There's a thread about Dallas getting awarded the MBE, and of course, someone had to bring up the Hand of Frings. And, of course, someone had to bring up the Hand of JOB. (SIDE NOTE: Is the "Hand of X" construct passe`? I mean, it was hilarious with Diego Maradona because it's a play on words en Espanol.) I don't remember how it came up, I think in response to someone (probably me) chiming in with the opinion that Dallas might have choked under the pressure of having to eject Frings for DOGSO if he gave the penalty, but another poster made the same claim for JOB's play. And a 2nd poster supported the same notion. What was it that Supreme Court Justice said? I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. Well, I know that if you give the PK in Frings' case, that's a red card, but if you give the PK for O'Brien, that's not. I tried to explain the difference. Can you help me come up with a concise way to put it? I'm thinking of going back and saying, O'Brien's play is not DOGSO because a) no Mexican had possession, so it's not like bringing down an attacker on a breakaway and b) the ball had no chance of going in without being touched again, so it's not like Frings' play. A corner kick isn't an obvious goal scoring situation, and if you don't believe me, look up the stats on the percentage of corners that result in goals. Thoughts?
I'm no referee, but I'd like to throw some thoughts out there. I agree with superdave's overall take of the different situations. First of all, I think Dallas hid behind the literal reading of the law, b/c he either didn't see it, or didn't have the cajones to make the big call. But I don't know what he saw or thought, just as he could not have known what Frings was thinking. I think when you talk about intent in this situation, you have to consider whether the player had the time to avoid handling the ball. We've all seen the sharply hit crosses and shots that hit outstreched hands of defenders before there is any time for them to pull them out of the path of the ball. I think most can agree that these are non-calls. We've also seen the same situation, but the defender stiffens his arm or wrist at the moment he realizes that the ball will make contact with it, hoping to get non-call described above. I think most can agree that this is a hand ball. Looking at the Frings play, we have a situation where his arm was away from his body, but not by much. It looked to me like it was just there for balance, not to make himself bigger. What I found interesting was that the shot from Berhalter, although it came upon Frings's hand very quickly, was not struck so sharply that it could have been avoided. I remember watching that play over and over and noticing how Frings just turned his head as he watched the ball hit his arm. It would be interesting to watch the replay again to see if his shoulders turned to the left, while his left arm stayed put on the goal line. This would prove intent. I think that this play falls just in between the two situations I described above, b/c you can't really tell whether he stiffened his arm or intentionally kept it there, but you get the feeling that he could have moved it if he really wanted to. I think that you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team in this situation, and assume intent unless you can prove otherwise. Verdict: Red card to Frings for handing ball on goal line intentionally, and PK, even though it may not have been intentional.
In the case of Hand of JOB, I think a yellow card and PK would have been the best call, and a red card would have been harsh, but not completely unreasonable. I think the best proof of there being no intention is the fact that he punched the ball 15-20 feet in the air. Even Maradona sheilded his hand with head, to make it look as though it struck his head. The other clue that there was no intention was that, although the US was in a potentially dangerous situation with the ball entering "the mixer" at the six-yard box, they were not in a desperate situation of the ball crossing the line. He should not have had his hand up there, and did gain an advantage by doing so, and that is the reason for the yellow and PK. I have seen the arguement that the handball rule should be applied the same, no matter if the ball is crossing the goal line or at midfield. Let me respond to this by making one point: If we are going to play God and determine intent of players handling the ball, then we must use the location and other obvious factors as reasonable evidence in determining such intent.
If the referee judged the Frings play to be handling it would have to be a red because he prevented the ball from crossing the goal line between the posts. That's text book. On the JOB play, if the referee saw it, there's no sendoff IMO. The difference is that the ball wasn't going directly into the goal off the corner and he handled the ball before it could be played toward the goal by another attacker. I don't think you can defend a sendoff if the ball if traveling parrallel to the goal line, plus there were a number of players between the Mexican player who could have headed the ball and the goal. JOB would deserve a yellow for sure, but not red. While the JOB play is more cynnical, I'd equate this more to a tactical handball at midfield to break up a developing attack. I think a philosophical arguement could be made to send off JOB, but I don't think it could be justified under the laws. As far as Dallas' call, I never had a problem with it. We're taught to evaluate as to whether we think the hand played the ball or if the ball played the hand. Frings definitely gained and advantage, and I'm sure that if that were a US player on his goal line in a qualifier in Central America that the whistle would have been blown, but that's life. The US had three other 10 bell chances in that game and missed. The evaluation above is asking the referee to read way too much into the incident in a split second. Gaining an advantage does not qualify hand contact as a foul, and it's very hard to read subtle body language in a split second.
