Not to go down the "English league players dont cheat" road...because they do, but there was a somewhat startling lack of gamesmanship that we've certainly seen during the modern era of Spanish dominance.
So let's dig into the PK with the new LOTG (which just to be clear didn't apply to this match). Here's the text that matters here. So under 2018/19 guidance this is clearly a case of unnatural position and therefore PK. We still have the unnatural position clause. But what about the 2nd one? The arm at or above shoulder level and the defender plays the ball with their body into the arm. The ball hit Sissokos chest and then into his bicep. How does this work with the unnatural position clause? Are we saying that if Sissokos arm was even higher then this wouldn't be a foul in next years laws? Am I missing that there seems to be a strange situation where the arm above the shoulder is punished less then the situation where the arm was up, but not at shoulder level?
My point is that the number of "normal" actions players now cannot do for fear of the ball hitting their arm/hand is bordering on the ridiculous. Pointing out an overlapping runner, which is what Sissoko was doing, is a completely normal part of playing soccer. Defenders do it all the time. He wasn't "trying to make his body bigger"...he was telling a teammate to cover an uncovered player. It's bad enough watching players try to jump high in the air with their arms glued to their sides and running around trying to defend with their arms crossed behind their backs.
Having been in the TV sports business, (Hence the ABC portion), I still have no idea why Turner got into the international soccer business. And their studio crew is like a bunch of 8th graders. Only 2 years remaining on the contract. I doubt if they will renew.
No, it’s not a “normal part of playing soccer.” It’s a thing that some players do on occasion, sure (though much less so at the professional level and not very often in the penalty area). But it’s not a normal part of soccer. And it is not necessary. Players have their voice, which achieves the alleged goal much better than a visual point. How many teammates do you think were looking for a visual clue from Sissoko on how to defend? Let’s be honest and say that—despite, yes, some players doing it—it is almost completely useless in most instances. But more to the point on refereeing matters, your post ended with “these days.” So I ask this: at what point in modern soccer history do you think this wouldn’t have been given as a penalty? Because my answer is “never.” His arm is out 90 degrees at near shoulder height. That’s a penalty 100 out of 100 times since WC1930. I don’t get the focus on or reference to “these days.” Finally, sure, Sissoko likes didn’t intend to handle the ball for a penalty 25 seconds into this match. But this is a prime example of why trying to read a player’s mind can’t be our goal. Because the slope is too slippery. Sissoko is excused here because he was “pointing to defend.” Okay. So same exact action but a player is trying to “regain his footing.” Is that now not a penalty? Or an arm goes up to a head so a player can wipe their hair from their eyes but the ball hits their elbow. We excusing that now? No, we can’t. Sissoko deliberately stuck his arm out. He made himself bigger. He stopped a cross with his hand. He gained an advantage. This was a handball no matter which standard you use. The two mitigating factors (that it was close range and off the chest/armpit first) were nowhere near enough to excuse the act. He may have done it for a dumb reason, but he took the risk and got burnt. He knew it and his teammates knew it. This wasn’t controversial or wrong.
They work independently of each other, I think. If he has made himself unnaturally bigger, penalty whether or not it his the body first. The deflection isn’t a get out of jail card. If he hasn’t made himself bigger but the arm is above shoulder level, then it’s a penalty unless it deflected. So like an aerial challenge where his arm is high, but in a natural position and it deflected off the head first... that’s not a penalty. But if there’s no deflection and the ball hits a high arm it’s a penalty, even if the position can be justified as natural. That’s what I’m reading, at least.
So that means we have situations where the arm is above the shoulder but not making yourself unnaturally bigger? The handling call that Cakir didn't call after an OFR at the world cup for example?
I'll just say two things..... First, I've seen plenty of instances where ball to armpit has not been given, and I've been watching soccer matches for close to 40 years. Second, IMHO, the biggest problem with the current laws regarding handball is the complete disregard for "intent", which for me is the crucial factor. The original purpose of the LOTG was to prevent intentional handling, i.e. hand/arm to ball. These days, 90% of all handling calls are ball to hand/arm, and the laws have been bastardized to make many natural soccer actions that as a byproduct make the body "bigger" indicative of "intent", when common sense tells you that they are not. Anybody with half an ounce of common sense knows that Sissoko did not intend to handle the ball....he was pointing at an uncovered Liverpool player and his arm was extended BEFORE the ball was even kicked. The fact that this is now considered to be "intentional handling" tells you how screwed up the hand ball rules have become. End rant.....
Part of the problem in knowing what it really means is the use of “usually.” That is descriptive, not proscriptive. I see it as taking us back to “deliberate,” and these being cues to whether something was deliberate. I think that part of Law 12 does nothing to really illuminate or to improve consistency. But it does create great fodder for arguments...
Alert: Sarcasm ahead: I'm so glad that the IFAB re-wrote the handling section to clarify handball for us. Now there won't be any discussions about interpretations.
