Handball

Havak

Pokemon master
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
7,613
Location
Salford, Manchester
What's everyone's take on handball rulings in football at the moment?

I think we can all agree that the accidental handball leading to goals is not working in its current form. I get the idea and what it was brought in to do and when you read the rule in theory it works, but it definitely doesn't work that well in practice. I'm sure this will be revised for next season and each call should be looked at by the referee or the VAR should just make a decision on what they deem to be too much of an advantage gained by the handball for example. Certain ones such as the Mahrez goal against Liverpool spring to mind where a player is on the floor and it brushes his arm, that surely didn't effect the play in any way etc.

However, I'm more looking into other forms of handball here and I'm not doing it just to defend Pogba last night as that one may have been given even after my suggestion is heard. My opinion on handball for a long time has been that it should only be handball if your body wouldn't have blocked the shot anyway.

If a player is using their hands/arms to block the ball, but it would have hit them in the face, stomach, or the meat and two veg, should it really count as handball? The ball was going to just hit them anyway, so why should anyone give a feck? I'm sure VAR (if the officials are actually able to make this kind of call) would be able to tell from a replay if the arm is higher than a players head or is too far out to their side etc. I don't think we should expect players to take 60mph shots to sensitive parts of the body as some could actually cause injury.

What say the caf?
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,148
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Too complicated and not needed. A ball hitting your hand will not bounce the same as if it hit your nuts.

As for Pogba, If you refuse to get hit in the face, don't stand in the wall, or turn you back, or head it, or duck.
 

RK

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
16,102
Location
Attacking Midfield
Yeah I generally agree with the first post. At the end of the day it should come down to a clear advantage gained by some deliberate action (even if the actual handling wasn't deliberate).

Personally I'm completely against the idea of different handball rules depending on the location on the pitch or the state of play (attack vs defense). Doesn't sound like they're changing it next year though.
 

André Dominguez

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
6,325
Location
Lisbon
Supports
Benfica, Académica
We should not encourage grey areas on rules.

The exception to the rule should be simple as if the arms are connected in contact with the body, no foul (means the player is making the best he can to avoid an unintentional handball). If the player handballs extending his arms, foul.
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
21,625
Location
The Mathews Bridge
However, I'm more looking into other forms of handball here and I'm not doing it just to defend Pogba last night as that one may have been given even after my suggestion is heard. My opinion on handball for a long time has been that it should only be handball if your body wouldn't have blocked the shot anyway.
I agree with this. Sticking your arm out to make yourself bigger is definite hand ball, even if your arm hasn't moved towards the ball. It's a deliberate act to make yourself a bigger obstacle, even if it it is not a deliberate motion towards the ball.

Protecting your face is instinctive. It seems a bit harsh to be punished for it, but I'm not really defending Pogba either, it's handball and it's a penalty (and he has a bit of form for daft handballs, like that one versus Liverpool where he closed his eyes and threw his head towards the ball ended up slapping the ball). As duffer has said, he could have ducked or turned his back.

But if football wants to continue taking a serious stand on head injuries, they ("they" typically being the old-school pundits and the like from a bygone era) probably need to soften their "if you're in the wall, you've got to get hit in the face" attitude. I'm not sure this should continue to be encouraged. But I also don't know how you adjust the rules to compensate for that without it being taken advantage of. Handball generally is the most convoluted rule to apply across the board and I don't think it will ever have a true solution.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,351
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
What's everyone's take on handball rulings in football at the moment?

I think we can all agree that the accidental handball leading to goals is not working in its current form. I get the idea and what it was brought in to do and when you read the rule in theory it works, but it definitely doesn't work that well in practice. I'm sure this will be revised for next season and each call should be looked at by the referee or the VAR should just make a decision on what they deem to be too much of an advantage gained by the handball for example. Certain ones such as the Mahrez goal against Liverpool spring to mind where a player is on the floor and it brushes his arm, that surely didn't effect the play in any way etc.

However, I'm more looking into other forms of handball here and I'm not doing it just to defend Pogba last night as that one may have been given even after my suggestion is heard. My opinion on handball for a long time has been that it should only be handball if your body wouldn't have blocked the shot anyway.

If a player is using their hands/arms to block the ball, but it would have hit them in the face, stomach, or the meat and two veg, should it really count as handball? The ball was going to just hit them anyway, so why should anyone give a feck? I'm sure VAR (if the officials are actually able to make this kind of call) would be able to tell from a replay if the arm is higher than a players head or is too far out to their side etc. I don't think we should expect players to take 60mph shots to sensitive parts of the body as some could actually cause injury.

