A Handball Scenario / You're the Ref!

[Annihilate Now!]

I posted this in the VAR thread, but then realised it actually isn't a VAR question and more a question on the new handball rule...

And so, a question shamelessly stolen from FW

Jonathan Wilson posed the following question:

Say it's the last minute against Leicester and we have a corner. The ball comes in, bobbles around and Pogba hits a shot. Evans is in the penalty area and has his hands firmly by his side in the natural silhouette position and he blocks the shot (in the area), with the ball hitting his arm.

The ball lands at his feet, he smashes it 80 yards and Vardy out paces our last man and with his first or second touch lashes it past the keeper.

What happens next?

 

[Chipper]

No idea what the refs say under the new rulings but I'd go with goal to Leicester. The reasoning would be that a decent amount of time passed/things happened between it hitting Evans' hand and Vardy scoring. I'd see that as different from things like the Laporte/Jesus one where it happened in Spurs' box and the ball fell directly to Jesus who knocked it in immediately afterwards.

Not a fan of this rule anyway and think both should be goals.

Edit: It's a really weird one, because if you don't give the goal how on earth would you restart play? You can't say it's a penalty either. Maybe something weird like a goal kick to United, the same as when indirect freekicks or throw ins from an attacking team go straight in? It could only be that or drop ball if you did disallow it, and I don't even know where on the pitch you'd do that, perhaps the centre circle? I'm giving the goal anyway so this part doesn't come into it.

 

[Dolf]

Doesn't count as a handball so play will go on and Leicester will be awarded the goal?

 

[bludsucker]

In my opinion it is a goal as the new handball rule states that any contact from an attacking player in the box before a goal will be ruled out as handball. In this case the contact to hand is from a defensive player and also his hands are by his side in a natural position. So no handball unless vardy somehow uses his hand to control the ball.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

No idea what the refs say under the new rulings but I'd go with goal to Leicester. The reasoning would be that a decent amount of time passed/things happened between it hitting Evans' hand and Vardy scoring. I'd see that as different from things like the Laporte/Jesus one where it happened in Spurs' box and the ball fell directly to Jesus who knocked it in immediately afterwards.

Not a fan of this rule anyway and think both should be goals.

Edit: It's a really weird one, because if you don't give the goal how on earth would you restart play? You can't say it's a penalty either. Maybe something weird like a goal kick to United, the same as when indirect freekicks or throw ins from an attacking team go straight in? It could only be that or drop ball if you did disallow it, and I don't even know where on the pitch you'd do that, perhaps the centre circle? I'm giving the goal anyway so this part doesn't come into it.

To be fair, you could easily go from hoof ball to goal in what... about 3 touches and 5-10 seconds?

In my opinion it is a goal as the new handball rule states that any contact from an attacking player in the box before a goal will be ruled out as handball. In this case the contact to hand is from a defensive player and also his hands are by his side in a natural position. So no handball unless vardy somehow uses his hand to control the ball.

Does it? I didn't think it specified that it has to be in the box.

 

[DWelbz19]

To be fair, you could easily go from hoof ball to goal in what... about 3 touches and 5-10 seconds?



Does it? I didn't think it specified that it has to be in the box.

Don't think it's in the box, it's just if it leads to a goal (or goalscoring opportunity?) which are predominantly in the box.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Don't think it's in the box, it's just if it leads to a goal (or goalscoring opportunity?) which are predominantly in the box.

Yeah I thought that - would be weird otherwise, I mean no different to it hitting someones hand accidentaly and someone scoring from 20 yards out and the same thing happening in the box.

 

[Varun]

Send both Evans and Vardy off. Give Utd a pen.

Only for us to miss mind

 

[Gio]

Yeah, the rule is broken. It cannot be a goal because the defender creates a goalscoring opportunity after the handball. So it must be an offence and therefore a penalty. But it cannot be a penalty because the defender did not use his arm to make his body bigger.