I feel that Ken Aston wouldn't have called it. (not sure if 2019 CL final handball rules differ substantially from 50 years ago). Quoting directly from the Ken Aston website http://www.kenaston.org/ "Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area). This offence is my pet hate. Players will insist on shouting "Hand Ball" every time the ball goes anywhere near the upper body. HAND BALL MUST BE 100% DELIBERATE BEFORE IT IS PENALISED 'Ball to hand', is the well-known term used by Referees to describe an accidental hand ball. I very rarely give handballs unless it is blatantly 200% obvious that a player purposefully moves his hand towards the ball with the intention of cheating his opponents. It is immaterial if after the ball accidentally hits a player's arm or hand, it subsequently falls to that player's advantage. Not all deliberate handballs are deliberate. Pardon, have I made a typing error NO: If a ball is blasted towards a players middle bits!!!, and that player deliberately moves his hand towards the ball to deflect what could possibly be a very painful experience, then I would not penalize him for doing this - what would you do in a similar situation ? A similar occurrence sometimes happens when players in a 'Defensive Wall' protect their heads from being knocked off. If the action is done in self defense, then I will ignore it, and shout to any moaning players to "Get on with it"! As a 'rule of thumb' I also do not penalized players when an opponent has blasted the ball towards them from close range, and the ball makes contact with the hand. It is virtually impossible for a player to purposefully handle a ball with the aim to cheat his opponent, if the ball is blasted at him from 5 yards at a speed of 100 miles an hour. Again shout - "Get on with it"!!!" I would argue that the new rules reflect current application. Basically, deliberate handball is still an offence. Accidental handball can also be an offence under certain conditions. Unfortunately, I cannot understand how the qualifier "usually" without additional clearly attached situational clarification can belong in a set of rules.
Again, I think part of the problem is that making the body "unnaturally bigger" is undefined. If "arm above the shoulder" is automatically "unnaturally bigger" then the two (independent) rules are inconsistent. (On reflection, the only time I can think off when arms above the shoulders occurs 'naturally; in football is when players are trying to head the ball (think Denmark v Australia 2019).
Writing in a book or other publication (like an internet message board) that you theoretically won't call something is a lot easier than practically not calling it at a major event when it is staring you and a billion people right in the face. Also, what's the virtue of being "right" when the overwhelming majority of everyone else thinks that you're wrong? In particular, let's say the other 25 Elite UEFA referees would all call it because of their training and the expectations of the teams? How is the sole referee who bucks that trend and expectations doing anyone a service by sticking to his individual interpretation of the Laws? If Ken Aston was an Elite UEFA referee in modern times and wanted to stay as such, he would have called it. I also suspect, despite what you read there, he would have called it at WC62.
Not a ref but really enjoy this forum. I thought Skomina did an excellent job Saturday. My favorite thing was that he didn't call the "I felt contact so I'll fall down and expect the call" fouls. It was a lousy game to watch for the most part, but that was due primarily to Liverpool's negative play. The lack of flow to the game wasn't due to Skomina blowing his whistle a lot.
My reason for quoting the website of Ken Aston is a counter argument to this: Obviously, the argument is hypothetical. None of us can be certain how Ken Aston would have called this in the 1960s. I only present it as evidence that the generally accepted interpretation of the hand ball rule has changed over 50 years. Suggesting that a referee would make a different decision based on the pressure of the situation doesn't do justice to the referee. This is a straw man argument. There is no virtue in being the only referee that would interpret a situation in a particular way. I would argue that IFAB has felt the need to reword the handball offence rule because of inconsistency in how the handball rule is being interpreted across the game. Whether or not, the rewording will improve the situation is yet to be seen.
Given the amount of discussion, questions and confusion surrounding the newest of the clarifications, I would say the situation is no nearer to being improved. When the IFAB word something with 5 or 6 sub paragraphs, each with their own sub paragraphs and one has to re-read the thing many times to parse the double negatives and redundancies, then confusion is sure to follow. And umm....please tell me it's not just me.
It's just you. You've forgotten how the refinements to the offside law provided clarity and pretty much eliminated argument.
But I’m not suggesting he’d make a different decision. Aston didn’t write that he would have not called this as a penalty. You’re the one who introduced him and his writings to this and asserted that you felt he would not call this. I’m not saying he would look at this incident, make one written assessment, and then fold and make a different one in the moment. Writing in theory is not “making a decision” so there’s no decision to change. I’m saying that despite your interpretation of what was written in books, in the heat of the moment I bet Aston calls this. I also think he would defend/support it if he was, let’s say, a retired referee and television analyst. As an aside, but unrelated to the point of this thread or our debate, suggesting that pressure might affect a referee is not a slander. We are all affected by pressure. The best referees are able to mitigate that pressure to a high degree. But I’ve yet to meet or observe a high-level referee who is completely impervious.