What say the caf?
Can anyone think of any example of any footballer ever getting injured by being hit by a football? If the answer is no, I can’t see the rationale for changing the rules to protect them.
 

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
38,543
Can anyone think of any example of any footballer ever getting injured by being hit by a football? If the answer is no, I can’t see the rationale for changing the rules to protect them.
Alan Smith? Or was it a collision with Riise after the free kick?
 

Blake's 7

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
143
Can anyone think of any example of any footballer ever getting injured by being hit by a football? If the answer is no, I can’t see the rationale for changing the rules to protect them.
Our very own Alan Smith versus Liverpool (broken leg and dislocated ankle).
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,493
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
Your shoulder is not your hand, that should be clear to everyone.
The amended laws of the game for next season actually stipulate this for the first time in history.

I agree that the handball rule needs sorting. The one rule for defenders, one rule for attackers is crap but I get why they wanted to bring something like that in. Like others have said, if the body was going to block the ball anyway, then it shouldn't be a handball. This works in theory due to VAR being able to check the flight of the ball but the laws aren't just written for the Premier Legaue and trying to referee that lower down the leagues would be a nightmare!

I don't know what the solution should be but I can honestly say that out of the hundreds/thousands of games that I have officiated in, the players whilst not liking it, usually accept a handball decision as they know it's down to interpretation. If it looks like an accidental hamdball, it usually is so play on. If the hand is away from the body and the ball hits it, then it's a foul. Sometimes going back to the simple way is the best.
 

Davie Moyes

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
784
Location
Up North
Agree with Duffer and Pogue on this one. If anyone is scared to be hit then duck. Otherwise we would have all players doing a Suarez / Pogba best goalkeeper impressions and claiming self defence.
 

Davie Moyes

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
784
Location
Up North
Our very own Alan Smith versus Liverpool (broken leg and dislocated ankle).
Was Smith's not more due to the way his leg was positioned against ground at point of impact? Can't remember properly. I once had a badly injured ankle from blocking a powerful shot due to that kind of situation.
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,493
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
It would have gone over his head and into the crowd
The ball hit his shin/ankle. A few feet higher (4/5 feet) and it would have connected with his head. A shot of that power was enough to break his leg, at best it would have probably given him severe concussion
 

Havak

Pokemon master
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
7,613
Location
Salford, Manchester
Can anyone think of any example of any footballer ever getting injured by being hit by a football? If the answer is no, I can’t see the rationale for changing the rules to protect them.
It isn't entirely about protecting the player, but that is a large part yes. I think it's also just being petty to call it handball if for example, your nether region was going to take the blow anyway. Didn't players spend years holding their privates whilst in the wall? Why isn't this allowed now? When you can cover up with it making zero difference to the outcome of the set-piece, why not? It is nowhere near a monumental rule change IMO, just a somewhat logical one.

I think this is especially telling when there is a lot more going on in terms of players heading the ball and research into concussions etc. Children aren't heading the ball at certain ages, lots of research is being put into head related injuries but when it comes to a hard shot from 10-yards away, in this scenario let's just say no, take that one in the face mate or you'll be punished.

I can understand every argument regarding this though, it's a rare occurrence but if that's so, the rule change isn't that big a deal whether it comes in or not? I think there's more logic in it being a thing than not I guess. The more you can do to help prevent injury and stoppages in play is something I think is beneficial - especially when it makes no difference to the outcome of play.

I have no data to prove this, but I would imagine that most of the time when the player goes down after a hefty hit from blocking a shot, the referee would stop play. If your arm could stop it leaving a big blow and not needing to stop the match, I think that creates a better flow. Each to their own though!
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
The difference between it hitting your arm over face/bollocks is it’s much more solid and likely to cannon into a less dangerous place, so there’s an advantage to be had from the handball.
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
It isn't entirely about protecting the player, but that is a large part yes. I think it's also just being petty to call it handball if for example, your nether region was going to take the blow anyway. Didn't players spend years holding their privates whilst in the wall? Why isn't this allowed now? When you can cover up with it making zero difference to the outcome of the set-piece, why not? It is nowhere near a monumental rule change IMO, just a somewhat logical one.

I think this is especially telling when there is a lot more going on in terms of players heading the ball and research into concussions etc. Children aren't heading the ball at certain ages, lots of research is being put into head related injuries but when it comes to a hard shot from 10-yards away, in this scenario let's just say no, take that one in the face mate or you'll be punished.

I can understand every argument regarding this though, it's a rare occurrence but if that's so, the rule change isn't that big a deal whether it comes in or not? I think there's more logic in it being a thing than not I guess. The more you can do to help prevent injury and stoppages in play is something I think is beneficial - especially when it makes no difference to the outcome of play.