 

[bludsucker]

To be fair, you could easily go from hoof ball to goal in what... about 3 touches and 5-10 seconds?



Does it? I didn't think it specified that it has to be in the box.

“Goals scored or created with the use of an accidental handball will not stand from next season onwards, the International FA Board (Ifab) have confirmed.”

The changes mean that a free-kick will be awarded when a goal or clear chance occurs from a handball.

Ifab technical director David Elleray explained the changes at their AGM in Aberdeen.

"Deliberate handball remains an offence," Elleray stressed.

"In the past we've managed to improve the laws by focusing on outcome rather than intent.

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

You are right it doesn’t state explicitly that the handball has to occur in the box but it does say that they are focusing on attacking situations. Moreover the scenario described in the OP states that the player doesn’t use his hands to gain possession or an advantage. Hence no handball and a goal to leicester.

 

[Ish]

No pen for United - it’s accidental and the hand was not used to make the body bigger/gain an advantage.

But reading the same rule, Leicester also cannot go and score a goal as they have benefitted unduly from an accidental handball.

I suppose it hinges on your interpretation of “a goal being scored or created by an accidental handball?”. Is the clearance by Evans, just a defensive action or is it deemed the “creation” of the goal (he probably gets the assist)?

So....no goal/pen for either team and a dead ball drop out or ball returned to Leicester for a restart from the penalty area maybe?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yeah, the rule is broken. It cannot be a goal because the defender creates a goalscoring opportunity after the handball. So it must be an offence and therefore a penalty. But it cannot be a penalty because the defender did not use his arm to make his body bigger.

Agreed. The rule isn’t fit for purpose. Should never have been changed anyway. Having different definitions for handball depending where you are on the pitch is fecking madness. Which would never have happened without the introduction of VAR.

 

[Melville Red]

Games fecked if we are arguing over this, just as I was beginning to understand the offside rule in comes this gibberish.

 

[SteveTheRed]

Yeah, the rule is broken. It cannot be a goal because the defender creates a goalscoring opportunity after the handball. So it must be an offence and therefore a penalty. But it cannot be a penalty because the defender did not use his arm to make his body bigger.

Yep it's a mess.

The language of the rule of ambiguous so it allows refs to take a view on every incident as the rule states thing are "not usually an offence" . Some will view the OP scenario as a Handball leading to a goal, but not give a penalty and give an indirect or something. Others will see it as no handball because it was in a natural position and another will view it that it was in a natural position but denied a goal and give a penalty.

 

[Sylar]

I reckon a goal is given to Leicester. The rule will then be changed based on the outcome of this.

 

[giorno]

I'd give the goal and to hell with dumb rules

 

[lysglimt]

According to the new rules - no goal.

But the rule I would like to see regarding handball is the following: I would like a difference between above and below the elbow. Touching the ball with the elbow down to the hand is (unless the arm is held close to the body) - freekick or penalty. Touching the ball with the upper arm/shoulder (without the ball touching the elbow-area) - no offence.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

According to the new rules - no goal.

But the rule I would like to see regarding handball is the following: I would like a difference between above and below the elbow. Touching the ball with the elbow down to the hand is (unless the arm is held close to the body) - freekick or penalty. Touching the ball with the upper arm/shoulder (without the ball touching the elbow-area) - no offence.

According to the new rules, we'd get a penalty.

I think.

It would actually be in Vardy's best interest in that scenario to stop, run towards our goal, and pass it to someone else to start a new phase of play.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

According to the new rules - no goal.

But the rule I would like to see regarding handball is the following: I would like a difference between above and below the elbow. Touching the ball with the elbow down to the hand is (unless the arm is held close to the body) - freekick or penalty. Touching the ball with the upper arm/shoulder (without the ball touching the elbow-area) - no offence.

Whatever changes are made to the handball rule it needs to be exactly the same for both boxes. This ludicrous situation where we've got two different definitions, depending on whether you're the attacker or defender, is absolute madness. And it's clearly only happening because of VAR, which applies more scrutiny to goals than it does to penalty claims.

