Handball

[simplyfulham]

2020/21: Handball Laws

Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of chatter on here and the BT coverage over handball. What is more surprising is the amount of pundits who felt that was a clear cut and dry application of the laws and thought it was a correct decision. Here's my argument against.

Just for posterity, here's the refresher course:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

Where they've got the rules correct is "An accidental handball by an attacking player or team-mate will only be penalised if it occurs immediately before a goal or a goalscoring opportunity."

But to qualify as a an accidental case of handball, surely the incident must first qualify as handball full stop. They're not two different acts, they both are handball. The question is if Sanchez had hit the ball, in the same scenario, against Lemina but in our penalty box, would it have been given as a handball accidental or not.



IFAB offers further clarification on the handball laws.

". . . it is not an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm:

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger"

The rule put in place to mitigate accidental handball where the arm has made contact with the ball where it otherwise should not have done, but has made contact unintentionally. In the same manner that Rice controls the ball in this clip from last season;
https://youtu.be/bxtU_ppPjkk?t=134

If as in the clip above, Declan Rice's action had immediately led to a goal, then it would still be ruled out - however under the new rules, if scored today that goal will now stand.

The rule makes no mention of incidents like tonights, where Lemina's arms are in a natural position, in my view, because it should not be construed as handball either accidental or otherwise

He is guilty only of having arms.

[Willham]

+1

[Radiowhite]

2020/21: Handball Laws

Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of chatter on here and the BT coverage over handball. What is more surprising is the amount of pundits who felt that was a clear cut and dry application of the laws and thought it was a correct decision. Here's my argument against.

Just for posterity, here's the refresher course:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

Where they've got the rules correct is "An accidental handball by an attacking player or team-mate will only be penalised if it occurs immediately before a goal or a goalscoring opportunity."

But to qualify as a an accidental case of handball, surely the incident must first qualify as handball full stop. They're not two different acts, they both are handball. The question is if Sanchez had hit the ball, in the same scenario, against Lemina but in our penalty box, would it have been given as a handball accidental or not.



IFAB offers further clarification on the handball laws.

". . . it is not an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm:

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger"

The rule put in place to mitigate accidental handball where the arm has made contact with the ball where it otherwise should not have done, but has made contact unintentionally. In the same manner that Rice controls the ball in this clip from last season;
https://youtu.be/bxtU_ppPjkk?t=134

If as in the clip above, Declan Rice's action had immediately led to a goal, then it would still be ruled out - however under the new rules, if scored today that goal will now stand.

The rule makes no mention of incidents like tonights, where Lemina's arms are in a natural position, in my view, because it should not be construed as handball either accidental or otherwise

He is guilty only of having arms.

+1 this is my argument as well

[FFC In Oz]

It's a terrible rule.  It makes zero sense to have a player penalised for handball if it results in a goal, but if he hits the woodwork and it bounces clear it's play on.

Needs to be the same no matter where you are on the pitch.

[simplyfulham]

It's a terrible rule.  It makes zero sense to have a player penalised for handball if it results in a goal, but if he hits the woodwork and it bounces clear it's play on.

Needs to be the same no matter where you are on the pitch.

But this is kind of the point I'm making - that's not the law.

It's one very very basic interpretation of it.

[Whitesideup]

Good points SimplyFulham, well made.

The statement, " If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand or arm and then scores a goal, or the ball goes to another attacking player and they immediately score, this is a handball offence." suggests the decision was correct ... totally unfair, totally stupid, but correct.

However, this is then contradicted by the IFAB further clarification on the handball laws.

[b]". . . it is not an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm:

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger"[/b]

Is it clear that this clarification relates to specifically to the first statement?

In my book rules should be rules. Guidance should not be necessary. There is always going to be subjective interpretation of rules, whether it be interfering for offside, intention for handball, what constitutes recklessness in tackles etc and we have to rely on common sense and judgement of referees, who sometimes will get it wrong. That's part of the game.

There should always be something a player can do not to infringe. A slightly mistimed tackle is still a foul. Lifting your arms too high when making a challenge is avoidable. But having a ball kicked against you by an opponent, well apart from not participating in the game, there's nothing you can do.

I believe the rule about unintentional handball being handball (yes, a contradiction in terms !) when goals are scored was introduced to try and protect referees by removing subjectivity from the decision. It has backfired massively and is clearly stupid.

[andyk]

What would happen if Maja had been fouled instead of scoring.
Would we get a penalty?
It seems, from this ridiculous rule, that we would still get the penalty.  As the action didn't lead to an immediate goal.

[Ronnief]

Lets just go the rule that if the ball touches a hand it is hand ball whatever the circumstances. Also if a player is in an offside position he is offside full stop. Would save many arguments. Falling to the ground ala Kane last night should be a booking and exaggerated shouts of pain should be booked for simulation. I've never heard so many shouts of pain in all of my 60+ years of watching football. I'll ad to the above that there were many shouts of pain from me last night watching the match.

[Sting of the North]

What would happen if Maja had been fouled instead of scoring.
Would we get a penalty?
It seems, from this ridiculous rule, that we would still get the penalty.  As the action didn't lead to an immediate goal.

