Moldova/ivan Vs Engerland

[chipdawg]

It's not open to interpretation, it has to be deliberate to be an infringement.

See page 36 in the list of offences "handles the ball deliberately" and page 115 "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of the player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm".

The rules don't use the terminology "deemed to be a deliberate handball" at all. They just provide guidelines to the referee on how to determine what is deliberate.

It's not surprising people misunderstand this commonly, because not a single player, manager or pundit ever gets it right, and also because it's a stupid rule (see above). But it must be deliberate as the laws stand now, and that penalty was given incorrectly for that reason.

But how does a referee determine whether a handball was deliberate or not? Surely by definition, there is a level of interpretation in that?

[Ron]

Penalising any hand contact would be harsh, sometimes it's unavoidable and in no way the fault of the offender.

Intentional or unnatural raising of the arms would be reasonable.

[Nibor]

But how does a referee determine whether a handball was deliberate or not? Surely by definition, there is a level of interpretation in that?

Yes, as explained. Your original comment was that there's no rule about it having to be deliberate. In fact, it must be deliberate for an infringement to happen.

I agree the referee's judgement here cannot be anything but inconsistent since they aren't telepathic, and I'd like to see it changed, but in this particular case it was obvious the ball was moving far too fast for it to have been intentional.

Penalising any hand contact would be harsh, sometimes it's unavoidable and in no way the fault of the offender.

Intentional or unnatural raising of the arms would be reasonable.

It would be unequivocal though. "unnatural raising of the arms" is no better than the present state of affairs. What's unnatural? Where should your hands actually be when you're running about or jumping?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other aspect of the laws where the ref has to worry about guessing someone's intent.

Players trying to block shots would have to put their hands behind them, and it would be legitimate to aim free kicks at shoulder height. I think if anything it would be more exciting.

[Ron]

It would be unequivocal though. "unnatural raising of the arms" is no better than the present state of affairs. What's unnatural? Where should your hands actually be when you're running about or jumping?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other aspect of the laws where the ref has to worry about guessing someone's intent.

Players trying to block shots would have to put their hands behind them, and it would be legitimate to aim free kicks at shoulder height. I think if anything it would be more exciting.

There's room for a certain amount of discretion within the game. Normally you can tell whether a player's arms are raised as part of their natural movement, and it's normally not far from being by their sides. Similarly when a player makes a slide-tackle and their trailing arm doesn't stay by their side. It would lead to an aspect of subjectivity but it's a pretty straight forward call, you can tell what someone's natural movement is.

In the IFAB meeting last season they mooted the idea of replacing a red card for denying a CGSO with a yellow if the tackle was a genuine attempt to reach the ball, or you could say their intent to do so. What their reasoning was behind not implementing this was but it would have made a lot of sense for me.

[Nibor]

There's room for a certain amount of discretion within the game. Normally you can tell whether a player's arms are raised as part of their natural movement, and it's normally not far from being by their sides. Similarly when a player makes a slide-tackle and their trailing arm doesn't stay by their side. It would lead to an aspect of subjectivity but it's a pretty straight forward call, you can tell what someone's natural movement is.

Well, on that I disagree. I don't think it's straightforward at all. If you watch aerial challenges and the like in slow motion I think you'll be surprised where players' arms end up.

In the IFAB meeting last season they mooted the idea of replacing a red card for denying a CGSO with a yellow if the tackle was a genuine attempt to reach the ball, or you could say their intent to do so. What their reasoning was behind not implementing this was but it would have made a lot of sense for me.

They should just replace it with a yellow where a penalty is given IMO. Having rules around intent is a recipe for controversy, inconsistency and unfairness. Nobody actually knows the intent apart from the player.