The more I see it the more I'm shocked at how many people are disputing it. You cant turn your back as a defender, you cant put your arm out like that to make your body bigger, and hes a good distance away from the shot. Its an absolutely blatant handball. If it was anyone other than United, nobody would be arguing.
Was it a pen?
- Thread starter ivaldo
- Start date
I think it was a easy pen too, he looks at the ball and jumps up into it with his arm out making himself a bigger target. He jumped up to black the ball and then blocked it with his arm. It doesn't matter anyway as the people paid to look at it and make the decisions said it was so I don't see how there can be any fuss over it.
For all the people who keep saying "it wasn't deliberate so it's not a handball" please watch this video so you can learn what FIFA means when they say "deliberate" and what a "deliberate action" is. If at the end of this video you still think that it wasn't a handball, then I don't know what else to say...
It is controversial because it result in a goal. You could say the same when the winning team held the ball near the corner flag in the 95th min and forcefully obstructing the opposition from reaching the ball. Anywhere else but the corner flag would be a foul called , no question. Too many grey areas.
I still think it should not be a penalty there and then but if that incident happens on the goal line thus preventing a goal, I will be furious if it is not given.
That's it.
It was a clear penalty.
Without VAR it would have been missed. A handball in the box is a penalty.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This one is not a refereeing mistake. The ref was clearly advised by the VAR to review the incident and he took ample time to see the footage and give his decision. So he was able to implement the law (whatever that is) and it was not a heat of the moment quick decision.
The argument that can be made is whether the rule for handball is properly written and implemented and that is a much larger discussion. But this specific call was made according to the rules in place so I don't think anyone can have too much complaint.
The argument that can be made is whether the rule for handball is properly written and implemented and that is a much larger discussion. But this specific call was made according to the rules in place so I don't think anyone can have too much complaint.
They should be, I agree but often they are not.
It's so common at this point that refs make a balls of matches in the CL these days. Funnily enough my whatsapp group with friends was full of comments about the ref being terrible in our game almost from the start and continually throughout the game. They are far too whistle and card happy in most instances and the game rarely if ever flows.
Mistakes are common occurrences throughout the entire tournament, season in and season out.
As for former mistakes of course its an argument cause that's the standard they are setting. If officials in a given sport are routinely making errors of judgement it can't possibly be stated they officiate to a high standard then.
The officiating has actually been so bad particularly in the last 5 years or so that personally I've started to watch less and less Champions league football.
That's a good video. A long watch, but it does make the principles clear - as they are supposed to be applied. The fact some English pundits, ex-players, and even refs don't like them is irrelevant. Consistent application is the crucial thing for refs.
That line on the slide: "taking a risk" - covers a lot of the misunderstandings. Do a last ditch or out of control anything, sliding tackle, leap on the line, jumping block with your back turned - and it's the defender who's taking the risk. If he's unlucky it hits his arm, and it's a penalty.
All VAR does is in this instance is give the ref another chance to see it. Judging intent isn't necessary - they're looking at the facts of hit the hand or not, and making a judgment on avoidable or not.
Dont think it should have been, but the rule says it is
I think I have to end this debate.
Let's be objective, how can someone else know for sure that an action like this is deliberate or not? It's impossible to know.
So all ball to hand and hand to ball should be a penalty.
But people have hands, even defenders, they have to put them somewhere. I don't think we have to interpret intent, but rather if the hand is seeking the ball or in an unnatural position. There has to be some common sense here since defenders have arms and arms will naturally move when people slide, run, jump or challenge for the ball.
They are pros... it's their job to know the risks and where to put their hands.
Really, because I've seen Basketball players jump pretty high with the ball in their hands clutched close to the chest so nobody can intercept? It strikes me as odd to think that a football player cannot jump with their hands close to their chest, when they don't even have to carry anything like a Basketball player.
When Cristiano Ronaldo jumps he doesn't flail his arms around. In fact he uses a basketball type method to get more torque from thrusting his head towards the ball by pulling his hands into his chest. Ronaldo jumps pretty high too.
This idea that when you jump you just have to fling your arms about is just not true.
Naturally - in this context isn't helpful. If I naturally run the ball out of play because I'm going too fast, the ball still goes out of play. If I naturally fall backwards with the ball as a keeper, it's still a goal.
The refereeing dividing line on handball is now easier to see if you think in terms of avoidable or not, rather than deliberate/unnatural or not. It takes questions of intent and some of the subjective analysis out of the equation.
