the stand and sidelines. Jim
When is it that you warn them of this? During checkin? At the coin toss? If either of them is true I'd think about that. My recommendation and what I stress at clinics is that the less we say to the players during checkin/coin toss the better. My checkins I say almost nothing other than introducing myself to the coach and checking equipment of the players. At the coin toss I introduce myself to the captains, have them shake hands with each other, and conduct the toss. That's it. If, on the other hand, you tell them why what they did illegal when you blow the whistle then I think that is a reasonable approach. Just my opinion, Steve
I have had girls teams - particularly rec teams ask about what protection they're allowed. When asked I usually tell them that they can protect themselves, particularly on dead ball situations, but if they move to the ball or move their hands off their chest to strike the ball, then it's a hand ball. I have on occasions asked for questions as part of my check-in and pregame.
This is a topic that I have been working on. Let me post my thoughts here and see what you have to say. For years I followed an approach similar to the one described by Jim in which he invokes Justice Stewart’s infamous line regarding the definition of pornography. However, (perhaps being a lawyer has jaded me) I never really felt comfortable in not having a way to objectively determine handling violations. So I have come up with the following. All criticism appreciated. First, I think we need to understand the term "Deliberate". I believe Statesman was right when he explained that "deliberation" refers to the ACTION take while "Intent" refers to the RESULT of the action. Typically, we intend the results of our deliberate actions. With that, I have come up with four categories of hand-ball contact that, in my opinion, constitute deliberate handling. Upon initial review, you may see some of these categories as not satisfying the “ball to hand vs. hand to ball” mantra. However, look again and see if the two are not actually consistent. 1. Intentional handling – Example: Gibbs handling against Brazil in the Gold Cup. Basically reaching up with the intent to stop or play the ball illegally. Often this involves some sort of sanctioning. 2. Inadvertent handling while deliberately playing the ball – Example: a player who attempts to trap a high ball but misses and the ball bounces up at strikes player’s hand or arm. 3. Arm in unnatural playing position – To me this means playing with one’s arm in a position that the player knows or should know is likely to come in contact with the ball. Example: arms out to make oneself “bigger”. 4. Arm in a natural playing position with time to move prior to contact – Example: A player has arm in natural playing position but sees ball heading directly to the arm and has time to alter the arm’s position but chooses not to and allows the ball to contact are, however player had time to remove arm from ball’s path. Yes, I believe a player has an affirmative duty to avoid ball-hand contact if possible an not just a duty to refrain from initiating hand-ball contact. Now, to me, the application of the topic at hand takes the role of a defense to the “crime”. In other words, once handling has occurred as described above, I may decide not to penalize based on the defense of self-protection. In order to apply the defense of self-protection, the following elements must be present. 1. The action was “instinctive”. There was no time for the player to do anything else such as avoid contact or use another body part for protection. 2. There was no advantage gained. 3. Self-protection was the only purpose for the action. Finally, I do apply these criteria (especially no. 1) more strictly the higher the age group and level of competition. --Paul
This is entirely my opinion and method, but I warn them of rules like the "can't goalkick or punt past half" rule or opinions and judgment calls such as these before the game. That way, I can avoid sticky situations later on. I'm more of a social ref. I talk to the kids during the game, let them know indirectly that I'm not playing "gotchaball", that this is soccer. Shall we bring this up in another thread? This is off-topic.
Paul, In your list of handling examples, I disagree that #2 is always handling. If it also falls under category 3, then ok, but if not, it's not deliberate handling -- the ball took a funny bounce in some manner and struck their arm. That's not handling in my book. In your self-protection list, I strongly disagree with #2 (maybe I just have a problem with 2's). Any time you introduce advantage into the equation, you are running down a slippery slope. Advantage has absolutely nothing to do with it. Otherwise, good post. This pretty well spells it out like I call it.
Why do you warn them? Just call it. I've seen a fair amount of referees get themselves into trouble when they have pregames with the players that set themselves up for failure. The first time you warn that you are going to do something and you don't, your credibility is at stake. I couldn't agree more with stevieb on this matter. Flip the coin and get going. This does not preclude talking to players during the game.
