Eskandarian's Handball?

Discussion in 'D.C. United' started by Allan Quatermain, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. Allan Quatermain

    Oct 23, 2001
    The Lost City of Gol
    Club:
    DC United
    I was at the game, and sitting behind the other goal at the far end of the field from where the play occurred. I didn't get a good view. Everyone I have spoken with since said, "Oh, it was an obvious handball and we really got away with one there." So i was inclined to believe that and to think we got lucky.

    But I just watched the MLSNet replays and ... I don't think it should have been whistled. I think the no call was the right call.

    Eski never moved his arm to block anything. His arm was in the same spot it had been before the defender kicked. Yes, the ball (a split second later) went directly off his arm, but that is the sort of incidental contact that doesn't -- and shouldn't -- get called. It's play-on all the way. The fact that we got an extremely fortuitous bounce was nice. But the goal wasn't caused by a lucky bounce, nor by a lucky non-call. It was caused by ceaseless pressure from our striker, who was charging and putting pressure on the defense.

    And you know what's funny? That's how we got our second goal at Foxboro in 1999. Lassiter charged Hartman, who made a terrible clearance to Ben Olsen who knocked it in right before the half (in MLS's very ever first extra time segment)

    What do others think?

    Also, what's up with 6 minutes of second half extra time?
     
  2. Detective40oz

    Detective40oz Member

    Jun 16, 2000
    Fairfax, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    I think we should just let it die and enjoy our cup win :) But you all are more than welcome to battle it out for the next week.
     
  3. gnat

    gnat New Member

    Oct 1, 2003
    There doesn't have to be intent to call it. Now if he had called it and then carded/ejected Eski, we could have something to complain about.

    What I don't get is how that linesman couldn't see Eski's handball when it was just him and the defender, but he saw through everyone to see Dema's handball (not disputing the Dema incident). :confused:

    Quite frankly, I think KC got jobbed on Eski's but sadly that kinda stuff happens far to frequently in MLS :(

    I'm glad we won, but it would have been nice to have a game (like the EC final with NE) where neither side has anything to complain about since they left it all on the field.

    -dave
     
  4. Lanky134

    Lanky134 New Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    134, 3, 6
    I believe the ref can decide that if a player gains an advantage as the result of a ball striking the hand, it can be whistled regardless of intent. That said, the whole situation could've been avoided if Conrad had looked up and seen Esky charging at him.
     
  5. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    From an old Washington Post article ...
    That Gansler is a wise man.
     
  6. scarshins

    scarshins Member

    Jun 13, 2000
    fcva
    Actually in the Laws as written there must be intent.

    That said, that is called as a handball everywhere in the world, if the ref sees it :eek:
     
  7. BudWiser

    BudWiser New Member

    Jul 17, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
    Look, KC got a questionable handball and red card call on Dema. Got a goal and were up a man for the last 30 minutes

    So I think it evens out. We won the game fair and square, enjoy it like we deserved it.

    Just don't ask me about the non-call regarding Earnie's offsides in Game 1 vs the MetroPuke :D
     
  8. MikeLastort2

    MikeLastort2 Member

    Mar 28, 2002
    Takoma Park, MD
    The PK and Dema's red card were completely justified. Hell, Dema knew it himself. He turned around and tried to get the fans behind the goal to keep quiet about it since the center ref missed it.
     
  9. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3617635&postcount=124

    You're completely wrong.

    1. Intent (actually "deliberate") is ALL that matters.
    2. Advantage does NOT matter.

    IMO, it was handling because Esky's arm was not in a natural position. But if the ref saw it and decided otherwise it wasn't the worst call of all time.
     
  10. BudWiser

    BudWiser New Member

    Jul 17, 2000
    Falls Church, VA
    Come to think of it..........

    MIKE YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! :)
     
  11. GrillMaster

    GrillMaster Member

    Aug 31, 2000
    Alexandria, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Completely disagree because Wolff fouled Rimando before the whistled foul. Undercutting & pushing Rimando caused his punch to miss and allowed the ball to stay in the area for the put-back.

    So if we are playing woulda-shoulda-coulda you've got to take that into consideration. Just look at the tape. Wolff made no attempt to play the ball. His only play was to undercut Nick and slightly push the airborne Rimando with a right backhand.

    GM
     
  12. dc1955

    dc1955 New Member

    Jul 10, 2003
    This is play has been bothering me because of Wynalda’s comments during the game. He stated that the center ref was basically out of position to make this call. He and his partner both announced that this was clearly a “hand ball”. I don’t think that this was necessarily a missed call.

