Question Number: 32469

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/24/2018

RE: All levels except professional Other

Dimitrios G. Panagiotidis of DES PLAINES, IL United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 32467

Not a question but more of a follow up to the excellent answers provided so far:

I am basing my decision to this FIFA explanation:

' ... A handball should not be awarded if a player is ruled to have handled the ball accidentally. This refers to a player either attempting to protect himself from injury, for example by placing the hands in front of the face and then being hit by the ball, or a player being hit on the arm by the ball without moving towards the ball and without being able to move out of the way. An example might be a snap shot hitting the arm of a defender at point-blank range. However, if a players arm is in an unnatural position, for example outstretched or above their head, then a foul should be awarded whether accidental or not. ... '

In this case, the defender was expecting the ball at chest level (or lower) but he was surprised by the goalkeeper's touch (only 5-6 yds to his left) so he attempted to clear the ball using his head. His hands are in the unnatural position of being 'high' because of his last minute effort to jump up, back and left, in order to make head-contact with the ball. I use the principle of 'hand to the ball' or 'ball to the hand' (and from what distance) to determine whether I am calling a DHB or not.

In this case, I was standing less than 10 yds away and saw the whole thing so clearly. The defender's expression (poor kid) was so disappointed with his 'luck'. I have no doubt the two hand-balls were non-deliberate, more the result of surprise and awkward positioning. But in essence with his involvement -albeit inadvertent- the defender gained an unfair advantage: Had the ball not ricochet (three times!) in his head, then right and left hands, his opponent, still 5 yds away and not involved in this play at all, would have had a chance to get in the action and contest for the ball.

In the initial split second before my decision I was going for the corner kick but then I realised that a PK was a more 'fair' call. As all of you pointed out, there is no chance for a DOGSO at all, and showing a yellow card would imply deliberate action, which -IMO- was not.

Thank you all for your answers, this is an excellent site/resource for us non-pro refs.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Dimitrios,
thanks for the kind words . We do try to give a broad brush approach because not every incident is exactly the same. I might also point out we are more TOLERANT at youth than adult for marginal or fuzzy handlings where safety or skill are involved.

The recent adaptation of RISK added to challenges where players go to ground in a slide tackle for instance . If the ball makes arm contact as result of the challenge it is a DH foul simply because you lose control of the body on a committed slide tackle, which in of its self is a deliberate action.
So if a trailing arm inadvertently stops a pass or a shot referees used to be able to say it was unintentional & allow play to continue. The problem no two referees could agree all the time if this was correct or not. Coaches & players frustrated as to what MIGHT be called at one end not called at the other .Now in my honest opinion it is an iron clad PK or DFK.

Mind you a challenge to stop an opponent or to slide to try and stop a ball from entering the goal are NOT viewed the same as if say a player was knocked down or fell and a ball struck him inadvertently in the arm while getting up.

Same too for a player playing with arms wide or high while jumping or trying o deny space for a pass or shot versus a player struggling for balance wind milling the arms to stay on their feet.

