As a former ref (former due to soccer injury) I cannot believe the number of referees who call hand balls when they shouldn't. And I'm not just talking about young, inexperienced refs, but also grown men who are obviously experienced. It should be so easy to make this call - was it deliberate, ball to hand vs hand to ball., etc. I'd like your opinions as to why this is so often called incorrectly...
Six little words sum it up: "in the opinion of the referee" Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, who are we to determine whether an action was "deliberate"? Or not? This is a very inexact criteria for determining breaches of the law. Hence, IMNSHO, many referees tend to make the call based upon the result of the action, not on the action itself.
I would add to this that there is so much positive reenforcement to making the wrong call, that even referees who should know better, often fall into the trap of unfairly penalizing the non-deliberate handling. It is often easier to go with the flow. The ball bounces up and strikes the player's hand. Everyone on the bench and spectator side starts screaming "handball" because it is so obvious an event, the players whose hand was struck, pulls up and freezes as though caught in the act, waiting to be punished. The attackers stop attacking, the defenders stop defending and everyone is expecting your whistle. Who are we to disappont them? How many chances do we get in a match to make everyone happy, or at least, do that which everyone will agree with and expects? It is wrong, unfair, a travesty of justice, but if we fail to give in to the popular misconception we will be called blind, ineffective, gutless, incompetent, ignorant of the rules and worse. That is a lot of pressure, and if we give in, it becomes easier the next time. Then again, if we don't give in to the pressure, and say "no foul! Get on with it!", while tougher at first, this, too, gets easier over time, and, more important, makes the job of the next ref easier. Sherman
I have found it pretty easy going over the last couple years. The players all do fine with it. It's the coaches that disagree most often. I have one high school coach that still argues a handling call from 2 years ago that he wanted me to make but I didn't. BTW, he was 100% sure that Fringes' touch was handling.
I have always been fascinated by the fact that many spectators will remain virtually silent during the match, showing no reaction to displays of artful skill or vicious foul play. However, they nearly jump to their feet and loudly proclaim "handball" like Pavlov's dog when they see ball-to-hand contact. Amazing how such a minor thing takes on such importance in the minds of so many. With all of the many intricacies to be understood in the beautiful game, it is a shame that they seize upon something so trivial and cling to it as proof that they “know the rules"!
Too Funny and too true! Not a ref but this is a great post. I think some spectators latch onto "handball" call since that's they only thing they know about soccer besides seeing someone scoring a goal.
Guess I opened myself up for that comment. It seemed to me at the time that there was an approximately 50/50 split within the referee community. What he stated and I meant to imply was that any referee that didn't think it was handling was an idiot.
With the disclaimer that I am always required to make when I post in this forum that I am not a ref, I agree totally. That is exactly what I was thinking when I saw the original post. Players and coaches want it called wrong. However, since it says quite clearly in the LOTG that it must be intentional, the way it is generally called makes a mockery of the LOTG. I don't buy the idea that it's too difficult too call. (it's a lot easier than other calls refs make) Of course, it's ITOOTR, but it's not all that difficult to form an opinion of intent. In many cases, there is no time for a player to react, and it simply couldn't be intentional. Still, we hear "tweet". Handling seems to be an infraction that many referees let coaches and players call for them. Handling is an infraction where I've noticed a tremendous gender difference in the way it's called. (and a tremendous gender difference in the way players and coaches want it called) I've been saying this for years, and the more I watch (especially when I watch college soccer), the more convinced I am that the gender difference is real. In men's games, nearly all ball/hand contact is called; in women's games, unless a player actually catches the ball and runs with it, there is virtually no such thing as handling. It goes back to the original point of reinforcement. By and large, the women don't want handling called; the men do. It's really amusing. More than once at women's game, a player has quite obviously intentionally knocked a ball down to her feet with her hands and dribbled past a hapless defender, and I've been asked, "why wasn't that a handball" and my reply is always: "it's a women's game; they never call handling (XYZ's law ). If this were a men's game, darn right it would have been called." There may be assumptions (conscious or otherwise) on the part of referees, that, in men's soccer, everything is intentional while, in women' soccer, nothing is intentional. Both assumptions are wrong. These assumptions also apply to fouls and misconduct, although gender diferences in regard to fouls and misconduct are less obvious. (Nothing is intentional in the women's game? Shoot, I've seen women practice knocking the ball down to their feet. And I've seen the same players get away with doing it in games.) Another gender difference I've observed is that female referees are much more likely recognize intent in the women's game, and call handling (and fouls and misconduct), than male refs are. Interestingly, some of the same male refs who let almost all obviously intentional handling go unpunished in women's games, punish virtually all hand/ball contact in men's games, regardless of intent. Of course, the preceeding is a generalization. There are refs (the good ones) who get it right, men's games or women's games. Unfortunately, many refs call it differently depending on gender. And get it wrong in both cases. By and large, the way it's called in women's games is closer to what it says in the LOTG. The way it's generally called in men's games has almost no correlation to what it says in the LOTG and, if that's the way ref's are going to call it, the LOTG should be changed to reflect that. Otherwise, as I said before, it makes a mockery of the written LOTG.
