Early on always talking to set your expectations for the match. I will always be telling a team to backup. Don't care how slow. Get the message out early that I don't want to see the immediate purposeful running up to block a restart. Yes age and level matters. Educate the young/ not knowing. Teach the inevitable asshole each game who says "he has to ask for 10" I'll say to older players "I don't expect you to know how far is 10 yards, but I know you know when you are purposely not 10 yards" The player/former coach in me is often frustrated with the teams that are never taught to get on with the game quick, even if a player is still in the space.
By "intentionally stands" do you mean: comes from >X yards away to adopt X position at (<5; 5-8) yards or is already at X position when play stops and then kind of doesn't move from there? But yeah age matters. U10 games have so many traffic-management issues that this is largely just another one. U15s who should know better...should know better. I'd have to see/do something to be sure what I'd tell you (!) but in general: If an older kid *comes to* <5yds, that's a card. If they *come to* 5-8 yds, especially closer to 8, they might get a bark to move it depending on temperature and previous shenanigans in this regard. If they *are already* there, but not advancing, I'm pretty likely to gauge what the kicker is (not) doing before barking them back. If the kicker is negotiating the taker of the kick or whatever I may brush the defender back silently and give hairy eyeball. Younger kids who don't puncture the ball with their cleats I'm going to manage verbally in very many of the cases.
I'm thinking more of people who hop in the way than people who aren't retreating quite as quickly as I'd like. I had a game -- I want to say it was U-10 -- where the kids would literally go stand in front of the ball because the coach told them to. I should've found a reason to give the coach a yellow card.
HSBV State quarter final last week. With about 10 seconds to go in the first half, defense (blue) commits a foul about 25 yards out. Several defenders are maybe 7 yards away from the spot. They don't move up toward the ball, but they don't exactly back up quickly, either. Not enough to card anyone. Should I stop the clock anyway? Nah. I tell the guy taking the free kick "If I have to back them up, you'll run out of time." He blasts the ball into the defenders, it goes out for a throw in, and the half runs out. Attacker's coach is apoplectic. "You needed to stop the clock there!" "Why, coach? Would I stop the clock for a free kick at any other time if the defenders aren't standing on the ball, aren't moving up, but are just *there*?" "You have the stop the clock there" (over and over). "Coach, since we're not going to have a fruitful conversation, we can end it here and you can coach your team at halftime. But before you go, we can't have this kind of behavior in a HS game. I must caution you for dissent." <blah blah Oh, now you're cautioning *me* blah blah blah> Late second half, blue is ahead 2-1, we're counting down the final 10 seconds, and blue commits a foul. This time, blue defender moves up on the ball to slow the free kick. Stop the clock, issue the caution, loudly say that moving up on the ball is unacceptable there, reset the clock to the point where I stopped it, make sure the timer knows to start the clock on the kick, not on my whistle. Free kick goes nowhere, game ends. No, I didn't talk to the cautioned coach after the game. He was busy. Oh, and earlier in the first half, blue's coach was yelling about something stupid. When the ball went out, I stopped the clock to go chat with him, explaining what I saw and why it wasn't what he thought. Then I told him I was cautioning him for dissent. "But Why?" "This is a scholastic match. If this were the classroom, and you disagreed with the teacher, if you got up on your chair and started yelling your displeasure, would there be consequences?" "Fair enough." The only other grumbling I heard from him was fairly low key, and only when I was right in front of the bench. So both coaches got D cautions. So goes the HS playoffs.
When this happens in one of my games, I will usually announce VERY loudly, that we are not doing this in this game. Everyone knows it is 10 yds and I will card the next one who does it". That usually solves the problem. If not, someone gets a card and THAT solves the problem.
Exhibit 10,349 about the ignorance of parents . . . I referee the same team on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. Saturday - Opponent plays the ball into his hand which is right next to his side. I call out "play, that's unintentional!" Team's parent says, "The ball hit his hand. I cannot believe the referee wouldn't call it." Sunday - This time, the team's player plays the ball into his arm which is a) above his head and b) coming down onto the ball. I call the obvious handling, which the player easily accepts. In fact, he said "Yep, I hit it." Parents come unglued. "You didn't call that yesterday! How can you call it today! Come on, be consistent!" and so on. Next dead ball, I'm in front of the parents, so I explain to the captain loudly enough for the parents to hear why yesterday wasn't a handling and today was. One parent - "Now he's trying to explain it. He has no idea what he's talking about!" even though the captain clearly says, "Yes, I get it. Makes sense." Parents are really, really dumb sometimes.