I have no data to prove this, but I would imagine that most of the time when the player goes down after a hefty hit from blocking a shot, the referee would stop play. If your arm could stop it leaving a big blow and not needing to stop the match, I think that creates a better flow. Each to their own though!
You said it yourself - how often is a player going to get hit square in the face? It’s not the same as heading every game/all the time in training.
 

Web of Bissaka

Full Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
8,553
Location
Losing to Comeback Winning!
Previous rule is ball to hand isn't it.

That's legal.

I don't like the newer rule because it forces players to put and cover their hands and arms at their backs which is just odd and not helping when defending. A hit to the hand or arm is a definite penalty. McTominay did this the best and fall awkwardly twice which is concerning because it's easy to get injured that way.

I think the 'ball to hand' legal rule is better and more suited because of VAR today, although it still is down to refs and officials interpretations, basically the same thing when VAR reviewing tough penalty calls.

The Pogba one is a clear hand ball even if it's instinctive. It's not ball to hand at all, not even close. If Pogba cover his face before the shot is made, then it's ball to hand, and still would be given penalty according to today's new rule.
 

Skåre Willoch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
4,218
Raising your arms to protect your face should always be handball. Always.
If not, it would be anarchy. Who decides if the ball is hit hard enough to allow you to protect your face with your arms? And how hard of a shot does it have to be? 40 mph? 60 mph? 100 mph? Do VAR have calculate the velocity? Can you dive in the direction of the ball, with your arms in raised in front of your face? How about hard crosses, can you go in for a header with your arms in front of your face? It would've hit your head anyway?

If your arms is close to your torso or balls (as, actually touching the balls or torso), it's not given as handball today either, I think.

What I find more problematic is the whole shoulder vs. arm debacle. A shoulder is a shoulder and an arm is an arm. But where the arm starts and the shoulder stops seems to vary a lot from game to game, heck, even within games. I don't even know where my own shoulder stops and my arm starts.

Also, I think it can be looked into how "unfair" the punishment for a silly handball can be within the penalty area. For example with Mané vs. Sissoko in the CL final. That was what... a 0,01xG, turning into a 0,75xG, and killed the game. Smart play from Mané, stupid from Sissoko, and the correct decision was made. But there should be some nuances, and the ref might be able to give an indirect free kick instead of a penalty, for example. Which again can be used in the same context as you mention here. Never in the world do I think Pogba should get away with a handball there, but then again, a penalty might be a bit harsh to some (I still think it is a pen, though).
 

Inigo Montoya

Leave Wayne Rooney alone!!
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
38,543
The ball hit his shin/ankle. A few feet higher (4/5 feet) and it would have connected with his head. A shot of that power was enough to break his leg, at best it would have probably given him severe concussion
His head flying down the East Lancs Rd would have been some sight
 

starman

Full Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
7,092
Location
Under a tree.
The ball was never hitting Pogba's face at the moment of impact, not sure why this is not being addressed and is still being used as a defence for his actions, he handles the ball above his head.
I keep seeing the argument of Lindelof and TFM doing the same of protecting their face, thats different from making your body bigger and raising your hands above your head. Pogba was not concentrating, was standing face on and simply panicked.
 

Mcking

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
6,014
Location
Nigeria
The ball was never hitting Pogba's face at the moment of impact, not sure why this is not being addressed and is still being used as a defence for his actions, he handles the ball above his head.
I keep seeing the argument of Lindelof and TFM doing the same of protecting their face, thats different from making your body bigger and raising your hands above your head. Pogba was not concentrating, was standing face on and simply panicked.
It's a pen. That shot was hit with some power though. Panic stations.
 

poleglass red

Full Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
3,702
In a scenario like that, where he's clearly not prepared or ready to take appropriate action, he'd of been almost better ducking than giving away the penalty.Let the other defenders block it or worst case let the keeper deal with it. In hindsight shot was going wide anyway. Lesson learned, there's a man you don't want in your wall on next free kick
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,302
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
The rule has been a mess the last couple of years. I think they should revert to what it was before and trust in the referee's judgement to call it right. A deliberate handball is always a penalty. Where it's not deliberate, it's about working out how much of an advantage was gained. So for example:
  • if the ball was hitting somebody's torso, it's not a penalty.
  • if the arm was in a standard position and could not be moved out of place, such as for a cross, it's not a penalty.
  • if a defender has dived in John Terry hands-in-the-air style to block a shot at point-blank range, then it's a penalty.
  • if a shot is crossing the line and it hits an outstretched arm that prevents a certain goal, it's a penalty.
Much better to illustrate these with real-life instances to develop common standards of assessment.