It would likely not be given, because the rule includes situations in which the handball leads to a goal OR goal scoring opportunity. At least I believe so.

[Sting of the North]

I don't think you are correct here OP. If you make your body unnaturally bigger etc. the handball is deemed not accidental. All handballs are handballs, but some are deemed accidental and not punished unless they lead immediately to a goal scoring opportunity or goal. The second bolded part discusses whether or not it is an offense, not whether or not it is a handball.

If Sanchez had hit Lemina's arm in the same way in our box instead it would clearly not have been punished because it was clearly accidental and did not lead to an immediate goal or goal scoring opportunity. Both calls could very well be in keeping with the rules, because the rules differ in those situations.

[Twig]

Well the rule has now been changed. 24 hrs too late, so Fulhamish.

[Dodger53]

Well the rule has now been changed. 24 hrs too late, so Fulhamish.

I think i read it is from June so still in force until the end of the season - so sometimes they change the law stright away and sometimes they don't.

[simplyfulham]

All handballs are handballs, but some are deemed accidental and not punished unless they lead immediately to a goal scoring opportunity or goal. The second bolded part discusses whether or not it is an offense, not whether or not it is a handball.

But isn't that one and the same thing? Surely it's discussing when a handball is and offense and when a handball isn't an offense. So the clarification about the hand/body/silhouette/blah blah is relevant no?

Yeah I see where you're coming from. I guess the broader point I'm trying to make is even with the laws as they are, its not cut and dry. Listening to the punditry last night you'd never have guessed twice. I don't think it's clear and I don't think the laws have an adequate explanation of what should happen in the situation we had yesterday. 

[Arthur]

I guess the broader point I'm trying to make is even with the laws as they are, its not cut and dry. 

In your O.P., you create a category that, in the eyes of the law-makers, doesn't exist: that of the ball striking the hand being neither handball nor accidental handball.

As Sting of the North says, all such contacts are handball and none are excluded. Those that are not accidental handball are penalised; those that are accidental handball are not penalised - except those that lead to a goal being scored (which are).

Therefore your conclusion that the rule does not cover incidents such as Lemina's is incorrect. His was accidental handball - but it was the one exception whereby it requires a free-kick to be awarded.

[toshes mate]

I take the point that ball contact with hand (or more correctly and anatomically the arm from below the armpit down) may be described as handball regardless of offence but that is to confuse the situation rather than clarify it and that is what IFAB did when they changed the rule.  Previously the rule was intentional handball which actually immediately swatted all doubt away if a player clearly tried to control the ball with his/her hand (however defined).   

A tackle is a tackle and you could argue that an 'accidental tackle' caused by unintentional contact cannot be a foul tackle.  There is no need to write a law stating what constitutes an accident but that is what IFAB effectively did with handball.   If they had concentrated on player intent rather than trying to define what an accident is we would not have had such a god awful mess.  IMO.   

As a further thought we now have 'accidental offside' which allows a player to be offside but not apparently 'intentionally' interferring with play until they receive the ball which simply confuses the law rather than clarifying it.   

[WolverineFFC]

2020/21: Handball Laws

Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of chatter on here and the BT coverage over handball. What is more surprising is the amount of pundits who felt that was a clear cut and dry application of the laws and thought it was a correct decision. Here's my argument against.

Just for posterity, here's the refresher course:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

Where they've got the rules correct is "An accidental handball by an attacking player or team-mate will only be penalised if it occurs immediately before a goal or a goalscoring opportunity."

But to qualify as a an accidental case of handball, surely the incident must first qualify as handball full stop. They're not two different acts, they both are handball. The question is if Sanchez had hit the ball, in the same scenario, against Lemina but in our penalty box, would it have been given as a handball accidental or not.



IFAB offers further clarification on the handball laws.

". . . it is not an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm:

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger"

The rule put in place to mitigate accidental handball where the arm has made contact with the ball where it otherwise should not have done, but has made contact unintentionally. In the same manner that Rice controls the ball in this clip from last season;
https://youtu.be/bxtU_ppPjkk?t=134

If as in the clip above, Declan Rice's action had immediately led to a goal, then it would still be ruled out - however under the new rules, if scored today that goal will now stand.

The rule makes no mention of incidents like tonights, where Lemina's arms are in a natural position, in my view, because it should not be construed as handball either accidental or otherwise

He is guilty only of having arms.

The accidental, non accidental part seems to be the issue. Who can determine intent with consistency? They are trying to make officials into lawyers.

I think of two examples in recent Fulham games. The Lemina play and the Welbeck handball against BHA at home.

Does the handball alter the run of play?

Lemina did not. If you had cut his arm off, the ball still would have struck his thigh and caromed to Maja.

In the Welbeck instance, the defense is at a disadvantage because the ball changes direction. It takes away the defenses ability to react fairly.

[RaySmith]

  But there has to be common sense from the ref in the application of the Laws.

This decision was totally outside any common sense or logic, and did seem  biased i'm afraid, even if unconsciously.