Excellent post, bolded part is what bugs me as well.
The debate has basically shifted from "intentional or not" to "natural position or not" which is even harder to assess.
The Handball Rule
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
The debate has basically shifted from "intentional or not" to "natural position or not" which is even harder to assess.
Because it's absolutely daft to ask referees to judge intent.
The recent high profile cases are a good point of why it's a stupid rule. Referees are consistently interpreting the laws as meaning that if the ball hits your hands after you have made yourself a bigger target than you would otherwise be then it is a foul. That seems to me a fairly common sense interpretation. You've chosen to put your hands out and the ball has hit them, but it's had ex-pros and fans spitting blood.
That Rose one was a penalty all day when viewing the replay - he blocked a goalbound shot with his hand by diving in at the player's feet, I think that should be a penalty in almost all circumstances. The only issue with it was how hard it was to spot in real time but that is what VAR is for.
I am not so convinced about the Dalot one but I guess that is just because the shot was obviously off target, and maybe that shouldn't matter...
I am not so convinced about the Dalot one but I guess that is just because the shot was obviously off target, and maybe that shouldn't matter...
The problem is the referees aren't consistent I guess and some rules feel like they are open to interpretation when they shouldn't be.
I think it's completely fair that any handball when blocking a ball (like the city vs spurs or us vs PSG) is a foul.
In both cases the defense was poorly positioned to block the shots, and they took a gamble by sliding/jumping. When jumping up like Kimpempe there is a risk that there he blocks the ball with his hand. The attackers should not be penalized for the poor defending of the opponent team. Doesn't make any sense. Similarly Rose took a gamble by sliding in like that and unlucky for him the part which ends up blocking the ball, was his hand. Why should City be punished for that?
I don't think it's much different than a last ditch sliding tackle on an attacker where the defender takes a risk (that he'll get the man instead of the ball).
"He didn't mean to get the man, he tried to get the ball but instead got the attacker".
"He didn't mean to block the ball with his hand, he tried to use his body, but instead the ball hit the hand".
I think it's completely fair that any handball when blocking a ball (like the city vs spurs or us vs PSG) is a foul.
In both cases the defense was poorly positioned to block the shots, and they took a gamble by sliding/jumping. When jumping up like Kimpempe there is a risk that there he blocks the ball with his hand. The attackers should not be penalized for the poor defending of the opponent team. Doesn't make any sense. Similarly Rose took a gamble by sliding in like that and unlucky for him the part which ends up blocking the ball, was his hand. Why should City be punished for that?
I don't think it's much different than a last ditch sliding tackle on an attacker where the defender takes a risk (that he'll get the man instead of the ball).
"He didn't mean to get the man, he tried to get the ball but instead got the attacker".
"He didn't mean to block the ball with his hand, he tried to use his body, but instead the ball hit the hand".
0In regards to the two high profile incidents in the CL for Rose and Kimpembe recently having been a massive advocate of penalising defenders if they stick their hand out and potentially stop a shot at goal (especially if it's on target) for God knows how long in which I've always said is unfair for the attacking teams I can see both sides of the argument and think it's unfair for defensive teams as well. If anyone of you have played football you would know that when you attempt a slide tackle you need to elevate yourself in blocking a shot, this is just natural. Sometimes your arms are going to be sticking out because you're attempting to give yourself an extra push and desperately get in the way of the ball getting to the goal. I understand there's circumstances that you can slide in without your hands being in the air or in an 'unnatural' position but we're talking split second decision making here where you hardly have time to think about where your arms are gonna be - especially at top level football where the game is going at 100mph, it's just not realistic to expect defenders to have full control of their limbs in a split second. Also where does it end?, because now you're going to have attackers merely aim for a players arm in the box in the hope of them being penalised.
So for that reason I think there should be ruling where an indirect free kick in the box should be given in a defender is adjudged to handle the ball in the box accidentally. As we have VAR now the refs have a perfect opportunity to watch the replay and see whether a) if the ball was going on target and b) whether the defender's hand moved towards the ball and handled the ball on purpose. That way ref's can determine if a handball was deliberate and if it would have affected the play, if it is deemed deliberate then it should be a pen and a caution given but the two circumstances especially Tuesday I think should be free kicks inside the box.
Also I have to mention under the current handball ruling big teams tend to have more shots on goal, put more pressure on the opponents and spend more time in the opponents box, so I find the fact that the smaller sides who will be making more last ditch tackles which means they have far less margin for error especially if they're going to be throwing themselves in front of shots. Big sides normally attack more than smaller sides, and smaller sides need all the advantages they can get to compete in matches. I think if we carry on down this route this will only increase the gap further as handballs would be seen as a legitimate easier way to score against a team who are backs to the wall, my two cents.
