Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[Cronky]

In practice, I don't think many defenders do attempt to block shots with their arms behind their back. Obviously it's very difficult to move quickly that way.

 

I'd agree with Ian, in that I wouldn't want to see a penalty or free kick every time the ball hits the hand / arm. There really is such thing as accidental handball, though I admit there's a large grey area.

 

I'm not sure what the official referrees' guidance says in this kind of ball-to-hand situation, but my feeling is that if the ref feels that a defender has used his arms to spread himself and make a bigger barrier, then that's a foul. If his arm is in a natural position given his movement, then that's no foul.

 

Obviously if there's a deliberate movement of hand to ball, that's a foul.

[Skirge]

If you keep your arm still but move your body and ball hits your arm then that should still be a pen.

He turned into the ball, yes his arm was still but it moved with his body and the ball then hit his arm, had his arm been behind his back he would not have blocked the shot.

[Guest bimpy474]

Take away deliberate and accidental and replace them with 'gaining an advantage'.

 

The ref decides if by handling the ball accidental or not whether the players team gained an advantage, if so you awarded the penalty or free kick. If in the opinion of the ref it was accidental it's not a card, if the ref thinks it was deliberate then he gives a yellow, red if stopping a goal scoring chance.

 

The best and easiest way to do it, as thought up by me 

[Benwell Lad]

I recently watched a Bundesliga match and once again was really impressed with the standard of officiating.

 

Not picking on Benwell Lad, but Referees always look better when they are not refereeing your team. Objectivity goes out the window when your team is involved.

 

Yeah I agree, that is true 

[JH]

It would be crazy though if smashing the ball against an opponent's arm was as good as winning a penalty. You would have players aiming for their opponents instead of the goal.

 

Defenders tucking their arms in and moving unnaturally is a stupid aspect of modern football IMO. Just leave it to the ref to judge whether it was deliberate or not. Obviously judgement is involved, but judgement is involved in almost every decision in football.

 

No you wouldn't, half the f***ers can't accurately pass a ball to a 6ft+ striker let alone hit an arm on purpose. Even if they did try, the defenders would sharp be whipping/keeping their arms out of the way which would make anyone trying it look bloody stupid.

 

As much judgement (i.e. guessing) that can be taken out of the game the better IMO.

 

Absolutely right. In the heat of the game, I doubt many would have the skill and presence of mind to try it often enough. The crux of the matter for me though, is whether or not the handball changed the intended direction of the ball. If the hand is outstretched in front of the body for example, it shouldn't be considered handball. If you're blocking your face, bollocks, abdomen from a shot, that's not handball obviously. The presence of the hand hasn't changed the outcome of the ball getting blocked.

 

Aye. The lad last night practically volleyed the fucking ball.

[Dave]

It would be crazy though if smashing the ball against an opponent's arm was as good as winning a penalty. You would have players aiming for their opponents instead of the goal.

 

Defenders tucking their arms in and moving unnaturally is a stupid aspect of modern football IMO. Just leave it to the ref to judge whether it was deliberate or not. Obviously judgement is involved, but judgement is involved in almost every decision in football.

 

No you wouldn't, half the fuckers can't accurately pass a ball to a 6ft+ striker let alone hit an arm on purpose. Even if they did try, the defenders would sharp be whipping/keeping their arms out of the way which would make anyone trying it look bloody stupid.

 

As much judgement (i.e. guessing) that can be taken out of the game the better IMO.

 

 

 

Exactly. Aiming for their arms ffs, it's easier to just score.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I would say that at least 50% of penalties for handball shouldn't be given. Giving too many is much more of a problem than the ones that go missing IMO.

[CPL]

Fair play to the lines women for making the correct offside for their goal today.

[Minhosa]

Fair play to the lines women for making the correct offside for their goal today.

 

Yep, she showed some big balls with that call, under that pressure. Big shout. Good on her.

[Exiled in Texas]

So all those who wanted automatic penalties for handballs in the box still of that opinion? 

 

Blatant handball by Anita holding his arm behind his body while he tried to chest the ball clear and ball bounces back onto his arm. Blatant penna. Ref had a complete shitter today. Ruined a good game and changed the title race. Really time for replay to get these decision right and stop ruining football!!!  [/sarcasm]

[Pilko]

Well, at least we got a consistent decision - both not given, one for and one against.

[joeyt]

Fair play to the lines women for making the correct offside for their goal today.

 

I don;t think I've ever seen her get a decision wrong.

 

The non yellow card for Hernandez was frustrating though

[newsted]

So all those who wanted automatic penalties for handballs in the box still of that opinion? 

