Question Number: 30424

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/18/2016

RE: High School High School

Matt J. of Iowa, Iowa USA asks...

Hand Ball;

Scenario;
Player goes to 'chest trap' a ball out of the air. In the process, SHE puts her fists up tight by her collar bones with her forearms tight to her body and her elbows pointing straight down. The ball his off her forearms and then to the ground. Her arms don't move during the process, they don't extend out from her body, she does not making a punching motion....the ball just hits. Handball or NO handball.

This was my player. The ref DID NOT make the handball argument and other coach was furious continuing after the ref after the game. His explanation, it has to be an 'intentional act'.

Thoughts?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Matt
There are two bodies of opinion on this. The majority see it as deliberate handling as the player has moved her arms deliberately to assist in the playing of the ball. I am in that camp and I would call deliberate handling here.
Now there is also a group who see this as protection by a female while playing the ball. I dont buy that argument and one would never see this in a womens high level game as it is considered deliberate handling. The player has time to react and has deliberately / intentionally moved the arms rather than an instinctive protection movement. If she is afraid of the ball then do not play it with the chest.
Perhaps let me put it another way. Let us posit the scenario where a player goes to charge the ball down and that players raises his / her arms to protect/ assist in the charge down what would be the call. I believe all referees would call that as deliberate handling even if the reason for the raised arms was to help protect. Sometimes the player who has arrived in front of the opponent, arms in a natural position and the ball hits an arm from short distance. That is not deliberate handling. Now are the raised arms in front of the chest a deliberate intentional act and any different from the raised arms in a deliberate charge down?. The player has used her arms to assist in playing the ball so it is no different.
I recall in a womens game a few seasons ago and a player came on as a sub. She went to head a cross and then realised at the last moment that she was afraid of the ball so her reaction was one of panic so she changed her mind, turned away, raised her arm up to her head and the ball hit her arm. I did not call that as handling as it was clear that it was not deliberate. It was a pure instinctive protection reactions and it could not be considered deliberate. That cannot be compared to the player who does as you describe which is a deliberate action to assist in playing the ball. I am also aware that some in the womens game do not like concessions being made to their game that is different to the men. This is certainly one of them.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

Hi Matt,

It's a good question and as Ref McHugh states, there are 2 sides of this one.

For a long time there has been the notion that female players can do this to protect their chest. Let's break down that argument, because in my opinion it's completely wrong.
Players are allowed to protect themselves - but this must be a self protective reflex. Arm up to the face as a shot is blasted from a few yards away (of course, the shot must be on target - arms coming up and striking the ball that was missing the face should still be a foul).
The common argument defending women protecting their chest is given as men protecting themselves in the wall. Well, while they are preemptively protecting themselves, they still have no time to react. If a shot was blasted at the wall, they wouldn't have the chance to respond. So that is self-protection. And a woman would certainly be entitled to protect her chest there.
But in open play a player has an obligation to avoid allowing the ball to hit their arm, where practical. You have a scenario where the ball has come from far enough away that the player has time to choose their actions. So there is no 'self protective reflex there' - she simply chose to place her arms over her body in case she misjudges the ball.
As my colleague points out, at any high level females don't do this because if the ball is chested properly there is no real risk. If the player does not feel confident enough that she can chest the ball without hurting herself then that doesn't mean she's allowed to deliberately handle the ball (which she is doing here) - it means the onus is on her to find a different way of playing it.
Young or fairly unskilled players may misjudge a header - I've seen many players strike the ball with their face instead of their forehead. Should we allow a player to put their arms in front of their face and then deliberately strike the ball in that fashion with their arms because they may misjudge a header and hurt themselves?
Of course not - but what's the difference between this and what some girls have been taught to do?
There's none whatsoever. This is simply a myth and a poorly thought out concession that many young women have been taught - and many referees have encourage. But there is no support in the LOTG whatsoever for it. If the girls lack the confidence to chest the ball properly without missing and causing themselves pain, then it's their responsibility to find another way of playing the ball - not the responsibility of the laws to change to suit one player's lack of confidence in their own ability.
Unfortunately there will be inconsistency across referees with this - but if you can coach it out of your players you'll reduce the chance of them giving away a penalty kick.
Of course, the biggest concern here is the actions of the opposing coach - they sound completely and utterly unacceptable and unprofessional.