 

[RedCurry]

But if the hand is in a natural silhouette position, it cannot be a handball according to new rules. That's my understanding. If so, then it is a simple scenario and Leicester should be awarded the goal.

 

[Alemar]

We would have gotten an indirect free kick, perhaps from inside Leicester box (if Evans touched the ball with his hand in the box)

 

[RK]

I asked this a couple of weeks ago, and some more hypothetical scenarios on this page:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-handball-rule.446455/page-4

Not trying to claim credit, just agreeing that this is grey area introduced by a poorly conceived and unnecessary rule change. If I was the ref, I'd award the goal and ignore the negative interpretation of the rule.

What should be awarded in the following scenarios? Assume all of the handballs are not deliberate or "taking a risk" (i.e. in isolation they wouldn't be penalised):

1. The ball hits an attackers hand inside the box and they gain control of the ball. The attacker is then fouled inside the box.
2. The ball hits an attackers hand outside the box and they gain control of the ball. The attacker is then fouled outside the box.
3. A contested 50-50 on the halfway line hits one player on the hand and they gain control of the ball. Their team remains in control of the ball and 20 passes later, they score.
4. An attacker has a shot in the box. It hits the defender's arm which was in a natural position and deemed not a foul. The defender immediately clears the ball downfield to an unmarked attacker on his team, who scores.
5. A goalkeeper deliberately throws the ball onto the arm of an attacker to (presumably) gain a free kick and waste time.

[...]
3b. On the halfway line, an attacker attempts to play a pass but it hits a defender on the arm, who gains possession. They immediately send the ball downfield to an unmarked attacker on their team, who scores.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The two options are penalty or Leicester goal, anyone answering with 'indirect free-kick' or such like are making up their own laws.

It would be a penalty, for me, under the wording of the new law. This is the wording of the new rule, listed under offences incurring a direct free kick:

Handling the ball
It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  
  
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
    
    
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
    
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  

In this situation Evans would have gained possession of the ball using his hand and created a goalscoring opportunity. That is an offence punishable with a direct free kick.

Anything punishable by a direct free kick is given as a penalty in the box as per law 14:

'A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.'

You could argue that he hasn't created a goalscoring opportunity because Vardy might (hypothetically) had a lot to do still, and then you could award a goal but I don't see how you can come to any other decision than those two.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The two options are penalty or Leicester goal, anyone answering with 'indirect free-kick' or such like are making up their own laws.

It would be a penalty, for me, under the wording of the new law. This is the wording of the new rule, listed under offences incurring a direct free kick:

Handling the ball
It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  
  
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
    
    
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

In this situation Evans would have gained possession of the ball using his hand and created a goalscoring opportunity. That is an offence punishable with a direct free kick.

Anything punishable by a direct free kick is given as a penalty in the box as per law 14:

'A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.'

You could argue that he hasn't created a goalscoring opportunity because Vardy might (hypothetically) had a lot to do still, and then you could award a goal but I don't see how you can come to any other decision than those two.

Yeah, it has to be a penalty against Leicester, or a goal for Leicester. No other option is possible.

 

[RK]

Yeah, it has to be a penalty against Leicester, or a goal for Leicester. No other option is possible.

Imagine the same scenario, but Vardy rounds the keeper with his first touch. Instead of slotting into the empty net, he realise the handball situation (somehow I don't know) and instead turns around and runs towards the corner flag to keep possession and not cost his side a penalty.

Similar situation could happen for a more obvious attacking handball (i.e. more realistically).

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Imagine the same scenario, but Vardy rounds the keeper with his first touch. Instead of slotting into the empty net, he realise the handball situation (somehow I don't know) and instead turns around and runs towards the corner flag to keep possession and not cost his side a penalty.

Similar situation could happen for a more obvious attacking handball (i.e. more realistically).

I'm not sure Vardy has the smarts to work that one out on the fly but yeah, that's the sort of bonkers scenario we could end up in now that the rules are being relentless fecked about with to accomodate VAR.