I was playing on Friday night, not reffing, when a defender on the opposing team tried to volley/clear a ball from the PA and kicked the ball directly into his arm (which was in a normal playing position for balance). Game was officiated in two man system, and neither referee had a clear view. Had to explain to my teammates that this is something written into the LOTG as not a handball, so even if the refs had seen it, they shouldn't have called it. "But it hit his hand..."
I think in many ways the tinkering over the last few years has made it harder on refs. "Not deliberate" is pretty simple (and still what I say to players), but all the noise about other kinds of handball offenses is making it harder to have consistency and confusing people more than they already were.
I have taken to not saying a thing about handling to anyone. In my experience, it only complicates the matter in real time. If someone wants an explanation later, I will give it. And, if a coach screams at me across the field about it, I will issue a yellow card.
I think it makes it harder on everyone. Let's be honest, players and spectators don't learn the rules from the LOTG. They learn the rules (or think they do) by watching and playing games. "Not deliberate" is the type of "rule" that can be learned through experience. Can you imagine trying to learn the rules for handball now through trial and error? Even the conversation with my teammates was ridiculous: "Well, his arm was raised, but it wasn't deliberate and he kicked the ball into his own hand so it's ok!" And players and spectators are trying to learn the rule based on our enforcement... it's way too complicated.
But that's not even a factor anymore . . . outside the goal scorer exception, the sole two criteria are deliberate and unnaturally bigger. But it kinda makes the point: even those of religious in trying to keep up have trouble using the right language when it changes every year. This year is literally the fourth version of handling we've had in 4 years--no wonder its hard for people to keep up.
You're right, that provision is not there anymore! I guess that is now part of whether the arm position is justifiable for the action the player is taking. There have been way too many changes, but at least the latest round is a simplification, which is an improvement.
Indeed--I would argue that, other than the goal scoring exception, we are in practical terms back where we were before they started tinkering--the difference is that biggering is now written into Law 12 rather than being taught as an action for which handling should be considered deliberate.
Officially the accidental attacker handball is gone outside of the person scoring directly. In practically the game still expects them to be called and it was removed for VAR reasons. If the ball hits the attackers arm near the penalty area then call it. Your games will go smoother.
The message that was given to us at our state recert meeting when they first introduced "handball" was that it was intended to apply to attacks. This year's recert was online, and basically the only comment on handball was that it was a "simplification". Nothing on US soccer specific interpretations, like whether the attack-oriented handball interpretation still stands. It would be nice if they wrote these things down or something for us mere grassroots mortals...
This NISOA video is probably the best up-to-date video on handball you're going to find. It's led by Corey Rockwell and it's based on FIFAs latest considerations.
Thanks for sharing. Apparently I have no idea what a handball is. It's also pretty crazy that the majority of the time is spent talking about considerations, and then the final comment of the presentation seems to be "Forget about the considerations and just call handballs in the attacking half" to "manage risk" for the last three examples. I wonder why everyone is so confused.
I hear you, but we ref a sport that has a lot of "what the game expects" and in the end not letting attackers gain control of the ball with their hand in the attacking third is an easy call that does what everyone expects and makes our job easier. Until the culture of football changes with stuff like this, I'll make my life easier and call them. It's not much different then how I'm supposed to give a red card for any foul language in HS games in my state. But in the end, me giving a red card in the 10th minute for a quiet f bomb when a guy skies a shot makes me the enemy for the next 70 minutes and makes my job a lot harder. The problem is an ejection in soccer is a lot different then an ejection in basketball, baseball, or football. You get to replace the player and it doesn't drastially impact the outcome of the match.
I think there is also a bit of a level of play issue here. The higher the level of the game, the more I think the heavy default (I wouldn't go so far as absolute) towards calling handball in the attacking third makes sense. Back in the day USSF had a memo that has some considerations on identifying handling, and one of the them was the convenience of how a ball lands--not because that makes it an offense in a vacuum, but because it can be a clue to whether there was something deliberate in the action. I think the same can apply here--and more so at advanced levels where players have the skill level to be sneaky. But in a lower level game, I'm not going to call a clearly inadvertant ball/arm contact just because it's in the attacking third (but doubt is going to go towards an offense). This is partially true but a bit of an overstatement depending on context. If you eject the starting pitcher in the first inning in drastically impacts. If you toss the best scorer on a basketball team or the quarterback on the football team, it drastically impacts. (But I don't disagree with you on your specific example--I definitely choose not to hear certain things on a field. At the same time, I fear the "oh it's too drastic, we want to finish with 11!" mindset has gone too far and is having a negative impact at the top level of the game that is trickling down, too.)