 

Blatant handball by Anita holding his arm behind his body while he tried to chest the ball clear and ball bounces back onto his arm. Blatant penna. Ref had a complete shitter today. Ruined a good game and changed the title race. Really time for replay to get these decision right and stop ruining football!!!  [/sarcasm]

 

Don't think anyone said that, did they? The Swansea lads had their arms in the air "making themselves big" to stop the ball (which is crazy imo, but they got the W), little Vurn was touching the post for position and it ricocheted into him. Given Marriner's history I'm surprised it wasn't two pens and two reds, like

[Exiled in Texas]

 

So all those who wanted automatic penalties for handballs in the box still of that opinion? 

 

Blatant handball by Anita holding his arm behind his body while he tried to chest the ball clear and ball bounces back onto his arm. Blatant penna. Ref had a complete shitter today. Ruined a good game and changed the title race. Really time for replay to get these decision right and stop ruining football!!!  [/sarcasm]

 

Don't think anyone said that, did they? The Swansea lads had their arms in the air "making themselves big" to stop the ball (which is crazy imo, but they got the W), little Vurn was touching the post for position and it ricocheted into him. Given Marriner's history I'm surprised it wasn't two pens and two reds, like

 

 

Ball to hand is total bollocks, if the ball hits the hand in the box with the hand away from the body it should be a penalty, some will be given and be considered "harsh" undoubtedly but it'd remove a lot of the uncertainty.

 

Apparently, Yes.

 

I'm just messing with the we-lost-ref-had-Shitter / we-won-ref-had-a-good-game theme.

 

Perhaps now is a good time to trot out the evens-out-over-the-season line

[joeyt]

Shocking today

[Skeletor]

That ref needs to learn the difference between a foul and a player falling over.

[Exiled in Texas]

Biggest error today was Remy not the reffy

[cp40]

what is the rule for deliberate handball?

[mozy]

Ref was pretty good today I thought. Linesman on the other hand, wasn't.

[NUFC]

http://giant.gfycat.com/MaleEqualAltiplanochinchillamouse.gif

[DJ_NUFC]

 

Why are refs such pussies. Our Di Canio moment.

[Skirge]

[Exiled in Texas]

Judging deliberate handball is all about the referee judging intent because without the intent it is accidental (and not a foul).

 

Other than a Suarez type save, or a defender making a finger tip save to tip the ball over the bar, the question of intent will always be subjective.

 

The referees get training in the type of things to look for that signify intentional handling....the usual ones are the ball striking the arm while the arms are in an unnatural position ... This usually means arms away from the body or above the head. Spreading the arms out to make the player look bigger is another intentional handling offense. 

 

The reason is that the player intentionally put there arms into areas that they did not need to do to play the ball, and so unless they move their arms out of the way to prevent the ball striking their arm, they have intentionally handled the ball. This is probably why Anita in the Man U game wasn't penalised for the ball striking his arm on hue he goal line......his physical position was chest out, arms back and behind his body attempting to chest the ball clear....the ball strikes his arm when he is attempting to keep them out of the play so no intent.

 

This is also a further refining point for the referee to consider is whether the player could have moved their hands/arms away to prevent the ball from striking them but chose not to. This is a refinement on deciding on ball to hand or hand to ball. Just because the hand was already in place when the ball struck it, doesn't mean that the player should not have done all possible to avoid the ball striking the hands.  Consider defender on defender on the line with his hand out on the post (think Larson in the the derby)

 

Which then leads to the last assessment which is whether the player is protecting themselves or not. Good examples of protecting themself is the player in the wall at a free kick protecting their gentle mans area....ball strikes the hand (covering crotch)  but this is not intential handling.  Alternative would be the ball is struck at the players head, and they raise their arms to protect the face....the referee now has to decide if this was reflex action to protect, or could the player have avoided contact. The usually depends on the distance of the player from the ball when it was struck. Again back to referee opinion. As a referee my answer to this action is often that the player chose to block the ball to protect themselves rather than ducking to avoid contact. Thereby they intentionally handled the ball....of course that assumes that they had time to avoid the ball striking their hands.

 

There really is no definitive black and white answer because their is no definitive way to assess a players intent. Therefore it is a subjective decision for the referee to make. And as the Laws of the Game state that all decisions are the opinion of the referee (and the LOTG doesn't mention the opinion of the coaches, managers or fans as being included in the decision process ;-D )

 

So after all that it comes down to one thing.......did the player intentionally, in the opinion of the referee, handle the ball

[biggs]

wtf was that chelski player booked for (sorry black and played the ball clean) and no malice in tackle ?

[Dr Colossus]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=3156

 

Have a look at 10 clips in real-time and see if you can call them onside or offside.

 

Got 9/1 on the easy and 7/3 on the difficult. Would imagine it's much harder with everyone (including yourself) running at top speed though.