Question Number: 16676

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 9/13/2007

RE: N/A Other

Steve Shuler of Bryant, Arkansas USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 15534

Okay, I've reviewed this question [15534] and your answers, and I have to disagree. You say that a player must "deliberately" handle a ball. But honestly, does anybody mean to handle the ball? In the majority of instances we will see as referees, the hand or arm is in an unnatural position, and the ball rebounds or bounces and strikes the arm. How are we, as referees, supposed to judge the intent of the player? Of course, there are obvious instances, such as a player reaching for the ball, but those are much rarer than the "unnatural position" examples. So, excluding the obvious, how can we know intent?

I argue that we can't, especially as the players get more skilled. If a player has his arm extended, and his arm catches the ball, how do you know he meant to touch the ball? The reverse question is also valid; if a players arm is at his side and the ball strikes it, how do you know he *didn't* mean to touch it.

I don't see how we can know, and I really don't believe that those who wrote the rules intended us to know. Think about it. What other law asks the referee to determine intent? You might say the deliberate kick-back to the goalkeeper, but even then you can tell if a player means to kick a ball backwards. No other law requires the referee to look into the mind of the player, so I have to come to the conclusion that those who wrote the law didn't intend for the referee to do so in this instance either.

I completely understand that every call is the referees, and you have to be there to really make the correct call. But I feel that intent is close to impossible to determine. I would agree with the other officials and the coach who said that the player in question should have been whistled, and a direct free kick given to the defending team.

Answer provided by Referee Michelle Maloney

I don't suppose it would change your mind to know that all competent assessors and instructors in the US will tell you referees call far too many handled balls - in fact, about 75% too many? When you, the referee, are asked to judge if the ball was handled deliberately, you are not being asked to read their mind. Really. What you are being asked to do is to carefully consider what is happening - did the hand/arm move toward the ball? Did the trajectory of the ball take an odd movement such that a player comes into contact with it quite by accident? Balls which are handled deliberately are easy to spot, 9 times out of 10, as you yourself observed. However, too many referees have gotten into the habit of making the call all the time when the ball hits the hand/arm which fuels the fervor of the spectators that if it touches the hand it must be a handled ball or as they are wont to shout "Handball, REFFFFF!" That is not at all what the writers of the Law intended. Since it is a game expected to be played fairly, such behavior as purposely handling a ball was considered to be bad form, bad sportsmanship and originally, ungentlemanly, and thus was labeled as an offense to be punished with the award of a direct free kick. Which by the way, you as the referee are bound to enforce. The Advice to Referees has this to say, and you are bound by it as a USSF referee, whether you agree or not: 12.9 DELIBERATE HANDLING
The offense known as "handling the ball" involves deliberate contact with the ball by a player's hand
or arm (including fingertips, upper arm, or outer shoulder). "Deliberate contact" means that the player
could have avoided the touch but chose not to, that the player's arms were not in a normal playing
position at the time, or that the player deliberately continued an initially accidental contact for the
purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. Moving hands or arms instinctively to protect the body when
suddenly faced with a fast approaching ball does not constitute deliberate contact unless 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 or similar restart is not likely to produce an infringement unless there is
subsequent action to direct or control the ball. The fact that a player may benefit from the ball
contacting the hand does not transform the otherwise accidental event into an infringement. A player
infringes the Law regarding handling the ball even if direct contact is avoided by holding something in
the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.).
12.10 RULE OF THUMB FOR "HANDLING"
The rule of thumb for referees is that it is handling if the player plays the ball, but not handling if the
ball plays the player. The referee should punish only deliberate handling of the ball, meaning only
those actions when the player (and not the goalkeeper within the ?keeper?s own penalty area) strikes or
propels the ball with the hand or arm (shoulder to tip of fingers).

