Question Number: 32814

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/18/2018

Larry of Danville, CA USA asks...

I recently participated in a webinar by the California North Referee Administration on handling, and I would appreciate your input on two items that were discussed. The entire webinar can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeEGUIB95jjM80LQQOZPixQ.

1. A video clip at 29:30 was shown of an attacker in the PA. She receives a pass that deflects off her thigh and hits her hand. The ball then drops to the ground where the attacker maintains control. The presenter stated that the contact was not deliberate, which I agreed with, but according to FIFA since she obtained an advantage by the contact, and had a potential scoring opportunity, handling should be called. He further stated that had the exact same play occurred at mid field, or occurred to a defender in their own PA, we should not call handling. When I questioned this interpretation, I was told that this is how it is being taught at the highest levels. I can not find anything on the US Soccer or IFAB web pages that support this interpretation.

2. After the webinar I asked about the video presentation by US Soccer of Esse Baharmast (which IS currently on their web page) where he states that when a defender who performs a slide tackle and the ball hits the hand/arm it should be considered deliberate handling, as the defender deliberately took that risk. The webinar presenter stated that they are moving away from a risk consideration, and it has more to do with the arm position.

I know not all of you are bound by what is taught by US Soccer, but what do you think of these interpretations? Also, is it any wonder that handling is so difficult to understand when the interpretation of the law seems to vary year by year?

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Larry ,
Not a huge fan likely because there is no evidence other than a new found myth or opinion being circulated? I have not heard, seen or been taught that an unintentionally handled ball BECAUSE it is advantageous is NOW the norm for a non foul err foul????

I think given how poorly they seem to deal with this subject that someone or some group is pushing an agenda?

I can agree that to deliberately try and score a goal using your hands is about as unfair an act there is.

YET the fact the ball can go into the goal off the arm/hand is NO different than it can go off the end of your butt, the top of a shoulder, the nose on your face, the side of the ear. Look at the end of a knee is it different then the end of an elbow?

If they wish this addressed then add a portion of law that says no goal can be scored if it is a result of a ball striking the arm of the attacker only. Make such an occurrences an INDFK out with no caution or foul as it was accidental.

Given any ball that scores off a defending handling accident or even if on purpose & fails we would award the goal anyway??? If the ball went in accidently off any arm no caution is required.

So WHO is the web presenter and what structure does he occupy in the FIFA IFAB hierarchy??

My guys/gals of reference were on the FIFA referee committee & or part of the IFAB discussion research group SPECIFICALLY asked to address handling issues which is where the ESSE broadcast came out of as it was taught at the U 21 WORLD group headed by Pierluigi Collina.

There could be truth in there is always new people put into positions of power that like to tweak something to their own version of fair or what's right or wrong. Statements such as the web presenter made IF they are true best find some factoids to seperate this story from mythology?

I do know the risk assessment was to clarify the very thing this new wrinkle of gaining an advantage from an accidental handling. Scooping up balls or redirecting balls while sliding on the ground had stopped several goals. Coaches & players screaming because some referee were saying PK others play on. It is this goal of consistency I believe the do try to address but they are fooling themselves because it will ALWAYS be the opinion of the referee in real time.

The concept I assumed was to say a slide tackle challenge is the deliberate risky act thus ANY ball arm contact stemmed from the challenge, kind of like position on offside with involvement later. The fact you go into a challenge to stop the ball from being crossed or shot and your hand BECOMES the reason the ball can not is sufficient for the foul this despite the sliding player was not necessarily intending to use the arm but given it is attached to the body it follows along. This does NOT include being down and subsequent play where a bal catches a free arm after a fall or while you are getting up.
This DESIRE to PUNISH unintentional handlings as deliberate handling because they establish a precedent the if a player initiated some form of deliberate reaction they discount considering intent at all, establishing only the arm position in relation to the deliberate act.

What I REALLY get from most of thse seminars they seem to want you to call everything all the time if the least bit suspect.