It's being done in the interests of consistency and to reward the player who hasn't done anything wrong. Defenders might not like (sometimes) being penalised for their last ditch slides and leaps, but the refs are saying that those things are gambles, and if you lose then it hits your arm and it's handball.
The clarifications coming through in June don't penalise players who get hit by a ball that flies up at them (unavoidable) or even ones who have a hand protecting their face or other organs (provided that hand is in the silhouette line, rather than a punch out, pat down or similar deliberate move to control it's subsequent movement). In other words, players and Brit pundits/refs/fans need to get used to it.
I don't think there's a difference between avoidable or not, rather than deliberate/unnatural or not. And with referees watching the incidents in slow motion it doesn't seem to be what they are looking for anyway. It seem to me that for the sake of simplicity and consistent refereeing the rule is now to penalize handballs where defenders could have avoided ball hitting hand if they actively avoid their arms to be away from their body even a little bit at all times. I understand that this is the rule, but I disagree with it, and when its used alongside VAR we will get more of these random game deciding penalty decisions.
It may be more consistent, but I don't think that makes it more fair.
We may have different view on this, but for me hands move away from the body naturally when running, jumping, sliding and so on. Of course if you're holding a ball in basketball and jump from a different position that may not be the case, but I don't agree that the arm can stay close to your side at all times unless you hinder your own balance and mobility.
All referees agree that its a penalty
Yes
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Best "shortest" explanation by far. By the rules, it's a clear penalty. Rule is never perfect. To make the rule "perfect", in that case, another factor is human judgement on Kimpembe's intention.
Assuming Kimpembe had no intention at all, but to what extent he understands the rule that's another story. I hope VAR could significantly reduce all these "criminal" actions (ie diving, handball, tackles).
This event could be a good "warning" to all players out there. Stop all these things. Play the real football.
The problem is when it's United involved, nobody is able to be impartial. If the roles were completely reversed, all the Liverpool and City fans who are piping up online, all the pundits and journalists on tv and in the papers would be saying it was a stonewall penalty and using the letter of the law to back their point up.
It's a penalty for me regardless of whether it is for us or against us. Defenders get way too much protection and benefit of the doubt from referees as it is - we're watching to see goals and good attacking play more than we want to see cynical defending. Case in point being the free kick given to Thiago Silva as he was "shielding" the ball into touch over on the near side in the first half. Rashford puts a tiny bit of pressure on him and he flounces down like a dying swan, winning an immediate free kick out.
If the exact same pressure was put on Rashford inside the box, never in a million years does the ref give a penalty and we'd see Silva screaming in the face of Rashford to get up and stop being such a bitch. Defenders constantly want to have their cake and eat it and it's high time officials started calling them out on it. If you want to jump and turn your back to a shot inside the box, then make bloody sure your arms are in by your body or else take your penalties like a man.
It's a penalty for me regardless of whether it is for us or against us. Defenders get way too much protection and benefit of the doubt from referees as it is - we're watching to see goals and good attacking play more than we want to see cynical defending. Case in point being the free kick given to Thiago Silva as he was "shielding" the ball into touch over on the near side in the first half. Rashford puts a tiny bit of pressure on him and he flounces down like a dying swan, winning an immediate free kick out.
If the exact same pressure was put on Rashford inside the box, never in a million years does the ref give a penalty and we'd see Silva screaming in the face of Rashford to get up and stop being such a bitch. Defenders constantly want to have their cake and eat it and it's high time officials started calling them out on it. If you want to jump and turn your back to a shot inside the box, then make bloody sure your arms are in by your body or else take your penalties like a man.
The doublethink I don't understand is how people are arguing that he doesn't have time to get out of the way, when he literally demonstrated that he had the time to throw his entire body, arms included, into the path of the ball. He made no attempt to get out of the way and did exactly the opposite, which was block the path of the ball with any part of his body.
Looks like fans have still not gotten what 'intent' actually means when it comes to handball. It doesn't mean you tried to block the ball with your arm, it means you intentionally moved your arm. If you intentionally block the ball with your arm then it's a yellow card offence, or red card if it stops a certain goal.
Kimpembe intentionally moved his arm into that position. Of course he didn't intend to handball in that situation, that would defeat the whole point of the rule. No defender wants to handball unless it stops a certain goal.