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

A Deliberate action and intent are two FUNDEMENTALLY different things. You are correct, we are not mind readers, we judge what it is we SEE based on what a player DOES, not what he thinks. Why you gleaned that this was difficult from the answers of my colleagues is beyond me? No one here judges based on what a player thought he might do.

The correct terminology is, "handle the ball deliberately" as we do not judge the intent we judge the action initiated by the player! We consider the flight path and speed of the ball and if the player has choice in his actions. We look at the age, skill and weather conditions as erratic movements, poor vision, slippery surfaces can lead to unexpected things even the playing surface where the ground is uneven or longish grass affect the bounces of the ball and can create unusal situations.

Consider a defending player who jumps up to defend an incoming ball in the middle of the PA . As he jumps he raises his arms way above his head and turns his body so he is not facing the ball as he jumps and the raised extended arms make contact with the ball high above the heads of the attackers. Now he claims it was an accident he did not intend for the arms to hit the ball and he was not looking at the ball thus he wants no call!

As referee I could see a player AWARE of the flight path of the ball deliberately jump up and towards the ball with the express purpose of preventing any attacker an uncontested easy header. Did he intend to hit the ball with his hands ? Perhaps not but why are the hands deliberately raised above the head DIRECTLY in line with the flight path of the ball? I see it as a DFK thus PK foul in this attempt to defend for handles the ball deliberately inside the PA!

Now imagine this same defender jumping up to defend against an uncontested header except we see he is off balance and is knocked by being slightly undercut off a team mate and as he falls his hands are thrown above his head striking the ball as he falls backwards! Is the deliberate action of trying to defend now mitigated by the unfortunate series of events causing him to lose his balance, thus making the contact no foul at all? In my opinion if I see all of it yes there is no foul! Opinion and perception allow us to review the content of every action and analyze if there is a foul or no call based on our recognition of the facts we actually see!

In the incident previously discussed the referee awarded a goal after the ball bounced and hit the attackers hand. Now he decided this was not a deliberate action and saw it as no foul then the attacker is free to play the ball as if that ball had hit her in the nose, face, ear, bum, chest or any other body part. Advantage plays no part in allowing play to continue if there was no foul! Advantage is applied only AFTER a foul has occurred and in the opinion of the referee the opposition is better off to continue play then stop. No stoppage possible, then no advantage possible!

Consider if this was a defender trying to clear the ball based on the premise I first introduced earlier! If you feel the attacker was guilty then a defender must be as well. Thus you would award a PK for the defender flubbing his deliberate kick and a funny bounce takes the ball into a trailing hand?
The hand was not placed into the line of flight of the ball as the jumper did in. The hand did not try to redirect or force the bal in any direction the ball simply bounced weird and struck the arm, while it is obvious this was unintentional as you point out we can not be sure of a thought but we are sure in what we saw and why it occurred.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

I've heard it said that if you never call handling again in your life, you'll probably be right over 90% of the time.

There is a difference between "deliberate action" and "intended action". Did the player intend to handle the ball, in other words did she try to do it? We can't tell that without mind-reading skills. All we can see is what she did. Did her deliberate actions cause her arms to be in line with the ball? If so, handling is called. If she never saw the ball heading her way, it can't be deliberate because she did nothing to make the contact happen. If the arms are held in what is sometimes called not normal playing position, such as being stretched out to the side or above her head, this is also considered deliberate action. Players should know that extended arms are more likely to be hit by a passing ball, even if they don't see it coming, so handling would be called under that circumstance.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

You have the right to disagree with what we say because you live in America. But because you live in America you probably hold a USSF referee license and that obligates you to referee in accordance with their directives Advice to Referees on the Laws of the game being one of those directives. Have you read it?

If you have read it and still disagree it is suggested you visit US Soccer's website and Ask A Referee to see what the official answer just happens to be. When you read the official answer and you still disagree, which is your right, then get out of the referee business because enforcing the Laws of the Game is your primary duty and you state you will not enforce some of them.

Regards,

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 16706