World Cup 2018

[Go_Arachnid_Laser_1]

@Robot_Arm

I saw a case, it may have even been in the final, where the ball was kicked, at fairly close range, right at one player’s face. (I don’t mean to say it was deliberate; just that one player was attempting a lofted pass to a teammate just as a defender was coming to guard him.) He moved his arm slightly, just to prevent the ball from hitting his face, and got called for it.

Is that as specified in the rules? The ball was going to hit him. I suppose it ricocheted in a different direction off his forearm than it would have off his face, but it still seems a bit harsh.

Well, the rule of thumb is that the arm needs to be in a natural position, so defenders can run around with free use of their arms, but can’t game the system by flailing their arms around and then claiming any handball that flailing causes as unintended.

Would attempting to shield your face count as intentional handling of the ball? Yeah, I can see that. It would still be left to the ref’s discretion, but sure. It would be quite easy to get away with a lot of handballs just by claiming self-protection if it wasn’t, I assume.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Mijin

The point is, until recently it would be rare as a deliberate tactic in professional football.
If I chip the ball up at your arm, what’s supposed to happen is the referee waves play on.

I think this is something that will self-correct. If VAR drives such a tactic and too many penalties are given then a change to the hand-ball law (or interpretation of it) can be made.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Robot_Arm

I saw a case, it may have even been in the final, where the ball was kicked, at fairly close range, right at one player’s face. (I don’t mean to say it was deliberate; just that one player was attempting a lofted pass to a teammate just as a defender was coming to guard him.) He moved his arm slightly, just to prevent the ball from hitting his face, and got called for it.

Is that as specified in the rules? The ball was going to hit him. I suppose it ricocheted in a different direction off his forearm than it would have off his face, but it still seems a bit harsh.

Yes, this is a case of deliberate handling. You may not shield yourself from the ball. Referees often warn people standing in the wall not to move their hands to shield their face that way.

By contrast, if you leave your hands cupped together in front of your groin, and don’t move the arms if a ball is kicked at it, this is generally not considered handling, as you aren’t attempting to play the ball with your hands. Perhaps this shows the relative value that men put on the crown jewels vs. their face.

When I was refereeing in the 90s, it was common to allow young women to cross their arms across their breasts when they were in the wall. Same reasoning applied.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Snarky_Kong

Which is why I hate the wording of the handball (sorry! handling!) rule. Soo damn subjective.

I wanted to get back to this when I had a moment. It demonstrates a common mis-conception about the whole issue.

ALL FOULS ARE SUBJECTIVE.

If you look at Law XII of the IFAB’s Laws of the Game, specifically the list of fouls which result in direct free kicks (and, thus, penalty kicks if committed by the defense in their own penalty area), they are almost all subjective in nature. The only two which are not are the bite/spit foul and the throw something at the ball/someone foul, both of which were recently added just to make sure everyone knows you can’t do those stupid things.

The first seven listed fouls (charge, jump, kick, push, strike, tackle/challenge, trip) are only fouls when done “carelessly, recklessly, or using excessive force”. That make clear that a subjective determination is required. Handling is only a foul when done “deliberately”; that as you note requires a subjective determination. “Holds an opponent” and “impedes an opponent with contact” don’t sound subjective, but the subjective nature of those two fouls comes from deciding when someone is actually holding or impeding someone. Thus, all the common fouls are subjective in nature.

The trouble with the handling foul isn’t that it is subjective. After all, people debate all the time about penalty calls for tripping and holding, yet those fouls don’t get the ire of everyone. The trouble with the handling foul is that it gets called on the basis of an inference. Is the players arm where it is as the result of conscious or subconscious choice by the player to try to potentially influence the ball? Or is it there because, as people put it, the arm has to be somewhere, and the player is merely trying to do something else other than use the arm to influence the ball, and the arm just got in the way? But in the end run, it doesn’t really matter. Penalty calls for handling are usually no more or less disputable than penalty calls for tripping, charging, holding, pushing, etc. It’s just a slightly different debate.

In all cases, they are subjective. It’s not possible for that element to be taken out of the decision.