[Football] Hand Ball Rule

[NEASTGULL]

It's a free kick to Spurs for the foul, but its never a red card.

At the moment the Sheff Utd player fouls the Spurs player there is no goal scoring opportunity, so there is no red card offence. Even if there was a goal scoring opportunity a red card is not given if the player is making an attempt to play the ball, which i think the Utd player was doing.

The goal scoring opportunity only comes about after the foul, the first hand ball by the Spurs player and then the Sheff Utd player kicking the ball against the Spurs player when hes on the floor (which may actually be a second hand ball). The game should have been stopped after the first hand ball as there was no advantage at that point and Spurs given a free kick.

I know, and I agree with you, however I was just giving that as an example as to how ridiculous the law is – if any goal scored was going to be disallowed then the fact that the foul caused the “handball” is, by definition, denial of a goal scoring opportunity, which under the laws of the game is punishable by way of a red card!! All I was trying to say was that the current law is an ass and the powers that be cannot have it both ways.

Either they should be allowed to apply common sense and allow the goal, or the advantage rule should not have been applied – Once it was and the ball struck an arm/hand then any goal scoring opportunity was clearly denied with the way the laws are being applied.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

I know, and I agree with you, however I was just giving that as an example as to how ridiculous the law is – if any goal scored was going to be disallowed then the fact that the foul caused the “handball” is, by definition, denial of a goal scoring opportunity, which under the laws of the game is punishable by way of a red card!! All I was trying to say was that the current law is an ass and the powers that be cannot have it both ways.

Either they should be allowed to apply common sense and allow the goal, or the advantage rule should not have been applied – Once it was and the ball struck an arm/hand then any goal scoring opportunity was clearly denied with the way the laws are being applied.

The law no longer calls for an automatic red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity and hasn't for a number of seasons now. There was no goal scoring opportunity when the original foul happened and the resulting hand ball was accidental, there is no current law that would deem any of that a red card offence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footbal...ccidental fouls,will now be cautioned instead.

 

[NEASTGULL]

The law no longer calls for an automatic red card for denying a goal scoring opportunity and hasn't for a number of seasons now. There was no goal scoring opportunity when the original foul happened and the resulting hand ball was accidental, there is no current law that would deem any of that a red card offence.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footbal...ccidental fouls,will now be cautioned instead.

I‘m just being facetious, but, even if the denial of a goal scoring opportunity is only a caution, technically it could be argued that the action was worthy of two cautions; 1 for the initial foul, and a 2nd for the denial!!! Like I say I’m not being serious, but the laws are currently not fit for purpose and I'm sure that no on-field referee would have disallowed that goal without the intervention of the VAR official.

 

[Acker79]

That just defies all logic, even for football. Like you i'm certain I've seen refs play an advantage and then call the game back when its clear there isn't one. It's certainly another rule that should be looked at, along with handball, because the advantage he played for Spurs lasted all of a 10th of a second and was gone the moment the handball happened, that goal was never going to stand. As the handball only happened as the result of a foul it should have been brought back for a free kick to Spurs.

I've looked up the rule (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-5---the-referee) and it states



I still think there is scope for the ref to restart with the free kick, because as I said above the advantage was over as soon as the handball happened, which was less than a few seconds after the advantage was played. Spurs have been doubly penalised by this.

In a general sense of the rule, I think the counter argument is that 'benefiting from the advantage' doesn't mean 'guarantee a goal' or 'give two bites of the cherry'. If a defender tries to deny a goal scoring opportunity by foul means, but the attacking player escapes the foul attempt and is still in a position to take a shot, the advantage is to allow the shot. To stop the game and give a free kick allows the defending team to set up and prepare to block the free kick. Allowing play to continue usually allows a shot while the defence is "at sixes and sevens" or at least disrupted by the player who tried to foul him not being in position.

If he fails to score, he was still given an advantage. That he didn't take the opportunity doesn't mean he should be given another go. We don't allow penalty takers to re-take a penalty they've missed. So, if we've allowed them to take a shot it's too much of an advantage to the attacking team to also give them the free kick.

If we then accept that 'advantage' doesn't mean 'a guaranteed a goal', then the argument 'if he scores it doesn't count' doesn't hold as much weight because that's not what advantage is boiled down to. So there is a logic to it. I recognise it is harsh, and it's not necessarily something I would defend to the death as the correct position, but I can see that argument. Especially if you don't want rules that are of the 'this is the decision to be made unless this happens, in which case it's either this if x follows, or this if y follows, and in the event that this thing happens and y follows, then x the decision should be z unless w does that thing, and the defender does a g, unless in the last five minutes of the game where H will happen in all instances except when s happens if the attack team is more than 2 goals up, with an odd number of goals conceded' variety

 

[zefarelly]

[tweet]1278747285837545474[/tweet]

I haven't seen the game or goal, Don't even know the score! but that is a deliberate arm to ball movement. Or punch, in common parlance.