I think you misunderstood part of my post. I used the example of the replay to illustrate just how impossible it can be to determine the intent of the player. It is for this reason that the importance of the ball crossing the line must be considered in the referee's determination, or rather, speculation of intent. When a ref is completely baffled as to whether a foul has been committed or not, a 50/50 call, so to speak, most will opt to take the conservative route, and let play continue. But when the only thing keeping a ball from crossing the line is the hand of the defender, a no-call is hardly conservative. It is, in actuality, taking a goal away from the attacking team out of indecision of the ref. This is where the location of the incident must be considered. The intent of the defender must be assumed, despite the lack of evidence to prove it. In other words, the lack of exonerating evidence is enough to assume intent.
Holy cow people! Where were you during the WC? JOB did not DELIBERATELY HANDLE the ball! An attacker jumped up and forced his arm into the air. There was no intent to play the ball. It was an accident. Period. If you think we need to start awarding game winning PKs for accidents that players cant help........Im glad you werent the referee for that match.
Neither JOB or Frings were trying to handle the ball. JOB's arm was pushed into the ball by a defender. Frings hand was in a natural position when the ball deflected off Kahn into him. Both were good non-calls because their was no intent. At least that was the way both refs called it.
Look, I'm not an idiot. If I saw what happened at game speed, I'd probably award a pk. The only reason we can say that JOB's hand was pushed into the ball was because we have the benefit multiple super slow-mo replays and we can deduce this by isolating frames. At full speed, it's probably going to look intentional because there's no way a normal human can see all of the small details in a fraction of a second. The only thing, IMO, going in JOB's favor regarding intent is the sheer stupidity of trying to delibrately getting away with that in a 1-0 game in a WC quarterfinal. Considering that, he can get the benefit of doubt. However, pro players are sophisticated enough to understand where the referee is and how to use the referee's position to the player's advantage.
It's a shame really that all of the World Cup analysis threads were lost in the first great crash. There was a lot of discussion about the JOB and Fring's incidents. In the Frings case I think it was a good no call. I couldn't read any intent on Frings part. In the JOB case, I agree with Bill, at regular speed, I would have called a penalty. Thankfully Pereira made a good no-call, but I agree there was no way you could see it unless you had benefit of super slow motion replay.
How do you read intent in Frings' handling? Is it based upon whether he moves his hand toward the ball? In the JOB case, you have to decide whether he hit the ball on purpose. In the Frings case, don't you have to determine whether he deliberately let the ball hit his hand? Most of the announcers quoted the "hand playing the ball vs the ball playing the hand" like it was a charging foul in basketball because the hand had position. I would think (feel free to correct me, I'm no ref) that you would have to determine whether he had the opportunity to avoid contact, and whether he tried to do so by moving his hand from the ball's path. Clearly he made no attempt to move his hand, so I would think it comes down to a determination of whether he had time to react.
It's interesting that you bring this interpretation up because a referee friend of mine posed this question to Fifa referee. The Fifa referee thought it was a good point, but is generally counter to what we're taught as referees. Basically, it's up to the referee though. To be honest, I don't think anyone on either side of the incident with Frings would have complained loudly had a PK been awarded. After seeing the replay though, I knew exactly why the referee would have made that decision if he saw it. My feeling is that if a referee judges a situation using the criteria you described and can clearly defend it, then that's okay. We're taught the ball to hand or hand to ball idea as a test because it's impossible to read a player's mind.
Actually.......this is basic deliberate handling evaluation. ie Did the play take reasonable caution with the placement of his arms or make a reasonable attempt to keep from handling the ball. Neither applied in this case.
Xavier v. Frings I was curious what the referees thought of the handball call on Abel Xavier in Euro 2000. It seemed to be a similar situation to the Frings non-call in that the ball played the hand, etc... Did he get a red card as well?
I watched that game on TV 2 1/2 years ago. As I remember it, it was a close call on the goal line at about the six yard area. Abel was defending and the attacker shot/ passed the ball near the goal line hitting Abel's hand. The CR ruled that it was a handball and awarded a game ending PK in OT. Abel and others were cautioned and redcarded for dissent and ref abuse. I thought the call was at best close, but recall never getting a very good angle of the call. I heard the game in German which I know only minimally, so I didn't understand the commentary very well. From what I recall, I thought a corner should have been awarded. It reminded me of Berhalter's handball in Costa Rica(or Guatamala) in terms of closeness of call, lack of good replay angle, proximity to the goal line, and game timing.
The big controversy around that call was that the AR, not the CR, initially flagged the foul. Xavier's arm was extended from his body as he challenged for the ball. Was it intentionally left in that position or did the ball strike a natural playing position? That's where the subjectivity comes into the call (and where it stands on Fringes call as well). Personally, I thinkt he ball played Fringes, no foul. I'm not so sure on Xavier's. However, as a CR, I would not want my AR making that call (in OT of a EURO semifinal) unless he was nearly 100% sure, and I can't see how he would be so certain. For what it's worth, though, that particular AR (of Slovakia) was backed by UEFA, and has continued to receive the highest appointments (UCL, WC02, ConfedCup 01, etc.) I wouldn't go this far. The ball struck Berhalter's face in Costa Rica while his arms were at his sides. The handling call was completely fabricated. In Xavier's case, all replays clearly show ball/hand contact. There is no disputing that contact occurred, the question is whether or not it was intentional and warranted a penalty.