As referees we do have to apply the LOTG consistently, correctly & fairly which is why we can occasionally use fair to temper reason particularly at youth level. Based on your description I would have had no qualms of no foul corner kick until you mentioned the arms were high. That speculates their positioning MIGHT be enough to change my opinion of not deliberate to deliberate based on the space they were occupying to deny the ball entry towards the goal. When we do not see the incident it is difficult to say 100% you were spot on. The fact is the position of the hands/arms does not necessarily mean that there is a definite offence, it is a factor in determining based on the reasonability of the arms attached to the body they MUST follow. I trip, my arms out for balance as I fall incoming ball hits those outstretched arms IS NOT The same as I jump up arms in the air above my head. One is perfectly reasonable the other is not! While we do point out the arm positioning is a factor in denying space the fact the ball hitting the arm falls favourably for the defenders is not a consideration, if in your opinion the contact was not deliberate. I do remind you though as an OPINION on a fact of play as referee YOURS is the only one the counts!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Dimitrios
The ongoing debate on deliberate handling has highlighted just how difficult the deliberate handling call is for referees.
Some in the game have tried to bring clarity to this and as an example a FIFA training seminar showed referees being encouraged to call handling on defenders who had gone to ground to challenge for the ball where the ball hits an arm. A straw poll of those present showed a mixed reaction to all the videos with many saying handling and others not. Therein lies a problem for the game as no two handling are the same and no two referees will agree on handling. It is not possible for every single referee to have the same instructions and we are left really with what it says in the Laws of the Game which I quote
The following must be considered:
# the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
# the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
# the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
# touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
# hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence.
Now when I looked at the FIFA examples I could clearly see that the intention of the defenders was to play the ball with the foot and through circumstances the ball hit an arm. The argument presented was that the ball hitting an arm took away the advantage from the attacker in some way the argument of the unfair advantage. I get that yet that is not part of the Laws. At an extreme an attacker could have his back to the ball, hands by his side standing there and a defender kicks a clearance which his the opponents arm and rebounds into the goal. An absolute clear enefit of a goal yet not deliberate handling.
For me there are three types of handling. One is the rare event where the player knowingly and intentionally moves the ball with a hand / arm. Second one is where the player makes himself bigger by using his arms which plays the ball i.e. the charge down, going in with the arms raised and thirdly the one where the ball hits the players arm as part of a natural playing action.
In rugby play is stopped if a player does not cleanly catch or hold the ball and knocks it forward. It is called a knock on. If a player goes to charge down a kick even if it hits his arm and plays it forward it is not a knock on. Both have same outcome of the ball going forward off a hand with two different responses.
I believe soccer can learn from other sports such as rugby. I can very easily tell the difference between the three handling situations I described. Most can discern the situation where the player moves the ball with the hand which is easiest and the rarest. Player sticks out a hand to stop the ball
The ones that cause the most angst is determining if the ball just hits an arm. I think the simplest way is to make the clear movement of the ball with a hand and the raised arm charge down a DFK/ penalty and to make the rest IDFKs where there is potential handling. My thinking is that the ones that are technical handballs should be punished as technical fouls.
Yes some will argue that the decision then will be to discern the difference yet I am confident that it is easily decided. Your example is a technical handling as you say yourself non deliberate. Compare that to the player who knowingly sticks out his arm to bat the ball away or goes in with his arms up to assist in playing the ball.
Just a thought and unlikely to happen yet I can see the DHB debate raging on for many years.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Dimitrios,
Thanks for the kind words. However I think I would take a slightly 'harder line' than my colleagues with my response. You said in your original question that the handing 'was 100% unintentional' and in this follow-up, you say the handing was 'non-deliberate.' If so then based on your own words, this was not deliberate handling and so not an offence.

The primary and overriding consideration in judging handling offences is whether the player has committed a deliberate act in making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The other factors such as ball to hand/hand to ball, unexpected ball and hand/arm position are secondary considerations to use as an aid to deciding on the primary fact of whether the handling was deliberate or not. They should not be used on their own and especially not to override the primary consideration. The law does not say, 'If the arms are in an unnatural position, deliberate handling has automatically occurred.' You should however look at the arm position and try to use that as one of the potential indicators, helping you to decide whether it was deliberate - or not.

For instance, there could be a situation where even though the arms are in a 'natural position' (whatever that actually means, which is another highly subjective area of debate) the referee could still decide that the handling was deliberate based on the other factors and equally, the arms could be in an unnatural position and the handling might still not be deliberate. The laws actually tell us that, 'the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence.' Which is basically saying that natural/unnatural arm position alone is not enough to decide on the overall nature of the offence.

You also say that the fact that the defending team gained an unfair advantage influenced your decision. I'm afraid that is wrong. The result of the handling is not a probative element. You cannot decide whether a particular instance of handling was deliberate based on something that happened after the handling occurred, only what happens prior to, and in the actual moment of, the handling. There have been a number of examples that I can recall where the ball was prevented from entering the net by a defender's hand or arm but the referee quite correctly did not call any offence because it was not a deliberate act by the player There have also been cases where the ball has gone into the net off an attacker's arm and the goal was allowed because once again, the handling was not deliberate. Whether the player's team gains an advantage is not the determining factor.

It is also not true that 'showing a yellow card would imply deliberate action.' If the referee judges that the handling was a deliberate action the decision should simply be a free kick. Handling only becomes a yellow card if, in addition to being deliberate, it constitutes unsporting behaviour, including when handling is used to stop a promising attack, in an an attempt to score a goal or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal.