Question Number: 35376

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/11/2024

Tyler of Vancouver, BC Canada asks...

Hello, I have a question about defending yourself from the ball using your hands.

I was reffing a U14 girls game yesterday and I called a handball on a player who was defending herself from the ball using her hands. She didn’t put hands directly in front of her face but more in front of her chest but not against her body. The ball, still after hitting her hand, hit her face and she got a bloody nose, but I still called a handball for the other team. The other team kicked the ball towards the net and another player hit it in. Other than that one goal, the game was tied up pretty good, so without that goal they probably would have tied. The final score was 1-0. Should that have been a handball? Is there a place players can put their hands that is allowed to protect themselves?

Thank you!!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Tyler
The great deliberate handling question and probably the most debated offence in the game. The call you describe can be a difficult one
Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball from close distance may not constitute deliberate handling unless the action was intentional say in charging a ball down or there is subsequent action to direct the ball once contact is made.
Likewise, placing hands or arms to protect the body at a free kick is not likely to produce an infringement unless the raised arm has made the body significantly bigger and there is subsequent action to direct or control the ball.

Now at Underage there is no doubt a fear of the ball in many players and players usually raise their arms instinctively for protection. The test for me is whether the action is used intentionally to assist in the play or just an protective, instinctive arm raise with no movement towards the ball yet turning away in an attempt not to get hit.
The latter instinctive reaction is not likely to result in deliberate handling yet we have all seen them given. Certainly as players get older there would be less tolerance of raising arms for protection.
Another factor worth considering is whether the arms are not extended away from the body making the body bigger. If the arm is in a position that the ball is likely to hit the body anyway one can argue it was not going to disadvantage the opponents either way as it is hitting the body rather than just the arm. Raise the arm above the head or away to the side and it’s making the body bigger.

If a player knowingly goes towards the ball with raised arms to help in that play there is a every chance it will get called as handling yet a reaction after the kick and moving away for protection is less likely. There can be a fine line between both.

I recall a good many seasons ago in a Women's game where a substitute had just come on late in the game. The ball was kicked high and long and the player was watching the ball from a distance. At the last minute I could she took fright and rather than heading the ball raised her hands to protect her head turning away which happened inside the penalty area. I did not give the penalty although I probably could have as the option to avoid the ball was present for some time as the ball travelled quite a distance yet in some ways last minute protection fear overtook her original decision making. I could have given the penalty as the player had time to avoid the ball yet I chose otherwise. I just saw fear overtake her hence her raised arms to cover her head reaction. It made no difference to the game which helped the no call.

For what it is worth I cannot say if the call was correct or not. There is a side of me that says that given the age group that it was more instinctive for protection rather than deliberate so I’m leaning to no call. Many times it makes little difference except in this one as the outcome was a goal that decided the game. The conceding team will be unhappy with the call yet when raising an arm a player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Tyler.
good on you for refereeing the game, now not saying you were wrong as it was in the opinion of the referee but given your description I tend to find your decision harsh. Bloody nose she would require medical attention possible jersey change but was that arm and ball contact designed to deliberately prevent the ball from entering the goal? Was not her face in the way the entire time and with no arms the ball would have struck her?
In youth matches I RARELY award handling fouls unless perfectly obvious they had no reason to do so except prevent a goal or stop an attack.

The ones that are CLEARLY just reacting and protecting themselves generally are IN LINE with the ball flight not swinging their arms like an orangutang up over their heads. With the wee ones up to say kids like u -12 who are not permitted to head the ball, which is silly, as not all balls are coming in at high altitude with force where kids need to wrap their arms over their head to protect it. I get safety but a bit of reason to go along with it might encourage a nod forward of a bouncing ball.

Still no matter the age, young ladies and girls have an issue of their breasts & often they cross the arms over the breast plate and using them as a rebounding platform to propel the ball forward or actually run into the ball rather than seek alternate ways to play as chest can still be used. The ladies do it quite well but then we have the head, knee, thigh, foot, shoulder to play the ball as well. You let the ball impact is one thing but you redirect it, that is another thing entirely and most definitely a foul.

As my colleague noted, players get older there is less tolerance of raising arms for protection because there is time to avoid and skills to develop that give greater options. Yet in cases where I see it as NOT deliberate I yell out something like NO! NOT deliberate! Keep going! so no one mistakes that I missed the contact. I also never cry out, PLAY ON, on a accidentally handled ball as that is, advantage off a foul lingo and could imply as such!
They key aspect in these situations is be consistent in the application but I suggest think spirit more than letter of law.

I recall a match where a young keeper switched at half to be an outfield player but the very first shot on goal he caught instinctively with his hands then gulped, realized ah crap and tossed the ball over his shoulder into his own goal. I had not blown the whistle, So I awarded the goal no red card . We could go PK and red card but it was pretty clear what occurred was a brain freeze! As these kids travelled to other communities they often played two or three matches in an all day affair so why ruin a kids' weekend?

In another scenario I had a girl actually raise her hands up over head, elbows by her eyes but hands clearly above her head which the incoming ball hit and deflected to a CLEAR very much onside attacker who had a easy scoring opportunity. The SCREAMS for the foul by the adults on the touchline literally stopped the kids in their tracks. I yelled & signaled "Advantage PLAY ON!" and while it was true everyone sort of delayed hesitation expecting a call, off she went to shoot . The fact is while it was an excellent opportunity for the advantage the 13 year old kids were not used to an obvious foul not being called via a whistle immediately. Yet they also were so used to a foul being called when the ball and arms met it was 2nd nature to just stop and wait for that whistle. Sigh. Now I am not saying do not call a foul if it needs to be called BUT be brave, do not make the techy iffy calls to placate the screamers, let the kids play as much as you can!
Cheers