Deliberate Handball

[redsquirrel]

can one of our refs clarify the rule for me please. i thought deliberate handball in the area meant you got sent off. after reading this im not sure,

 

 

A Football Association panel decided that referee Andre Marriner not only dismissed the wrong player, but that Oxlade-Chamberlain's goal-line handball did not deserve a red card.
Neither player will serve any ban following the incident.
Marriner will referee Southampton's home game with Newcastle on Saturday.

 

i thought it was a good dive and save,or would have been if oc was a keeper

[22A]

October 1990, City's Mark Aizlewood was only given a yellow card at Ipswich.

"goal keeper Sinclair was beaten by another shot, but Aizlewood charged through the area, leapt acrobatically and palmed the ball over the bar! Thompson hit the resultant penalty high and wide of the goal".

 

A "TV studio expert" recently suggested offences in the area should be either a sending off OR a penalty. Both would be a double punishment for the offending team.

[MarcusX]

If it actually prevents a goal, ie Suarez for Uruguay then it should be a red as well. Otherwise players are gonna start punching balls off the line in the hope that the penalty is missed?! They'd have nothing to lose to do that, even if it was a yellow.

[One Team In Keynsham]

can one of our refs clarify the rule for me please. i thought deliberate handball in the area meant you got sent off. after reading this im not sure,

 

 

A Football Association panel decided that referee Andre Marriner not only dismissed the wrong player, but that Oxlade-Chamberlain's goal-line handball did not deserve a red card.

Neither player will serve any ban following the incident.

Marriner will referee Southampton's home game with Newcastle on Saturday.

 

i thought it was a good dive and save,or would have been if oc was a keeper

Took a look at the laws of the game on FIFA.com:

 

LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT

Sending-off offences

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

 

• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
• denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

 

On the basis of that, I think it is safe to say that Ox deliberately handled the ball, the question is whether it denied an obvious goal or goal-scoring opportunity: which is likely dependant on the view that Marriner had of the incident.

[North London Red]

An important thing to remember is that handball only results in a free kick or penalty if it is deemed to be deliberate.

 

If a handball is not deemed to be intentional, it's not a free kick or penalty. So many pundits and journalists fail to grasp this point.

 

The guideline that many referees work to is as follows:

- Deliberate handball that prevents a clear goal scoring opportunity = red card

- Deliberate handball that prevents the opposition from having or retaining possession = yellow card

- Deliberate handball that does neither of the above = free kick or penalty, but no card

- Any other handball = no free kick or penalty, and no card

[redsquirrel]

thanks for clearing that up,feel a bit daft now having just noticed this has been discussed in the wrong sending off topic. sorry about that

[MarcusX]

An important thing to remember is that handball only results in a free kick or penalty if it is deemed to be deliberate.

If a handball is not deemed to be intentional, it's not a free kick or penalty. So many pundits and journalists fail to grasp this point.

The guideline that many referees work to is as follows:

- Deliberate handball that prevents a clear goal scoring opportunity = red card

- Deliberate handball that prevents the opposition from having or retaining possession = yellow card

- Deliberate handball that does neither of the above = free kick or penalty, but no card

- Any other handball = no free kick or penalty, and no card

It's supposed to be intent, but it tends to be based on whether an advantage is gained and also the positioning of the hand at the time.

[Steve Watts]

Certainly from seeing the footage I wouldn't say it was any more than a booking as the shot was going wide and so whist he was trying to stop a goal he actually didn't. Yellow card for the reasoning behind the handball but not red for me.

[tunnie123]

I never understand this at the end of the day he INTENDED to stop the ball from crossing the line. If a player intends to do a leg breaking challenge but the player only just gets caught by the foul and isn't injured does the offender only get a yellow as he only INTENDED to use serious foul play but it didn't come off. At the end of the day chamberlIn attempted to stop a goal with his hand. He should get a red!!!!

[One Team In Keynsham]

I never understand this at the end of the day he INTENDED to stop the ball from crossing the line. If a player intends to do a leg breaking challenge but the player only just gets caught by the foul and isn't injured does the offender only get a yellow as he only INTENDED to use serious foul play but it didn't come off. At the end of the day chamberlIn attempted to stop a goal with his hand. He should get a red!!!!

 

Intent is not mentioned in law 12, Fouls and Misconduct, nor in the interpretation notes.

 

This is the relevant interpretation:

"A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored"

 

Ox did not prevent a goal being scored.