I was about to say that almost across the board, you can say that any player will not intentionally handle the ball in overtime of a final. But then I thought about the fact that he IS Portuguese, a team who managed to get two players thrown out in a win-or-go-home match in the World Cup. But anyway, so you are saying there is really no difference in the two calls; both were simply open to interpretation?
With the joke about the foolishness of Portuguese players in big-match situations aside, I understand your point. However, I think that some people read too much into the words 'intentional' or, more accurately, 'deliberate'. I think too many people equate 'deliberate handling' (which is the wording of what constitutes a handling foul) with 'premediated handling'. Barring the rare situations where a player clearly chooses to handle the ball to stop a goal or a player going to head a ball on goal, there are really no instances where a high-level professional (or even an amateur or experienced youth player) concienscely chooses to handle the ball in the area and give away a penalty. Still, there are deliberate handling fouls. In Xavier's case, in the heat of the moment, as he came across the goal line to challenge the cross, he might have chosen (conscientiously or subconscientiously) to leave his arm extended. Was he going into the challenge thinking "I'm going to extend my arm and make sure I give France a matchwinning penalty?" Of course not. That's why it's not premediated. However, if the heat of the moment, players act. When their actions result in their handling of the bal, rather than the ball handling them, the foul is deliberate and is a penalty. Absolutely. All fouls, not just handling, are open to interpretation. I'll be honest, at first glance (when I saw them live) I probably would have called the Fringes incident a penalty and not called the Xavier incident. On replay, I'm sure I was wrong with Fringes--I'm not so sure about Xavier.
What would have been a better way to make my opinion about the entire Fringes Hand Ball on the goal line incident if he would have gone to discuss with the one of his assistants if he had a better angle of the situation. If Hugh Dallas would have asked his assistant if he had a better view of the supposed hand ball, then I would have accepted it alot better. Still some of you guys made a good point. Our boys had their opportunities to level up the score. Sanneh's header could have done it if he headed past the inside of the post. Great ball by Mathis, but unfortunatly Sanneh missed. My feeling is that if the Referee didn't have a good look at the situation and the Linesman/assistant did or can help the referee then that's what should have happened. Not saying the Ref should do this all the time, but only if he wasn't in a great angle to call the foul, or not to call the foul. Because Hugh Dallas was running into the situation after the hand ball, he just ran towards Kahn, grabbed it and placed it on the corner of the 6 yd box and told everyone to go. He told everyone to go and that was the end of it. How the situation was handled by Mr Dallas was very upseting to me. But still our boys proved to the World that we can play football. And that is that.
On Frings handball, the AR should have been on the goal line with the post between himself and the hand and the ball. There was no flag and no immediate stoppage of play. When and why was Mr. Dallas to have conferred with the AR?
He's right. The AR could have only helped with whether or not the ball crossed the goal line. And, if it had, he would have made a signal. For that matter, if he had any information about handlingl, he would have signalled. Remember, all ARs have beeper flags, they can electronically call the referee over at any time. That particular AR was Philip Sharp of England. In that very game, he called Dallas over for a conference by electronic means (about the Reyna incident). Dallas knew he had no reason to go to Sharp, because if Sharp had info, he would have signalled Dallas. Also, remember it was Fringes right arm that had contact with the ball. That mean Fringes entire body was between Sharp and the ball. Plus, there's the post and the other German defender on the near post. There's just no physical possibility that Sharp had a look at the incident.
That's why I think Dallas never really saw it. Because in real time, there's not a person on the planet who was watching the game who didn't think it was a hand ball. And for those who think, "Just drop it, it's over." We didn't lose that game because Dallas may have blown a call. We lost because we scored zero goals. I'm more upset with how he handled the whole game. I remember that he was given a good review by the refs here, but I don't think he treated the U.S. players with the respect they deserved. There is one incident that I clearly remember: Tony Sanneh was running down his sideline going for the ball. IIRC, it was Ballack who came and tackled him from behind, which I thought was a clear foul. Dallas came running over and I was sure that he was going to give Ballack a good talking to. He did 'talk' to Ballack and then turned around to Sanneh and sternly told him whatever it is he told him. I'm still not sure what it was that Sanneh did, but it was typical of the entire game. I'm sure Eddie Lewis and Berhalter feel the same way.
It was Frings' LEFT hand that contacted the ball. Sharp was continuously signaling no goal, and Dallas ran right in and grabbed the ball to position it for the restart.
I've watched this a few times and still can't figure out the restart. After the ball hit Frings there was a bit of a scramble, and Kahn eventually game up with the ball. But Dallas had stopped play, and the restart looked like a goal kick. It obviously wasn't, since the ball didn't go out of play, so the only possibility was some foul on one of the US players inside the goal area. Anyone have any idea what it might have been?