Question Number: 12016

Mechanics 1/1/2006

RE: Premier Under 15

ref of , USA asks...

I have been an official for 5 years now and have done numerous home games in addition to some Travel games. I find the "handling the ball" calls to be all over the map. Everything from never being called to always called even when they aren't. I have even heard "play on" called.
The situation that really made me ask for clarification was this. The referee was a veteran of 15 years including High School games. The game was a U14 Premier level girls game. As the AR, three times in the first half I put up my flag to signal stoppage of play for handling the ball. All three times the Referee waved if off. At half-time the referee explained that their was no intent to play the ball with their hands but only to protect themselves. I said that my interpertation of the rule was that if you are moving your hand to play the ball it does not matter if your intent was to protect yourself and besides, how do you know what their "intent" was. The referee dismissed my opinion and said that those calls just slow down the game anyway. It happened twice more the second half and I still put up my flag knowing the referee would wave if off. Am I missing something here?

Answer provided by Referee MrRef

As part of your research please see Victor Matheson's article Hand Ball!!!! Stop Saying That!

Answer provided by Referee Nathan Lacy

I'm going to take a slightly different approach here than you might have expected which is that I am going to talk about the CR-AR dynamic. As the AR our role is to ASSIST not INSIST (you may have heard that one before). In the above case it appears that the referee explained to you how he was approaching the "handball" call and what he was expecting from you. One thing I ask for with my ARs is that they "read" how I am calling the game and follow suit - even though their own opinion may be different on what consititutes a foul or not. If we as ARs, and simply because of our different opinions, continue to place the referee in a position where the referee must overrule us even though they have given us their expectations then we, in fact, are not effectively performing our role as the AR. Conversely, we are creating situations that potentially "split" the officiating team and reduce our credibility with the players and spectators. It is one thing to provide information to the CR on something that he/she didn't see - it is quite another to keep insisting on your opinion as the AR after the CR has made a decision. There is much more that can be said on this subject and is worth looking into - in my opinion. All the best,

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

"When is it legal/illegal for the ball and the hand or arm to come into contact?

When the referee says it is!

In truth you are missing two very important points.

Number one the referee in charge is in charge, as AR you assist . It is apparant he gave you clear instructions as to his take, the use of the flag was NOT benifical.

The simply truth of this first point in the second point is the centrer referee was 100% correct it is NEVER a deliberate handling if the action is ONLY in the opinion of the referee an instinctive self preservation move.

It boils down to the OPINION of the referee his match, his decision, his reputation!
Slow motion replay is not an option on the field of play!
It is a fleeting moment of fate, a quick heartbeat and you make a call or no call based on what you belive to be correct.
It is an OPINION of the referee in that match, on that day that the contact was either initiated deliberately by the player towards the ball or is a result of the movement of the ball towards the arm.
A ball contacting the arm is no different than a ball striking any body part as part of natural play.
The fact we watching have different opinions only means if we were refereeing we might not make that call because we see it differently

Not to belabour the fact a referee is always correct concerning facts with play.

Here is some advice as to what deliberate handling is and why most ball and hand contact is not USUALLY deliberate.

A ball contacting the arm of a player is no different than the ball contacting ANY other body part.

While you are correct INTENT is not the issue as we can not mind read what players think we judge actions.

It is POSSIBLE for a deliberately handled ball to be unintentional in that the player did not want or try to do so. This accidental handling is actually deliberate because we judge the actions of the player not his thoughts.

A ball on its flight path into the PA the attacker jumps up tries to chest the ball, however, he misjudges the ball flight, the swerving ball aided by a gust of wind. The ball contacts the bicep, is knocked down and placed into the goal on the resulting shot. Now the player did not set out to deliberately or intentionally handle the ball. In my opinion the CIRCUMSTANCES were he deliberately rose to challange the ball and tried to contol its whereabouts. I will whistle for a DFK and the goal will not stand.

If we change the circumstances. Add a defender who jumps up with that same attacker and has one arm underneath the arm of the attacker and it is that upward push that makes the attackers arm contact that very same ball. Now we have no deliberate action as I NOW see it as a consequence of developing play the ball contacts the arm is no different now then if it hits the face or gut of that attacker, The fact it falls favourably to the attacker who now scores is a legal goal despite the protests that will howl from the defenders.

AS long as we do not see the arm react in a way where it controls the ball direction as opposed to the ball striking the arm and rebounding away we have no foul.

It is also important to keep in mind the ages of the kids and the level of skill. Older better skilled players will have more control on their reactions and movements. In each situation where the ball and arm/hand come into contact ask yourself why did it occur? If the ball is at fault it is NEVER a deliberate handling. Also remember some fouls are doubtfull or trivial in nature in that they are not needed to be called.

A defender standing alone at the edge of his penalty area is trying to control a long clearing ball of some 60 yards . No opponent is within 30 yards, the ball bounces directly in front of him as he tries to trap it and it bounces up catching him under the arm. As an opinion a referee can make a distinction the deliberate attempt to try and play that ball was offset by an unusual bounce of the ball off the ground and the fact no opponent is disadvantaged by the action. I see no reason to call anything. If that same circumstance has the ball bouncing over the defender's head and he reaches up and grabs that same ball. We have an oops that would be hard to ignore where the first one was easy to do so.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

The 2003 and 2005 ATRs both have excellent instructions for us as to what constitutes handling violations. A player should NEVER be penalized for protecting herself reflexively and/or instinctively. This is the most wrongly called foul in youth soccer. Go watch virtually any U10 match and you'll see a PK awarded because a 9 year old kid threw up her hand to avoid having her head taken off by an onrushing ball. Another thing you are missing is the center referee is the boss even if you disagree with his interpretations. After the first half, you should have kept your flag down if you "knew" he would wave it down. Consant waving down of an AR does nothing but detract from the game. The spectators/player/coaches will view this as at best a poorly co-ordinated team and at worstwill see your obvious lack of respect for the center as a reason to start questioning his calls. Why not? The AR doesn't think he knows what a handball is, so why should we think he does? How does this "assist" the referee?
Finally, you mention someone giving advantage as if this should never occur. Handling is a Law 12 violation and the advantage clause applies. In fact, I use a handling scenario when explaining advantage to new coaches/referees. A defender sticks her hand out and deliberately handles the ball 25-30 yards from the goal but knocks it to an onrushing attacker that now has a breakaway towards the goal. WOuld the attacking team rather have to set up for a DFK 25-30 yards away that allows the defenders to get back or the forward with a one on one with the keeper? Assume attacker was onside when ball was played. Signal advantage and say "play on" as it applies. If I see the ball hit a hand or arm but no foul I'll say "inadvertent" or "not deliberate" to let players know I saw it, no advantage, no foul and continue play. Thaks for the question.

Answer provided by Referee Debbie Hoelscher

My only comment to add to the plethora of insight is that I have also seen play where the player tries to move their hand away from the oncoming ball, essentially trying to avoid the contact, the ball still hits them and some goofball referee still calls "hand ball," which continues to baffle me.