Thanks for the input Good stuff, I think Stateman's response is spot on! I agree jacathcart sometimes we know more by our guts than brains. LOL I agree with KEV on the "adavantage" having nothing to do with whether a DH foul should be called. Kev although I see your point about misjuding (#1c) but by running into the ball she is playing it off the arms. She has time to consider her options in my opinion. Paul I sort of agree with your #2 premise if you attempt to play the ball but misjudge it and it strikes your arm could be deliberate but feel it is also doubtful and trivial to a point as well. As for the others they seem to give a good read. The #3 making oneself bigger though is relative to a low centre of gravity to a taller player as how the stance will place arms natuarally closer or further for balance. MrZedd, Harsh taskmaster I am not convinced you answered seriously as YES to #3A is simply not ever going to happen. The USB cautions simply not enough info to make that assumtion . The DFK or PK and red card though in #2a and 2b could be if it was a DH foul then the criteria of DOGSO could also be there. Love to Play I think you are too nice ;o) with (#1c) and (#2b) but accept that as opinions go you are entitled to see it as such ProfZodiac IASocFan stevieb But Referee I too think at youth level IF there is a good opportunity to explain things and the coaches wish us to address the players it is not wrong to do so. I generally talk with the coaches and ask if they would like me to address the players? Some coaches resent referee intrusion others like the openess as in all things you find what works eventually. I will say less is more at the elite levels where players are well coached. There are teams and coaches who are just learning too that would appreciate PZ's openess. Provide it was not in the form of lectures. ;o) Thanks for all the input I appreciate the time and effort. I believe this would be the classic instinctive protection as mentioned in the USSF ATR. I see NO possible DH call given the ATR instrucions. In this situation there is TIME to move out of the way or let the ball bounce. I think many referee's will consider this as DH despite the player not trying to direct or control the ball. I also think some referees will allow the younger players more leeway as their skill and fear factor are at much different levels. There is no justification not to give a DH in this incident as the player is PLAYING the ball by running her body into the ball using her arms to direct the ball. At any age I see this as DH Again this would fall under the classic ATR advice of protective reflex. I do not believe I could award a DH call at any level In youth a fearfull player protecting her face should not the arms be in front of the face? The elbow poking out some 12 inches away from the head were not there when the ball was shot. If we decide that intent was not a factor simply fear that a ball might have hit her. Is this accidental? This incident bothers me in that I can not feel comfortable seeing the goal denied even though I feel certain she did not intend to deny it. Does the deliberate portion of not trying to play the ball and no control makes this a no call? Or are we looking at a DFK or PK and possibly a red card for DOGSO??? Protection ok but not if it makes you quote "bigger"?? Again I feel the youth is more likely to not be called but admittedly feel contrived at placing a different standard of deliberatness The player is ducking if we asume to avoid the ball and by covering the face not seeing it impact on the top of the head covered with the hands. Not deliberately played although deliberately ducked down and placed the arms in an unneeded position?? A lobbed ball should permit time for choice I might cut younger ones slack but not older. Although an older group is not likely to do so. Classic protective stance ok at any level. The ball is not in play and the arms have not moved into the path of the ball. Saw this last week, WAll was set, the fake kick and pass to the outside. Defender in classic stance broke and followed the ball and then reassumed the protective arms into position as the shot was taken. So the arms were deliberately raised back into crotch and face protection mode after the ball was in play. I personally felt no foul as AR but the referee in that match awarded a DFk. I felt it harsh. But the age level was adult.
Personally, I would be extremely hesitant to eject a player in a U-14 or under game. But if the situation were right, obviously... I try not to lecture, I just let them know how I call it, since it's a bit of a judgment call. My check-in takes no more than a minute and a half, though I am considering doing the walking check-in.
Re: Thanks for the input I saw this last night for the first time. During the run of play, attacking player coming up the flank and as he is preparing to cross, the defender put one hand on his crotch has he stretched his leg out to deflect the cross and also raised his arm so it was vertically in front of his face. The ball didn't hit him, so I didn't have to make the call. However, I talked to him after the game. I told him that a) he better make sure that the arm gets there WELL before the ball is struck so that the referee has ample time to see that the ball played the arm and not the arm playing ball and b) be prepared to get it called anyway by some referees. He was standing just inside the penalty area when this happened and it just seems like asking for trouble to me. No matter what is right or wrong, some referees are going to call this handling and award the penalty kick.
What was explained to me was that, no matter the age, if you are simply protecting yourself but do not do anything to handle the ball after the act of protection, then their was no handling. For instance, a woman crossing her arms over her chest to protect her chest can be held equivalent to them men creating the wall and using their hands to protect themselves. It is not being done to handle the ball, but to protect the player...
Kev, You disagreed with my inclusion of advantage into my consideration whether or not I would call handling against a player use her hands or arm to protect herself. I knew this would come up. So let me try to justify myself. First let me say that I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with the FACT that advantage has nothing to do with whether a handling violation has occured. However, in my mind, the way I process the situation in which a player uses hands/arms for self protection, a foul has already occured (i.e. a deliberate play on the ball with the hand). I am now making the decision whether to excuse the action based on self-protection. I find it inherently unfair that if a player commits a technical handling violation, and gains an advantage, that player escapes punishment. Finally, let me clarify. The elements I listed in deciding whether or not to excuse the handling based on self-protection are all considered together. It is not a checklist it is simply a list of considerations that are all taken in together. The existence of one on its own may not provide sufficient motivation for me to allow the action, yet on the other hand it may. It is entirely situational. Paul
advance decisions Your predetermined analysis of handling offences may work well for you, and are not particularly distressing in any particular. I don't think they are completely in accord with the USSF position, though. A defensive move, for personal protection, is simply that. An analysis of the position of the elbow is not called for by the relevant authority. I can certainly see where an elbow dipped to intercept the ball would be a foul, but I would not automatically assume elbow/ ball/ foul. Additionally, the advantage determination would be about the non-handling attackers, and not an element of finding the existence of handling itself, as I understand the pattern we are to look for. In some ways, I miss the no-mind ball touched arm automatic call, but at the ages I ref, the game moves much more smoothly without those stoppages. Even though everyone stops because the parents scream "handball", and the dutiful children don't wish to offend. One can get hoarse yelling "play! play!" in those situations. Regards.
I understand now where you were saying that advantage comes into your criteria. However, I would question whether a technical handling violation has occurred if the player is instinctually protecting themselves.
Paul, I think your problem here is that shared by so many of us who started out officiating gotchaball before we learned to officiated the game of soccer. Relax, don't look for non-fouls and then try to find mitigating cirsumstances not to call them. Give the players a little credit. Enjoy the game and should a legitimate foul come along, have the guts to call it, but don't make up your own fake fouls and then find excuses not to do your job. You will give yourself a nervous breakdown approaching the game that way. Sherman