Kimpembe intentionally moved his arm into that position. Of course he didn't intend to handball in that situation, that would defeat the whole point of the rule. No defender wants to handball unless it stops a certain goal.
Consistent application of a bad rule is still not a good thing.
Your second paragraph is so out of this world I can't even start to comment on it. It goes against anything a player will think or try to do when defending. To shift all the risk towards him if the ball, no matter what the circumstances or whatever, hits his hand/arm - that's not just over the top, it's simply a disgusting trend that's been happening in football.
The video from the FIFA training session is about the reasoning, that's what I'm describing in that paragraph. The rule may be, "against anything a player will think or try to do when defending," but it's a rule already applied with more or less zero argument when refereeing attacking play.
If an attacker goes into a goalmouth scramble (doing anything a player will think or try to do when attacking - whether that's a throw your body in the right general direction to meet a moving ball or a starfish jump to block a clearance) and it goes in the net off an arm, and the ref/VAR sees it, it will be disallowed. There might be an "unlucky" from the commentator and a general agreement that it was "worth a try" from the fans. But no one will seriously argue for the goal to stand just because the forward had no idea if it would hit him on the arm or the chest.
It might be a shock to the mindset of people (including some English refs) because no one likes to imagine themselves giving away a penalty, but it's a deliberate attempt to rebalance the interpretation of the rules so that they don't favour defenders.
Your second paragraph is not the mirror image of a shot hitting a defender on the arm, unless you're suggesting they should always try to black shots with their arms behind their back from now on. You simply can't let your arms disappear as a defender, so giving a penalty every time they touch the ball is unreasonable.
If they persist with their current interpretation it won't be long before the rules massively favour the attackers.
That's the point really, they don't have to put their arms behind their back. They can have their arms in any position they want and block the ball with head, chest, leg - that's all still fine. If they fail to block the ball in that legal way and it hits their arm instead, it's handball.
It does favour the attackers, which is why the instructions to the refs are being clarified, but that's because we're used to seeing the rule applied in a way that used to favour the defenders.
If I'm standing in the box with my arms next to my body, and you blast the ball into one of my arms from close range, it's a penalty because you're so shit at football you couldn't avoid me and hit the actual target?
Yeah, no thanks.
That's a different part of the guidance - and it wouldn't be handball.
Just saw a good point on Twitter...
Imagine Pogba was playing, took the penalty and done that run up?
Imagine Pogba was playing, took the penalty and done that run up?
The taking a risk angle is very illuminating. Although there is no explicit text in the laws of the game I think. Perhaps it could be added at some stage. If you throw your body on the ground, you are not in control and hence taking a risk. The risk is the ball will strike your hand you use for balance, and it is handball. Same if you jump to block a ball, or if Phil Jones tackles the ball with a diving header.
Also the hypothetical goal line scenario is very helpful. Don't think many would argue against a penalty if the block happens on the goal line. Therefore, for consistency, we should treat all incidents in the penalty area (indeed anywhere on the pitch, though of course the consequence will be different) equally.
Watch the video above. Hand on the body is a clear non-handball as almost all referees easily agree on.
I think the real problem in the current contention is this "natural position" argument, which Rio Ferdinand was most vocal about. In essence, if the defender jumps or tackles, the "natural position" of the hands / arms will not be close to the body. And ex-players argue that therefore it should not be handball.
However, if the defender knows that tackling or jumping would move your hands/arms away from the body to change the area of effective blocking, then it should be seen as an inherent risk that the ball striking a hand/arm is the consequence of the deliberate decision to take such an action of changing body / hand position. Otherwise, you could slide-tackle with the "deliberate" intention of blocking a cutback (as in the FIFA tutorial video) with your hand/arm with impunity, by arguing that the hand/arm is needed for support and balance in a sliding tackle.
Clearly the referee missed the handball as it happened and probably gave the corner as he thought it came off his back.
But IMO the only reason the referee took so long once he saw the VAR was to decide whether the offence took place inside or outside the box as it was abundantly clear it had hit his arm.
Once he verified that he was away and running to give the penalty.
But IMO the only reason the referee took so long once he saw the VAR was to decide whether the offence took place inside or outside the box as it was abundantly clear it had hit his arm.
Once he verified that he was away and running to give the penalty.
It is in the directives that shouldn't be a pen.
I agree with this 100%.