 

[AndersB]

The key here is the word 'attacking'. When the ball hits Evans' arm he is in a defending position. The attacking situation starts the moment Evans finds the ball at his feet, looks up and sees Vardy. After that point, there is no incidental handball. Hence, goal to Leicester.

Put more simply, the attacking situation starts when Leicester are in possession (i.e. the point where the possession timer would start).

 

[Alex99]

Indirect free-kick to United?

No pen because he's in the natural silhouette position, but you can't give Leicester the goal because they've benefited from an accidental handball?

 

[RK]

The key here is the word 'attacking'. When the ball hits Evans' arm he is in a defending position. The attacking situation starts the moment Evans finds the ball at his feet, looks up and sees Vardy. After that point, there is no incidental handball. Hence, goal to Leicester.

Put more simply, the attacking situation starts when Leicester are in possession (i.e. the point where the possession timer would start).

How far up the pitch does this change? Say exactly the same action occurs on halfway, or in the other penalty box?

The rule is bad partly because it's not possible to clearly define attacking and defending in all scenarios.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

The two options are penalty or Leicester goal, anyone answering with 'indirect free-kick' or such like are making up their own laws.

It would be a penalty, for me, under the wording of the new law. This is the wording of the new rule, listed under offences incurring a direct free kick:

Handling the ball
It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  
  
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
    
    
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

In this situation Evans would have gained possession of the ball using his hand and created a goalscoring opportunity. That is an offence punishable with a direct free kick.

Anything punishable by a direct free kick is given as a penalty in the box as per law 14:

'A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.'

You could argue that he hasn't created a goalscoring opportunity because Vardy might (hypothetically) had a lot to do still, and then you could award a goal but I don't see how you can come to any other decision than those two.

I think, as the law stands, the correct decision would be a penalty to us.

When Evans blocks the shot its not a handball.

When Evans then gains possession of the ball it is a handball... as the position of the hands doesn't matter. Therefore its a DFK and a Penalty.

In reality, I think the ref would give the goal because that would be the easier decision to give without causing a riot (even though its technically incorrect).

 

[Havak]

Indirect free-kick to United?

No pen because he's in the natural silhouette position, but you can't give Leicester the goal because they've benefited from an accidental handball?

A free-kick to United was my thinking, but I'm not sure where they'd give it. In this scenario it could be:

1) Where the 'handball' occurred.
2) Where Vardy receives the ball.
3) Where Vardy takes the shot.

Whichever decision was taken, they are realistically winging it because this kind of scenario is not covered in the rules IMO.

 

[Grande]

The key here is the word 'attacking'.

No, it’s not, as it’s not in the rules. Finally someone dug up the rules:

The two options are penalty or Leicester goal, anyone answering with 'indirect free-kick' or such like are making up their own laws.

It would be a penalty, for me, under the wording of the new law. This is the wording of the new rule, listed under offences incurring a direct free kick:

Handling the ball
It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  
  
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
    
    
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

In this situation Evans would have gained possession of the ball using his hand and created a goalscoring opportunity. That is an offence punishable with a direct free kick.

Anything punishable by a direct free kick is given as a penalty in the box as per law 14:

'A penalty kick is awarded if a player commits a direct free kick offence inside their penalty area or off the field as part of play as outlined in Laws 12 and 13.'

You could argue that he hasn't created a goalscoring opportunity because Vardy might (hypothetically) had a lot to do still, and then you could award a goal but I don't see how you can come to any other decision than those two.

If there is nothing more in the rules section adressing this, it’s pretty straight forward. It’s a pen or a goal, and the question is if Evan is deemed to have created a goal scoring opportunity or not.

 

[klayton88]

VAR would pull it back to 12 minutes earlier when Ashley Young took two minutes on a throw in and foul throwed it anyway.