I've been reffing for quite some time, a mix of both, and I think you see less handling in a woman's game because they quite frankly have more they need to protect from being struck. Guys have their crotch and that's pretty much it -- hands anywhere else other than crotch or side of body when making a play and there's a problem. At a U14 or lower boy's game I'll let them protect their face or chest, at all other levels they'll just have to suck it up and get blasted like a man Women I let protect pretty much anything they want to protect so long as the result of the impact is the same.
I don't do college, and haven't seen it for years. But for high school, the same refs do both girls and boys games, and I don't call handling any different, and I haven't notices others being inconsistent. I think boys want it called on the other team whenever possible, but they don't want their own un-intentional (or intentional) handballs called. I tend to listen to "handball" requests to verify whether the hand and ball make contact, but always use my own judgement as to whether the contact was intentional and should be called. Interestingly enough. The last two games I did (one as CR, one as AR), during the pregame players asked if they could use their arms in front of the chests to play the ball. Both CRs responded that you can protect yourself, but have to be staionary and have your arms against your chest. We both whistled players on the asking teams for handballs when playing the ball with their arms. (Hadn't seen this for several years.)
I've got over 20 seasons coaching experience with girls' (U10-14) and women's soccer. I teach them to suck it up and take it like a woman. Even though most refs will allow girls and women the right to protect themselves, it should only be used as a last resort, not as a soccer technique. Too often I've seen teenage girls and women cover their chest and redirect the ball to their benefit, a la Fringes pushing the ball to Kahn.
Your views are a perfect example of why this is not called properly. The reason women should be given more leway then men is that they run and move thier arms differently. You should not penalize non-deliberate contact caused from hands in a normal playing position. This normal playing position is different for women. Do you really expect guys to run around with thier hands at thier sides like automatrons? What you describe as your standards are not in keeping with the spirit of the game. In the normal course of play, players might actually move thier arms a little bit....strange as it seems and we cannot expect them to keep thier hands behind thier backs. Where in the LOTG does it say that? In fact if you read the ATR it says that instinctive protection of the face should NOT be penalized! Why should you expect a "man" to get a broken nose anymore then a "boy".....the point is: they arent trying to cheat so they should not be penalized. So you would let a 22 year old women protect her breasts but you would penalize a 14 year old for covering he face? No wonder the players are pulling thier hair out.
I am old enough to know that commenting on the difference between men and women, in nearly any context, when done by a man, leads to snickering, rolled eyes, and sometimes more direct responses by women. I am not buying into that argument. I do believe the figure I have read several places- that 90% of all arm and ball contact is not deliberate handling- is pretty accurate. I know little about the pros, and their reaction times and so on. The kids I ref, through high school ages, are likely to turn themselves in for "handball" because of the screams from the sidelines. It is sometimes hard to get them to keep playing because of their feelings of guilt. I do not know where the inadvertant touch became evil in so many minds, but it is. Jim Allen recently posted on his site that the new ATR amendment removes the top of the shoulder from the deliberate handling restriction, as in directing the ball with the shoulder. The change has not been published yet, but it will affect my handling decisions on what is kosher. It is certainly worth reading.
In one of the other current threads New Old Man adverts to the old saying about flies, honey and vinegar. Unless I am more mistaken than usual no one on this Board has made any claims to perfection. So why is it necessary to make criticisms of the person? Except in those few cases where there is a provision of the law directly on point, just about everything else depends upon the OOTR. And while we may feel very strongly that OUR opinion is better than someone elses we will have to be awfully certain that we will never say something less than brilliant on the board if we are going to call someone else a dumbass. Just tonight there are at least two posts on two different threads where responders have used sarcasm or attacks on the poster instead of simply differing or referring the person in error to the proper Law. I learn a lot on this Board and try not to post above my competence and if someone takes a shot at me I figure I've been yelled at by people far better than them so I don't really care. But a smart-ass retort to a new and/or inexperienced ref might well drive them off the board and away from a good source of assistance. Jim
Great news about the shoulder thing. I have gone back and forth between wanting to enforce this wording and in ignoring it because it is so rarely called.
I guess the use of the word dumbass is not attacking language in your eyes? Note the quote you cite above has the words "your VIEWS" I dont attack individuals but when people put forward things that are diametrically opposed to the BASIC wording of the ATR in a post that proposes to discuss this very problem I will be direct.
