Question Number: 31252

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 2/12/2017

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31220

Hello, answer me last question please. This question is: 'Can you imagine situation, when the player process pass (center, long ball) with hand, which is close to the body, and it is not offense?' Several referees gave me confilcting answers in real life (always offense, never o., sometimes o.). Thanks!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
Your questions seem to raise an issue with handling.
Handling can be one of the most difficult calls to make as the referee has to determine if the action was deliberate or not. If it is not deliberate there is no offence. Deliberate can include making no attempt to avoid the ball with the hands / arm
When the arm is close to the body it can be deemed to be in a natural position. However a player can have his arm at his side and move his body and arm so that the ball hits the arm or if the ball comes from a distance and the player makes no effort to avoid the ball hitting his arm then those are deliberate handling actions . That arm has made the players body some 3 / 4 inches wider which is deliberate handling in some instances.
Have a look at this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AUQ3g6Jfn5U
I can assure you that there will be differing answers to this call. In my opinion the handling is NOT deliberate and no offence should be called. The player is running and the ball is kicked at short range hitting his arm. Now some will say that it was deliberate citing that the players arm is slightly raised away from his body. I personally think that it is a running action movement and therefore totally natural. The ball hits the player not the other way around nor does he have the chance to avoid the ball.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=smR4Gl9BlKg
In this one does defender #23 move his arm to the ball or does it surprise him by hitting him on the arm? I think there is sufficient doubt not to give the penalty.
So there is no easy answer in these situations. In my game today a player was on the ground and ball was stopped by his arm. Some argued that he could not avoid it and perhaps so although I also believed he made no attempt to do so and I awarded the direct free kick. Perhaps another referee might have seen it differently and made no call. So the same situation can have two differing opinions / outcomes which is why you are going to get conflicting answers. No easy answer I am afraid to what is in the opinion of the referee on the day given a set of circumstances.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
The answer is yes, I can imagine a situation where there is contact between the player's hand and the ball when the hand is close to the body and there is no offence. I can also imagine a situation (or situations) where it would be an offence.

I think this is the reason why you ate getting conflicting answers. Given the limited amount of information in the question, it is impossible to make a definitive decision one way or the other.

I wouldn't say it's never possible to give an opinion on whether a deliberate handling offence has occurred without actually seeing it but it's certainy difficult without a rather more detailed description. There are just so many variables.

Once again, you mention the point about the hand being close to the body so I feel I must point out again that this is not on its own, sufficient reason to make the call one way or the other.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,

truth, your version, his version, their version, our version is all based on the perception of known facts of what we see and the marriage of the knowledge of what we think we know to fit our opinion of what has occurred.

Reality refereeing in real time requires an instant decision, not one where we rewind, pause, reflect . Yes, we do that AFTER in the post game review but to answer a question as ubiquitous as yours, you can not get a definitive answer, as my colleagues point out, too many variables are added to the thought process.

It sounds simple enough, is it deliberate or is it not deliberate? The location of the hands, be they close to the body or far away, is not a requirement, only a condition. We do not run with hands against our body. They are on the end of our arms, which are attached to our body, thus they go where we go, even if they take up a certain proportion of alternate space.

I have said very often on this site and in my teachings to others along the road of experience that in my OPINION be it humble or one of ego in my faith I am right, the offence of deliberately handles the ball is misdiagnosed far more than ANY offence within the LOTG.

It should not be called UNLESS the referee is 100% convinced the act was deliberate otherwise play continues. I base my offside calls in the same manner, unless I am 100% convinced it was then it was not! I find no reason to 2nd guess myself during a match, if a video shows up later disproving my decision I will adapt ad learn but no regrets as I know in that decision it was made 100% on integrity even if I was proven completely incorrect.

We are not MIND readers we can not always be 100% confident what a player was thinking when there is a ball/hand or hand/ball occurrence EVEN if at times we can correctly surmise the reasoning or circumstances.

Look at the 2010 quarterfinal World Cup in South Africa, Uruguay against Ghana where the Uruguayan striker Mr. bite me I taste good the cannibal Suarez reached up and swatted a sure goal away in the final seconds of the match. The resulting Ghana PK was missed and that very clear easily diagnosed DELIBERATE act of handling pushed Uruguay through to the next stage of the World cup.

Now look at the Republic of Ireland and France second round of qualification for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. As the ball bounced upwards, Henry handled the ball with his left hand, scoring a goal off a very DELIBERATE but undiagnosed handling. The fact the ball hit he arm in the first bounce MIGHT be seen as inconclusive but the 2nd knockdown right after was CLEARLY deliberate

These are both examples of WHY this offence exists because either attack or defend it is a cheating, despicable way to win a match.

The referee should not call what he CAN NOT be sure occurred. A referee should NOT call only what they think! We need to be sure without doubt, it is NOT an offence UNLESS it was SEEN to be DONE deliberately by the match officials. I agree 100% with my colleague that the two videos on display would receive no whistle from me!

I would ALWAYS also advise a referee NEVER to use the word NEVER! That is ALWAYS a good idea some of the time!. lol

Cheers