[Major Isewater]

wow ,a thread where i actually learnt something .

 

Thanks professors  

[Leveller]

It's supposed to be intent, but it tends to be based on whether an advantage is gained and also the positioning of the hand at the time.

 

The point surely is that intent cannot be proved without a lie detector, so the ref has to infer it from circumstantial evidence. Whether an advantage is gained should be irrelevant, but positioning or movement of the hand may suggest intent.

 

I agree with NLR that many pundits appear to misunderstand the intent part of the rule; either that or they try to apply what they would LIKE the rule to be - ie advantage gained, whether intentional or not. This seems to be the view of many ex pros on MOTD. "There was clearly contact ..." is often used as a reason for giving a handball decision.

 

However, my view is entirely the opposite. I think far too many handballs are given at the the moment when intent is generally not there. Many are given when a player's hand is is the air, but that is just for the sake of balance - just try jumping for a header with your hands by your sides. I think truly intentional handball is extremely rare in professional football, ie when a player is genuinely trying to cheat  by controlling the ball with his arm. In practice this will only happen when there is a high percentage of scoring or preventing a goal, that is the "hand of God" situation, or like Oxlade Chamberlain with a defender as last man on the line. Few defenders will ever deliberately stick up their hand to punch out a cross - why would they? The risk/reward is just wrong.

 

So I would say that in most cases, where in a fast and furious game a ball hits a player's arm, whether or not it causes an advantage, handball should not be given. The only criterion should be, did the player deliberately SEEK an advantage by using his hand/arm?

[Portland Bill]

We only know the ball was going wide because of the tv camera angle we saw the incident from.

The referee would have had a complete different view ( I haven't seen footage of the refs position) and from his angle it would of more than likely looked as if the ball was going in.

[redsince1994]

We only know the ball was going wide because of the tv camera angle we saw the incident from.

The referee would have had a complete different view ( I haven't seen footage of the refs position) and from his angle it would of more than likely looked as if the ball was going in.

Agreed. That should always be a red.

[MarcusX]

The point surely is that intent cannot be proved without a lie detector, so the ref has to infer it from circumstantial evidence. Whether an advantage is gained should be irrelevant, but positioning or movement of the hand may suggest intent.

I agree with NLR that many pundits appear to misunderstand the intent part of the rule; either that or they try to apply what they would LIKE the rule to be - ie advantage gained, whether intentional or not. This seems to be the view of many ex pros on MOTD. "There was clearly contact ..." is often used as a reason for giving a handball decision.

However, my view is entirely the opposite. I think far too many handballs are given at the the moment when intent is generally not there. Many are given when a player's hand is is the air, but that is just for the sake of balance - just try jumping for a header with your hands by your sides. I think truly intentional handball is extremely rare in professional football, ie when a player is genuinely trying to cheat by controlling the ball with his arm. In practice this will only happen when there is a high percentage of scoring or preventing a goal, that is the "hand of God" situation, or like Oxlade Chamberlain with a defender as last man on the line. Few defenders will ever deliberately stick up their hand to punch out a cross - why would they? The risk/reward is just wrong.

So I would say that in most cases, where in a fast and furious game a ball hits a player's arm, whether or not it causes an advantage, handball should not be given. The only criterion should be, did the player deliberately SEEK an advantage by using his hand/arm?

Sorry, by "intent" I was referring to the post I quoted that quoted the laws that infer DELIBERATE handball. As you said, you can't prove that and therefore a ref usually gives a decision based on what advantage is gained or not, especially when it's point blank - how many times we seen hand ball given when someone's stood a yard away?

[Nibor]

Still think that the law should be changed to remove the "deliberate" aspect.  If it hits your hand it's handball, makes it much more simple and probably entertaining too.

[You Do The Dziekanowski]

Still think that the law should be changed to remove the "deliberate" aspect. If it hits your hand it's handball, makes it much more simple and probably entertaining too.

This but within reason, If you can't move your hand out the way then it's harsh, But if the ref feels you can then handball (plus a red to spice it up more)

[Leveller]

Still think that the law should be changed to remove the "deliberate" aspect.  If it hits your hand it's handball, makes it much more simple and probably entertaining too.

 

but i think this is contrary to the spirit of the law, as I tried to say above - ie you are looking to stop players cheating by deliberately using their hands/arms, not to punish an accidental occurrence. The latter seems illogical. Why punish a player who just couldnt get out of the way of a ball hit at him?