I haven't bothered reading any of the thread either!

 

[Taybha]

There will be some escaped lunatic from the FA along shortly to defend that decision.

What a sorry state the game of football is in if things like this are allowed to go on .

I'm actually falling out of love with the game in this current state , can you imagine that happening to us on the final day of the season needing a point to stay up shameful .

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

In a general sense of the rule, I think the counter argument is that 'benefiting from the advantage' doesn't mean 'guarantee a goal' or 'give two bites of the cherry'. If a defender tries to deny a goal scoring opportunity by foul means, but the attacking player escapes the foul attempt and is still in a position to take a shot, the advantage is to allow the shot. To stop the game and give a free kick allows the defending team to set up and prepare to block the free kick. Allowing play to continue usually allows a shot while the defence is "at sixes and sevens" or at least disrupted by the player who tried to foul him not being in position.

If he fails to score, he was still given an advantage. That he didn't take the opportunity doesn't mean he should be given another go. We don't allow penalty takers to re-take a penalty they've missed, so if we've allowed them to take a shot it's too much of an advantage to the attacking team to also give them the free kick.

If we then accept that 'advantage' doesn't mean 'a guaranteed a goal', then the argument 'if he scores it doesn't count' doesn't hold as much weight because that's not what advantage is boiled down to. So there is a logic to it. I recognise it is harsh, and it's not necessarily something I would defend to the death as the correct position, but I can see that argument. Especially if you don't want rules that are of the 'this is the decision to be made unless this happens, in which case it's either this if x follows, or this if y follows, and in the event that this thing happens and y follows, then x the decision should be z unless w does that thing, and the defender does a g, unless in the last five minutes of the game where H will happen in all instances except when s happens if the attack team is more than 2 goals up, with an odd number of goals conceded' variety

I completely agree with the argument that advantage doesn't have to lead to a goal, or even a goal scoring opportunity, if you muck up a pass or something after the ref has played advantage that is tough luck. In this case there is no way the goal was ever going to stand once the handball happened, and if the ref thinks the handball has been caused by the foul then he's playing an advantage that simply doesn't exist so there isn't any cherry to take a bite, the free kick would be the first bite.

As soon as the hand ball happens there is zero benefit of the advantage for Spurs and if the ref thinks it happened as a result of a foul then it should be accidental handball because the player was fouled, in which case its a free kick to Spurs. If they think that it was a intentional hand ball by the Spurs player, then it's a free kick to Sheff Utd and Spurs have blown their own advantage by deliberately hand balling.

I wouldn't be against the ref and video ref being miked up as we see in a lot of other sports that use video replays, it would help understand some of these decisions.

 

[Acker79]

I completely agree with the argument that advantage doesn't have to lead to a goal, or even a goal scoring opportunity, if you muck up a pass or something after the ref has played advantage that is tough luck. In this case there is no way the goal was ever going to stand once the handball happened, and if the ref thinks the handball has been caused by the foul then he's playing an advantage that simply doesn't exist so there isn't any cherry to take a bite, the free kick would be the first bite.

As soon as the hand ball happens there is zero benefit of the advantage for Spurs and if the ref thinks it happened as a result of a foul then it should be accidental handball because the player was fouled, in which case its a free kick to Spurs. If they think that it was a intentional hand ball by the Spurs player, then it's a free kick to Sheff Utd and Spurs have blown their own advantage by deliberately hand balling.

I wouldn't be against the ref and video ref being miked up as we see in a lot of other sports that use video replays, it would help understand some of these decisions.

But
a) if you agree that it doesn't have to lead to a goal, what does it matter that no goal could come direct from it? They could still have played on and 'won' a free kick in a better position, a goal, or a corner - there was still potential to benefit from the advantage, even if that isn't a goal.

There is also the added complication that if there is no goal scored, there's no VAR check that notices the handball. If a foul had occurred in the box, the penalty would have been given because the handball would have been deemed accidental. If the shot was saved and it went out for a corner the corner would be given and any resulting goal would be a separate phase of play and the handball wouldn't be checked.

b) there is a way they could score, it would just involve play continuing a bit longer and allowing a reset of the passage of play.

 

[amexer]

Would think all clubs will get together and push for a change. Surely no supporter wants it to continue as is.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

There will be some escaped lunatic from the FA along shortly to defend that decision.

What a sorry state the game of football is in if things like this are allowed to go on .