Not giving a pen here would be like not penalizing leg breaking tackles because it wasn't the offenders intent to break his leg, he was actually trying to get the ball. Being reckless, whether it's with your arms when blocking a shot, or with your leg when making a tackle, comes with a risk of getting penalized. Recklessness is intent in a way.
Exactly...thank you for taking the time to watch the video. I've had a lot of people reply on here who still haven't watched it. It's 20 minutes out of their life to have a clear understanding of the handball rule and an undertstanding of what is meant by "deliberate"...
From SkySports:
UEFA has issued an explanation for the late penalty awarded for handball which helped Manchester United progress past Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League.
Referee Damir Skomina was alerted by the video assistant referee under the 'serious missed incident' VAR protocol late on in United's last-16 second-leg tie in Paris.
After viewing replays, UEFA said the referee awarded the spot-kick against PSG defender Presnel Kimpembe because "his arm was not close to his body" when Diogo Dalot's shot struck it.
"Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected," a UEFA statement said.
"The defender's arm was not close to the body, which made the defender's body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick."
Marcus Rashford scored the penalty to take United through to the quarter-finals on away goals.
Guidance from UEFA referee's chief Roberto Rosetti appeared to be consistent with Skomina's decision, as he advised officials in January that "if the defender is making the body bigger to block the ball it is not fair".
Football's law-making body the International Football Association Board (IFAB) moved to clarify the interpretation of handball at its annual general meeting last weekend.
Its position is that if the ball strikes a player's arm when it is extended beyond the body's "natural silhouette" then a penalty should be awarded.
It also said that, from next season, goals scored or created with use of the hand - even accidental use - will be disallowed.
UEFA has issued an explanation for the late penalty awarded for handball which helped Manchester United progress past Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League.
Referee Damir Skomina was alerted by the video assistant referee under the 'serious missed incident' VAR protocol late on in United's last-16 second-leg tie in Paris.
After viewing replays, UEFA said the referee awarded the spot-kick against PSG defender Presnel Kimpembe because "his arm was not close to his body" when Diogo Dalot's shot struck it.
"Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected," a UEFA statement said.
"The defender's arm was not close to the body, which made the defender's body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick."
Marcus Rashford scored the penalty to take United through to the quarter-finals on away goals.
Guidance from UEFA referee's chief Roberto Rosetti appeared to be consistent with Skomina's decision, as he advised officials in January that "if the defender is making the body bigger to block the ball it is not fair".
Football's law-making body the International Football Association Board (IFAB) moved to clarify the interpretation of handball at its annual general meeting last weekend.
Its position is that if the ball strikes a player's arm when it is extended beyond the body's "natural silhouette" then a penalty should be awarded.
It also said that, from next season, goals scored or created with use of the hand - even accidental use - will be disallowed.
Peter Walton who was a PL referee from 03-12 and then went to the MLS to teach all their refs and appears from time to time on shows said he was at the meeting with the head of referees for UEFA. Apparently they all went through what they believe a handball is in the box. Walton said that they all agreed that any arm out away from the body that makes the persons body bigger to block a shot will be given as a penalty for this season of the CL. That memo was shared with EVERY club before the CL started.
Every club knows apparently what is expected and what will be given. Initially I didn't think it was a penalty but after hearing that, it's clear that it is a penalty with how the refs all decided to ref for this season of the CL.
Any other ref that was not privy to that conversation doesn't have a clue and should not be listened to.
Every club knows apparently what is expected and what will be given. Initially I didn't think it was a penalty but after hearing that, it's clear that it is a penalty with how the refs all decided to ref for this season of the CL.
Any other ref that was not privy to that conversation doesn't have a clue and should not be listened to.
Should not be a penalty.
I don't mean that it is not a foul. There's enough room to accept that the handball was a foul. Was it deliberate? Did it deny a clear goalscoring opportunity? No.
Such fouls should be punished with a free kick at the spot of the infraction. Not a penalty.
But football loves being a slow moving sport, so that won't happen. But too many penalties occur for infractions that aren't goal scoring opportunities, but just happen to occur within the box.
I don't mean that it is not a foul. There's enough room to accept that the handball was a foul. Was it deliberate? Did it deny a clear goalscoring opportunity? No.
Such fouls should be punished with a free kick at the spot of the infraction. Not a penalty.
But football loves being a slow moving sport, so that won't happen. But too many penalties occur for infractions that aren't goal scoring opportunities, but just happen to occur within the box.
You're basically rewriting rules then. Why are you disregarding the ones that are in place for this particular situation ?