 

[Lebowski]

It sounds like Football Weekly might have stolen this from The Transfer Window (Duncan Castle's pod), as they were talking about this exact situation after the decision to chalk off city's winner against Spurs because of Laporte's 'handball'.

The scenario they discussed was almost the same as the scenario in the opening post, but the 'offender' was a city player. I.e - the accidental touch off Laporte's hand leads to a Spurs defender whacking it clear which puts Kane through on goal who proceeds to score. Would the Spurs goal have to be disallowed due to the goalscoring opportunity being created by a handball, even though the handball was committed by a city player?

Both examples just show how ridiculous the new handball rule is. The fact that we have laws of the game that involve phrases like 'is usually a foul' and a situation where we have codified a different handball rule for attackers and defenders is just mental.

Like other posters have pointed out, it was clearly only brought in with VAR in mind as without it we wouldn't have anywhere near the scrutiny required to enforce a rule like this. The thing that makes Ian Holloway blaming it on the EU/Brexit even funnier than it is already, is that the law was a purely English invention after they refused to follow IFAB's far clearer and more common sense handball rule last season and petitioned for the new change.

You have to assume that regardless of what happens to VAR next season, this handball rule will be chucked into the scrap heap of bad FA ideas.

 

[AndersB]

No, it’s not, as it’s not in the rules. Finally someone dug up the rules:




If there is nothing more in the rules section adressing this, it’s pretty straight forward. It’s a pen or a goal, and the question is if Evan is deemed to have created a goal scoring opportunity or not.

You're right. I am fully out of my element.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

You're right. I am fully out of my element.

Is that you Jon Moss?

 

[Amar__]

I posted this in the VAR thread, but then realised it actually isn't a VAR question and more a question on the new handball rule...

And so, a question shamelessly stolen from FW

Jonathan Wilson posed the following question:

Say it's the last minute against Leicester and we have a corner. The ball comes in, bobbles around and Pogba hits a shot. Evans is in the penalty area and has his hands firmly by his side in the natural silhouette position and he blocks the shot (in the area), with the ball hitting his arm.

The ball lands at his feet, he smashes it 80 yards and Vardy out paces our last man and with his first or second touch lashes it past the keeper.

What happens next?

Typical from Shaw.

 

[Grande]

You're right. I am fully out of my element.

Is that you Jon Moss?

Tbf, anyone fully ‘in their element’ with the new handball ruling is a loonie deserving of the worst penalty possible (one overlooked by Jon Moss, corrected by VAR, and taken by Pogba (with the tippy-toe run-up)).

 

[George Owen]

I posted this in the VAR thread, but then realised it actually isn't a VAR question and more a question on the new handball rule...

And so, a question shamelessly stolen from FW

Jonathan Wilson posed the following question:

Say it's the last minute against Leicester and we have a corner. The ball comes in, bobbles around and Pogba hits a shot. Evans is in the penalty area and has his hands firmly by his side in the natural silhouette position and he blocks the shot (in the area), with the ball hitting his arm.

The ball lands at his feet, he smashes it 80 yards and Vardy out paces our last man and with his first or second touch lashes it past the keeper.

What happens next?

Goal for Leicester.

The ball hitting Evans doesn't count as a accidental handball, because he has his arms tucked to his body. That count as hitting the body.

Unless you mean there was some separation between Evans body and his arms... in that case, it's a penalty if the separation is too much.

If the separation is minimal (arms in natural position, accidental handball), then it's a free kick for ManUtd at their own box after the goal was called off.

 

[harms]

A free-kick to United was my thinking, but I'm not sure where they'd give it. In this scenario it could be:

1) Where the 'handball' occurred.
2) Where Vardy receives the ball.
3) Where Vardy takes the shot.

Whichever decision was taken, they are realistically winging it because this kind of scenario is not covered in the rules IMO.

Them benefitting from it is not a foul, but rather a consequence of it that changes the perception of the original situation. The handball is, so in this case it’s the first option. If we’re ruling towards an indirect free-kick, it’s got to be taken from where Evans was.