I'm actually falling out of love with the game in this current state , can you imagine that happening to us on the final day of the season needing a point to stay up shameful .

I can yes, and it would be extremely hard to take.

But I can also vividly imagine a player being wrongfully sent off when needing a win to get promoted on the final day, with no chance of the decision being corrected...

 

[eastterracemike]

I haven't seen the game or goal, Don't even know the score! but that is a deliberate arm to ball movement. Or punch, in common parlance.

I haven't bothered reading any of the thread either!

Well spotted! He moves his arm to the ball - handball! Simples.

 

[Acker79]

But
a) if you agree that it doesn't have to lead to a goal, what does it matter that no goal could come direct from it? They could still have played on and 'won' a free kick in a better position, a goal, or a corner - there was still potential to benefit from the advantage, even if that isn't a goal.

There is also the added complication that if there is no goal scored, there's no VAR check that notices the handball. If a foul had occurred in the box, the penalty would have been given because the handball would have been deemed accidental. If the shot was saved and it went out for a corner the corner would be given and any resulting goal would be a separate phase of play and the handball wouldn't be checked.

b) there is a way they could score, it would just involve play continuing a bit longer and allowing a reset of the passage of play.

My head said 'penalty', my fingers typed 'goal'.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm just so grateful that VAR is there to chalk off these goals for such a CLEAR and OBVIOUS error. And of course to turn a blind eye when the Villa keeper scoops the ball out from behind the POST to ensure no goal is awarded.

Its a terrific system, it really, really is. Well done everyone.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

No debate on this thread about the Mahrez goal chalked off for accidental handball in the build-up On the same night. No moaning on Sky either. Obviously whether it should be given or not depends on the context, the score at the time and the teams involved. As we know, rarely any media moans if Albion get a goal chalked off. But if it's Harry Kane, all hell let's loose.

In fact, it proves my point that the principle of VAR favours the smaller club like Albion because it doesn't favour the bigger clubs and personalities. It just makes a decision based on the rules and mostly gets it right based on the letter of the football law. I like it.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

I'm just so grateful that VAR is there to chalk off these goals for such a CLEAR and OBVIOUS error. And of course to turn a blind eye when the Villa keeper scoops the ball out from behind the POST to ensure no goal is awarded.

Its a terrific system, it really, really is. Well done everyone.

Did anyone ever explain how that Villa goal got missed or was it quietly forgotten

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Did anyone ever explain how that Villa goal got missed or was it quietly forgotten

Why the goal was missed according to Hawkeye.

[tweet]1273329766750445569[/tweet]

VAR couldn't get involved as there was no signal to the match ref to give the goal so technically there was no goal situation to check.

A PGMOL statement read:

“Under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.”

A total farce all round, equipment not functioning correctly due to too many players being around the ball and then a system that could have rectified the error not allowed to be used.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

As it stands the handball rule is not subjective - if it touches a hand or arm in the build up its given as handball and the goal disallowed. It's not incompetent refereeing its just applying the law as it is. If that law is changed it becomes subjective again and the VAR ref has the job of determining whether or not he thinks its 'significant enough' to disallow the goal. If we have to have VAR, then I'm all in favour of getting rid of any subjectivity and making the rule black and white as it is now.

(That said I'd still like to get rid of VAR altogether)

 

[The Wizard]

As it stands the handball rule is not subjective - if it touches a hand or arm in the build up its given as handball and the goal disallowed. It's not incompetent refereeing its just applying the law as it is. If that law is changed it becomes subjective again and the VAR ref has the job of determining whether or not he thinks its 'significant enough' to disallow the goal. If we have to have VAR, then I'm all in favour of getting rid of any subjectivity and making the rule black and white as it is now.

(That said I'd still like to get rid of VAR altogether)

Let’s use Dunks handball against Leicester as an example, it wasn’t given after VAR looked at it, despite the fact it looked like a goal bound shot it was quite obviously an accidental hand ball. How is it a striker can have a goal disallowed for what clearly is an accidental handball but a defender can block a shot accidentally with his arm and that’s allowed?

If you’re going to disallow any goal for so much as a brush of the arm, surely you should be replicating that by giving 5 penalties every game for when a player gets a ball smashed at him and blocks it with his upper arm accidentally?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Rule change to remove VAR yes

Has nothing to do with VAR. As doubtless countless other posters have mentioned.

Gettin rid of VAR because of this stupid rule would be like repatriating all Irish on British soild because you find Clinton Morrison a bit irritating.

 

[Taybha]

Seems like it just depends who's on VAR duty at the time, all that technology and ultimately it's still down to one human interpretation.