So for that reason I think there should be ruling where an indirect free kick in the box should be given in a defender is adjudged to handle the ball in the box accidentally. As we have VAR now the refs have a perfect opportunity to watch the replay and see whether a) if the ball was going on target and b) whether the defender's hand moved towards the ball and handled the ball on purpose. That way ref's can determine if a handball was deliberate and if it would have affected the play, if it is deemed deliberate then it should be a pen and a caution given but the two circumstances especially Tuesday I think should be free kicks inside the box.
Also I have to mention under the current handball ruling big teams tend to have more shots on goal, put more pressure on the opponents and spend more time in the opponents box, so I find the fact that the smaller sides who will be making more last ditch tackles which means they have far less margin for error especially if they're going to be throwing themselves in front of shots. Big sides normally attack more than smaller sides, and smaller sides need all the advantages they can get to compete in matches. I think if we carry on down this route this will only increase the gap further as handballs would be seen as a legitimate easier way to score against a team who are backs to the wall, my two cents.
I haven't played professional but I played competitive my whole life and at 45 years old I am still playing. I have also been watching this game for a very long time, and there are rarely times when you see someone intentionally handle the ball. Instances like Suarez saving the ball on the line are few and far between. Perhaps you are thinking of FIFA's original interpretation of "intentional" when you say "a shit load" and not the dictionaries version of the word. Because the intentional ones don't happen as often as you make it seem. By intentional I mean someone deliberately sticking out their hand to stop a ball (like Saurez did). Not someone's involuntary reaction to stick it out and then say "oh shit, i didn't mean to do that".
I'd say all of these are true hand-balls and some of them were certainly split-second, instinctive reactions. What do you think? Would you say any of these hand-balls should not have been given?
By the way, I've done the Steven Taylor one twice in my footballing life and what the feck was Paul Scholes doing!
I’d love someone to explain why the rules being skewed more to favour attackers is a bad thing.
Honestly, who apart from masochists wants to watch a sport that favours defending?
Honestly, who apart from masochists wants to watch a sport that favours defending?
Yep depends on who's ref, depends on who's in VAR. It's all wrong really, were going to see different results on same offences in different Comps, next season, only because in the Premier league we have awful officials. N Warnock has just been done for saying so.
Doesnt sound much different than the last 50 odd years to be honest
What I would like to see is a change in what is considered hands. The upper arm is not considered hands - while anything from elbow down is considered hands. And any shots blocked with that part of the body is a freekick or penalty.
So a defender is entitled to spread his arms to block a shot and if it’s above his elbow it’s not handball?
Sounds like a pretty dumb idea to me.
I agree with handballs given for ones like Rose who stopped a shot on goal but not ones like in the World Cup Final where the Croatian handballed it from a corner.
The rule was good the way it was but with the rule change and now with VAR handballs are now given when they should be which in times they werent before (Rose) but also given when they shouldnt be as well (World Cup)
The rule was good the way it was but with the rule change and now with VAR handballs are now given when they should be which in times they werent before (Rose) but also given when they shouldnt be as well (World Cup)
Anyone remember the Utd one where a defender has elbowed it as the ball is about to travel behind him? Defender looks behind him a little bit as this happens. Some people thought it was ball hits man, rather than him subtly flicking the ball away (imo).
Arm in fairly natural position, split opinion in here, as I remember.
I think against us, quite a big game & was right side of the Stretford End penalty box.
Arm in fairly natural position, split opinion in here, as I remember.
I think against us, quite a big game & was right side of the Stretford End penalty box.
According to the old laws, some of those could be argued that they shouldn't be given. With the new laws, all of them would be given without a second though. And that's how it should be. Football is a game used with the feet, not the hands. And I don't know how I missed this for all these years, but I just noticed now that the "hand of god" goal was also a mile offside
what? from the intentional playing of the ball by Steve HodgeAccording to the old laws, some of those could be argued that they shouldn't be given. With the new laws, all of them would be given without a second though. And that's how it should be. Football is a game used with the feet, not the hands. And I don't know how I missed this for all these years, but I just noticed now that the "hand of god" goal was also a mile offside
I don't think it is, but I might be wrong
The new rules haven't come into effect yet.
One of the worst ever penalties just awarded to Genk against Brugge in one of the most important games of the season in Belgium.
This is the absolute worst, what a low point in football. Pathetic.
This is the absolute worst, what a low point in football. Pathetic.
