Question Number: 33411

Other 6/2/2019

RE: Played Select and ODP a long time ago Adult

Matt Culberson of DECATUR, GA United States asks...

After seeing the Sissoko handball for a PK in the UCL final (not terribly sad about it, up the reds!) it's just another instance of an ambiguous, and overly punitive handball rule giving a team a goal in a huge stage. For a couple years I've had a rule change idea, and I was wondering if it's ever been considered: Make all handballs indirect free kicks with two exceptions that would equal penalty kicks being 1) inside the six yard box and 2) obvious DOGSO in blocking an open net goal.
The thing for me is that 95% of handballs are accidental, and probably 80-90% are very difficult asks on the defender to get out of the way. Reflexes simply aren't that fast. And a lot of the time, having an arm in an unnatural position IS in fact a natural position for balance or momentum of whatever action the defender is taking. Contrary to fouling an attacker in the 18, handballs are hardly ever impactful enough to justify an almost guaranteed goal. And changing the punishment to an indirect kick would remove the onus from the subjectivity of the referee.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Matt,
you should reread just about every handling situation this site has commented about and you will find that all of us here are in at least partial agreement with your evaluation. I will say though, the extended arm pointing up, it is hard to say it does not fit the guidelines recently explained for WHY a handling could be awarded. It might well be he was simply pointing to his teammate to cover and the tricky attacker kicked the ball directly into his RAISED arm. I have to believe it was the fact it was above his shoulder that drew the foul because if the arm was beside the body that would not qualify as deliberate at that speed and distance . I would be very keen to ask the attacker truthfully if indeed he deliberately saw this as an opportunity to DRAW the foul. I agree the Pk for that is simply not a FAIR result.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Matt
Regular visitors to the site will know that I have been extolling the merits of the IDFK for deliberate handling except where a goal or goal scoring opportunity has been denied or where a card is required.
Most of the handling I see as 'technical' offences which should be punished as a technical offence. Rarely do I see the certain deliberate movement of the ball with the hand. Generally outfield it is always a debate about whether it was deliberate or not and rarely about the type of restart. Make it a technical offence and it does not really matter inside the PA much like a foot foul of the ball in hockey.
In my opinion the appropriate sanction should be proportionate to the nature of the offence and aim to restore any possible loss caused. Had Sissoko fouled an opponent through a careless trip etc while playing the ball with an opponent through on goal the sanction would have been the exact same. All the player did was to have his arm in an unnatural position for whatever reason. It was not to handle the ball or make himself bigger. Perhaps it was not DHB as we have known it and many not in refereeing saw it as accidental. Yet the current thinking / advice is that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a 'natural' position and a player is taking a risk by having the hand/arm in that position being called as DHB which happened here. That risk was penalised and expected at this level. It is also why we see some players with their arms tucked in when challenging an opponent. It is also an unnatural body position that I do not like yet had it been used here there would have been a different outcome.
So an IDFK here would have restored anything that was *lost* and it would have been proportionate to the offence. The penalty kick was in my opinion was not the appropriate sanction for the 'offence'.
In many ways as well it had, in my opinion, the effect of stifling the game. Rather than opening it up Liverpool with the very early goal decided to hold on to the lead and did not really impose themselves on the game as expected and played a type of game that they were not familiar with. Spurs had most of the possession 65% yet did not really want to really push on for fear of a second goal. As a result for the neutral it was a poor contest not worthy of a CL Final. That though is not a reflection on the refereeing which was excellent and he did what was *expected* based on the current handling advice. It was the big talking point in the game and many questioned the penalty award as they did not feel it merited same. Interestingly there was not one card in the game! I wonder when was the last Final of any description that did not have a card?