I know this gets talked about and has been talked about, but after seeing this posted in the TH ManU game thread regarding the two common refereeing myths: I thought that the conclusion to the US-Germany debate was that it was not a handball due to the fact there was no clear intent. I looked at this thread where the general conclusion also seems to be "no intent, no call" as well as a link to a web page with checklist at the end: How to judge? Did the ball hit the hand? No whistle Was it an instinctive, reflexive reaction? No call. Protecting vital body parts? No call. Was it just an aimless, bouncing ball? Nothing then. Accident? No call. No fault? No call. Not on purpose? No call. Did hand hit ball? Rare. But it might happen. If, in the opinion of the referee, it was deliberate, then, and only then make the call. So is Alberto's post in contradiction with this?
One thing I read in a book was if the players arm is in some un-natural position (out to their sides, above their heads) and it hits their arm, it is handling the ball and should be called. In this case, there is no specific intent to play the ball, but it is called. The rest of your "if then" statements seem accurate.
Perhaps you are confused. Where am I contradicting what was discussed at the time of of the Frings incident in the world cup with what I wrote. No intent to play the ball, you play on. To clarify, in matches everyone asks for a handball to be called regardless of whether it was accidental or unintentional. That is what I meant.
Re: Re: Handball and Intent I got ball first is one of the myths that exists in football, the handball call where there must be intent to play the ball with the hand otherwise play on! I took this to mean that "there must be intent to play the ball" is another myth.
Re: Re: Re: Handball and Intent Ref Flunkie has got it right. An un-natural position of the arm or hand for that player is a good way to judge a handling call. Intent has nothing to do with it, whether there was intent or not. Most handling is done by the un-natural movement the rest will be deliberate and obvious. Most calls are not correct because the ball will strike the hand and arm, usually at close range off a kick or rough ground.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Handball and Intent I think I got that out of "For the Good of the Game", which I thought was a darn good book. I still find myself calling handlings when I probably shouldn't. It's a hard thing to get out of your system.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Handball and Intent yes a god book but nothing like personal experience. Leran to slow your signals down. Including your whistles. It helps you become more relaxed and confident (at least in appearance). And, you have that extra millisecond to think about what you saw and how it fits into that particular game. Handleing is no exception.