So yet another game decided by a ball that is shot at pace with no time for the defender to react, and the arm was not in an unnatural position. Something has to be done with these rules.
I wondered if it was in an unnatural position too, a tiny bit.
But I also thought it was a reasonable penalty claim for a fierce shot on target getting blocked.
Think I need a break from the Caf. Unnatural position, my word.
Her hands are right down by her side, I feel she is simply getting punished for having arms. The handball rule has become a joke in my view and I'm not looking forward to even more games being decided by a ball hitting a defenders arms.
meaning that you don't think it was?
I don't think that the number 10, the one from Cristiano Ronaldo was on purpose. The referee must have seen things or something...
Robin & hello2
I agree with both of you I suppose. But (possibly) her arms were slightly away when she starts trying to get them out of the way?
It's more a pen for me because she blocks a fierce shot on target if anything. (although that aspect of anything hardly seems relevant anymore)
I agree with both of you I suppose. But (possibly) her arms were slightly away when she starts trying to get them out of the way?
It's more a pen for me because she blocks a fierce shot on target if anything. (although that aspect of anything hardly seems relevant anymore)
Really easy. Arm away from the body - handball, whether it’s an accident or not. Arms against the body no penalty.
If the arms are against the body it would have hit them anyway, if the arms are out it stops the intended flight of the ball.
Using intentional or accidental asks the referee to get into the mind of a player - impossible to be consistent.
If the arms are against the body it would have hit them anyway, if the arms are out it stops the intended flight of the ball.
Using intentional or accidental asks the referee to get into the mind of a player - impossible to be consistent.
Yeah OK - this explains me being confused/wrong then?
Not a penalty, her arms were at the side. If that's what you like, fair enough.
But what about all the 'chest control' handballs where it isn't the chest that gets used.
And the Sissoko CL Final one was a farce, imo.
I don't think you can give penalties when the ball simply hit the hand from point blank range without making the body bigger. I know the argument that it will make it so that referees have to interpret the action of the defender, but I think that's infinitely better than what we have right now. So many games over the last year have been decided by accidental handballs that ultimately boil down to bad luck. And I don't think the game benefits from something this random to decide important games like it does now.
The new rules are in danger of ruining the game.
If it's not checked then pretty soon the objective of attacking players will not be to try to score, but simply to try and hit any oppo player on the arm if they are in the penalty area … and games will be decided mainly by which team concedes the fewest/wins the most pens.
If it's not checked then pretty soon the objective of attacking players will not be to try to score, but simply to try and hit any oppo player on the arm if they are in the penalty area … and games will be decided mainly by which team concedes the fewest/wins the most pens.
Thoughts on this new iteration of the rule?
For those who aren't aware: Any handball that directly leads to a goal is now an offence, even if accidental.
Seems very harsh (though also very funny) in cases like the City goal but I'm sure the refs like how easy it is to police. Once you see the ball touch the arm it becomes the easiest decision, with no need to get into ideas like body position or intent.
For those who aren't aware: Any handball that directly leads to a goal is now an offence, even if accidental.
Seems very harsh (though also very funny) in cases like the City goal but I'm sure the refs like how easy it is to police. Once you see the ball touch the arm it becomes the easiest decision, with no need to get into ideas like body position or intent.
I get the idea of making things black and white but the new rule is too stupid
It's nonsense. It's so easy for the ball to accidentally strike a hand. 99 out of a hundred handballs are accidental, and to award a penalty or disallow a goal for that is way too cheap (our penalty vs PSG last season is an obvious example, for us to get a penalty from such a hopeless long-shot, there's just no balance). There should be fewer handball calls, not more. This rule is particularly egregious because it is a disadvantage to the attacking team.
I'm 100% in favour of the new rule. The less interpretation for the ref to do, the better.
The only way to be 100% sure a handball was accidental, is being inside the head of the player doing it, so its always just a gamble from the ref.
With the new rule, there is no such shit. Ball touches hand/arm, its a foul. Same rules for everyone. Couldn't be any more clear and fair.
Except it's not the same rules for everyone. As I understand the new rule, it applies only when a handball leads to a goal so you're giving the defence an unfair advantage.
What's to stop players from intentionally aiming the ball at an opponent's arm in the box in order to win a penalty?
Aye, that's real the downside of it.
If you wanted to be fair in terms of attack v defense while keeping the black & white nature of the rule then you'd have to simply make all handballs an offence, accidental or not. Which would certainly be fairer on attackers and be very easy to police but you'd have yet more handballs.
Nothing.
Nothing. It's part of the game. Defender need to be 100% focused on what they are doing.
That's exactly how it is.