    I went to the “Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game” which presents the “official USSF interpretations of the Laws of the Game”. The following is their thinking on handling the ball:

    "12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
    The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. 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. Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.)."


    If you look at the replay, you can see that Esky had his head turned prior to defender volleying the ball. His hand instinctively came up to protect his head. The ball hit his arm. I would rule it accidental contact and allow play to continue.

    Here is a link to the referenced document: http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/Advice2003.pdf.
     
  13. KMJvet

    KMJvet Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 26, 2001
    Quake Country
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Bullpucky...he played the ball with his hand, on purpose, to improve his chances of the ball landing in place that allows him to beat his defender. He violated the laws of the game in hopes he could get away with it, which he did.

    -KMJvet
     
  14. greatscott

    greatscott Member+

    Dec 21, 2002
    Richmond
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    regardless of whether i am a DC fan or not, this statement is nonsense.

    neither of us can prove whether or not he handled it on purpose, but all i know is that the times i have seen it on the replay, he sees the ball ABOUT TO BE KICKED, turns his head and brings his arm in front of his face.
    personally, i would not like to have a ball kicked my a professional defender hit me in the face.

    needless to say it didnt get called. and thats all that matters

    dc wins.
     
  15. Sundevil9

    Sundevil9 New Member

    Nov 23, 1999
    Reston, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    If he played the ball on purpose, it would have been with an open hand or something he could control the ball with. A forearm or a closed fist is hardly a first choice way of moving the ball.

    He did put his body in Conrad's way in an effort to try and cut off as many trajectories as possible. Eski's arm was in a fairly normal location.

    Now if it had been called, I wouldn't have complained. It really could have gone either way. I just don't think he put his arm up with that kind of intention.
     
  16. KMJvet

    KMJvet Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 26, 2001
    Quake Country
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "Can't prove" is why this is one of the fatally flawed laws of the game. Refs can't read minds. But as a someone not rooting for anyone, it didn't look like the subconscious part of his brain did that for him....and what he did with the ball after playing it to the ground speaks volumes.
    JMO.

    -KMJvet
     
  17. Sandon Mibut

    Sandon Mibut Member+

    Feb 13, 2001
    Classy, too.
     
  18. greatscott

    greatscott Member+

    Dec 21, 2002
    Richmond
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    what would anyone do? a ball just hit them going 150mph and bouces into the open.. would you just go, "here you go, you can get that ball".
    no youre going to take the ball and do your job, put it in the net.
     
  19. shawn12011

    shawn12011 Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Reisterstown, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Learn the rule. There was no intent. That play is no different that a player who has the ball hit his arm while it is covering his "private parts" while standing in a wall. Here is a little rule of thumb so you can rememeber next time. If his arm is within the framework of his body no handball.
     
  20. dc1955

    dc1955 New Member

    Jul 10, 2003
    Volumes indeed. Esky is a world class finisher. That's probably why the defender panicked and drilled the clearance into an onrushing attacker. Pure bullpucky.
     
  21. Arisrules

    Arisrules Member

    Feb 19, 2000
    Washington, DC
    I don't understand why this is being debated. Obviously a handball. Lucky bounce (DC had two lucky bounces that day...guess it was yours to win...) and a classy finish from Eski.


    However, Gansler is spot on in what he says.
     
  22. dc1955

    dc1955 New Member

    Jul 10, 2003
    Yes, he said it wasn't a hand ball.
     
  23. Lanky134

    Lanky134 New Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    134, 3, 6
    But apparently you can. Can you guess what I'm thinking now?

    Not at all. The ball fell a few steps in front of him with a clear line to goal while Conrad threw his hand up in the air. Esky's an opportunistic predator. That's why he's here, to quote Jack Edwards.
     
  24. KMJvet

    KMJvet Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 26, 2001
    Quake Country
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Intent is a judgement of the watcher. The DCU fans are judging him with the benefit of the doubt. I'm not. It didn't look to me like someone acting reflexively, ie coordinated by one's brainstem and without cerebral cortical involvement. And when refs can't judge intent for sure, they'll err on the side of assuming intent unless they're Hugh Dallas expecting Germany to win. Michael Kennedy didn't see it.
    Standing in a wall is specifically spelled out in those interpretations quoted earlier in the thread. This wasn't a set piece so it has to be reflex or there's intent. Didn't look reflexive to me, sorry.

    -KMJvet
     
  25. DixieDean

    DixieDean New Member

    Jun 4, 2004
    Nassau, Bahamas
    If Bo had simply stopped the shot this would all be irrelevent wouldn't it? World class finish. Eski is the best young american forward in MLS.
     

Share This Page