I gotta agree with grey. ATR is emphatic that at ALL LEVELS OF PLAY we are not to punish players for instinctively protecting any part of their body
Hey look somebody is attacking me. Sorry you think my way of calling the game is wrong Grey. The National Program for Referee Development seems to disagree. Getting back to the topic... The Laws of the Game have three components: 1) Letter of the Law 2) Spirit of the Law 3) Application of the Law The ATR is designed to help explain the Letter of the Law, and give advice on the Application of the Law. It is not meant to be the be all end all to the application of the Laws, however. That is why it is entitled "ADVICE." Ultimately it is our responsibility to call the game the way the players would have the game called. What may be pushing in one match (perhaps two Russian teams) would never be called in another match (Mexicans could care less). And yet in those same two matches, the Mexican culture abhors having their ankles kicked or legs threatened whereas the Russian culture would require a player be hacked down completely before having a foul called. You have to use your better judgement and extend the Laws of the Game to encompass the culture, attitude, conditioning, and skill of the players. This includes handling. Now, I don't go calling handling if somebody instinctually whips their hands in front of their face from a point-blank kick. However, if the game is one of higher skill I would not expect a player to purposefully put a hand in front of their face for an incoming ball if they can just as easily dip their head or jump or perform any other movement that would likewise protect them. The decision to use their hand is deliberate instead of playing the ball another way, under the guise of protecting their face, and needs to be whistled. THIS is what I am getting at. However, in the woman's game they have more on their body that, in my opinion, requires protection. Should they attempt to perform that same action as the man to avoid handling the ball, they may very well end up hurt anyway. There simply is a greater chance for injury while performing the same action, and thus using a hand or arm for protection is not out of the question. This too is based on the conditioning and experience of the woman in question. Obviously if she is very athletically sound and of higher skill then she would know how to play the ball without relying on handling to protect herself. However, you do not encounter females of this conditioning frequently until the much higher levels of play. Some college teams I would expect them not to require their arms for protection. Most WPSL I would have the same expectation. WUSA most certainly. But with the other 90% of woman players out there? Not likely. Ultimately I have no problem with a player protecting his or her face from an oncoming blast, provided they have no alternate means of playing the ball and they do so by pure reflex. I have higher expectations for men at lower levels of play and lesser states of conditioning to not rely upon using their hands for protection than I do with women. These conclusions are based off the advice of other referees and from many years of my own experience in nearly all levels of the game. If you feel my application of the Laws is a disservice, Grey, then that is Just Too Bad.
Or, it could be you jumped to a conclusion about my refereeing ability before seeking further clarification on the issue. My position hasn't changed, I merely explained it in more detail than a quick paragraph. This is a good example of why it is important to seek further clarification if a person's response doesn't sit well at first glance.
deliberate versus intentional is that the confusion? It is a valid point Statesman, a few written words strung together do not always convey the true meaning of a picture or an opinion. As a wordier poster than many I try to paint a picture of what I see but can even blur the meaning by adding too much. As to personal attacks the BM of the boards can sanction us as they choose. Any true referee's skin is so thick we could armour an M1A1 Abrams battle tank myself an M1A2. ;o) The one point I feel has been negleted is there is a divergence of opinion between the meaning of intentional versus deliberate? I feel the two are distinctive and are causes for confusion in determining a deliberate handled ball. My meaning?There is a deliberate attempt to play the ball versus no intent to actually handle it. It still is an infringement. There is no foul for remaining in protective positions and allowing the ball to impact a wrapped bosum or a covered genitalia. However, if there is adequate time to turn or duck out of the way? A long dropping ball that you misjudge and are suddenly reluctant to head it? By placing your hands over your face will it likely be a DHB? But if the ball is only impacting and you are not directing the ball's motion? Now it is intentionally handled but not deliberately?? A crossed ball you try to play off your chest but the wind is trickey and the ball stikes your arm will likely be a DHB? Even if it is an accident, in that you did not mean to do it, does not change you tried to deliberately play that ball.
Umm . . . Sorry to be the one to say this, but with all the talk about the letter of the law and intent and all that garbage, have any of you even read the rules regarding handballs? In the case of the ball striking the hand (such as the World Cup games vs. Germany when Berhalter had a goal kept out by an unintentional handball) intent has absolutely nothing do with it. The law states that it is a handball if the team of the offending player gains an advantage as a result of the handball. There are way too many people who consider themselves knowledgeable fans that don't even have a clue about this rule, Ty Keough included. I still shudder when I think of his just plain wrong (and incredibly lengthy) description of the handball rule stating that the law states a handball must be intentional. Thats the kind of crap I hear at my five year old's rec games. What should have been Ty's most embarassing moment as a sportscaster was instead likely accepted as fact by all who were watching. The play against Germany was a handball, but because Germany gained the clearest advantage (the player, I can't remember who, stopped a goal) and not because of any iota of intent.
ah those that live in glass house should not cast stones Absolute horse manure the law says NOTHING like that! There is no such thing as handball in football deliberate handling is an infringement only if deliberate you can score a goal with your elbow quite legally as with your fist if the circumstances are right. I have seen both done. A defender in clearing the ball smashes it an an oncoming attacker at 5 feet at 100miles an hour off the arm into the goal. Restart kick off. ADVANTAGE is not a consideration deliberate is. I do agree that intent is a problem in that it is confused with deliberate.