Their freeze frame point of contact is GARBAGE because you are so biased in your viewpoint in these clips as it is not a true representation of the facts. You can not distinguish the spin which the girl appears to be trying to get out of the way. You can watch a million videos in slow motion you still cannot see it in real time. I am 100% convinced it you asked that young lady did you deliberately stick your arm out to block the ball was that you intention she would say 100% no She tried to swing out of the way. If you understand kinesiology at all her arm movements were in perfect step with her leg movements as part of a running, jumping action so the guy is just plain wrong to say it is unnatural. If he thinks it is unfair fine but in no way is it unnatural. Even in the first one that girl was guarding her face eyes shut she was not trying to deliberately stop that ball, she just could not stop herself from projecting outwards to guard her face. I agree it still was a deliberate motion taking safety a bit too far but to say that ball would miss her given she was jumping across into its path. Maybe that contact changed the angle of flight away an she pulled back all at the same time?

Personally I found it way easier for me in the old days to determine if I thought there was no intent by the person to use their hands and call NOTHING THERE, unless I was convinced it was and blow to stop!! Do not forget you CAN still see trifling or doubtful in certain instances as well. When players are surprised by a bouncing ball or one that just evades another who was trying to play it only for the ball to to suddenly appear, like a deer in headlights they simply cannot escape the hit. I saw wonderful no calls at the recent WC like the the one of Rojos head on to his hand in the Argentina game v Nigeria but I also saw one VAR review PK call make the wrong decision in my opinion in the final of France & Croatia. But then

Your match your decision your reputation

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Larry
The game is full of opinions and advice. Some associations try to bring uniformity to decision making so that there is consistency among referees. While a worthy sentiment the reality is completely different. Even those that deliver the advice have opinions which tends to influence their delivery
1. On point one that is flawed advice in Law. If it is no offence at half way it is no offence in the penalty area. The Law makes no mention of location of the offence nor any mention of benefitting from the situation. Yes human nature leads us to the temptation to call it in a way that causes least *hassle* for the game such as perhaps a defensive free kick on a goal opportunity and the same at half way or no penalty kick and no free kick at half way.
In the recent WC which is the best examples we have of Law decision advice at the highest level, much like precedent in the highest court of the land, there were a number of handling calls made / not made. Some were the subject of VAR in particular I recall the one where the ball bounced off Rojos' head on to his hand in the Argentina game v Nigeria . The referee on review ruled no offence on the basis that the player could not have possibly known that the deflected ball would hit his hand nor could he avoid it
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0bqMlnVtohg
Would it have been given in real time if it was a forward?
My view is that associations should stick to what IFAB has advised which is in the LotG.
** Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. 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**
The ball boncing of the thigh hitting an arm is an unexpected yes ball and therefore in my opinion not an offence.
As I have mentioned every slide tackle is different and there can be an unexpected ball in there along with the position of the hand / arm being entirely natural and the ball has struck the arm from short distance which is not a deliberate action.

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Larry,
In reference to the ball that deflected off the player's thigh and hits her hand, it is true that there is nothing from the IFAB to support the interpretation that this should be called as handling because the player obtained an advantage from this - nor is there anything saying it should be called differently depending on where it occurred. The only things that should be considered in relation to handling offences are the things happening (including the player's actions and what happens with the ball) before or immediately as the contact occurs between ball and hand. What happens after the contact is not relevant to deciding on whether the player has committed a deliberate act. Intent occurs before the event, not afterwards. The law on handling also contains no hint whatsoever of a requirement to consider where the offence occurred.

As for a ball deflected from close range like that, the law says that the referee must consider the factor known as the ''unexpected ball.'' A ball deflecting off the player's own thigh is almost certainly within the definition of an unexpected ball.

On the second point about moving away from a risk consideration and towards consideration of the arm position, I would just point out that would seem to be contrary to the law as written - and which tells us quite clearly that, ''the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence.''

At a minimum, I would say that phrase would have to be removed from the Laws before such guidelines could be officially promulgated. While that phrase remains in effect (as it currently does) then it precludes the possibility of saying that arm position should be considered definitive, when the Laws tell us that it is not.