Question Number: 12807

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 5/15/2006

RE: Competitive Adult

Wes McKean of Woodstock, GA USA asks...

After four years of refing, I continue to "draw my lines in the sand" on what constitutes fouls, dangerous plays, cards, etc, the things that only come with experience. The line I'm having the most trouble with, still, is a handball. A year ago, I asked for help on this site for what exactly was a "deliberate" handball. One of the responses given was that a deliberate handball doesn't have to be "intentional". The player didn't "intend" to play the ball with the hand, but did so deliberately. Just to clarify, here is one of Webster's definitions of deliberate:

"characterized by or resulting from careful and thorough consideration"

While intentional is defined as a determination to act in a specific way. They really sound the same. I know that as far as handballs are concerned, its all in the opinion of the referee, but if I gave you a few examples, from my own games, could you comment on what your opinion might be in each specific circumstance?

1. The ball is kicked from 10(a), 20(b), 30(c) yards away into a players arm.

2. A player attempts to head or chest an incomming ball and it hits the player in the arm (the player misplays the ball).

3. Deep in his own penalty box, a player leaps 3 feet off the ground attempting to intercept a cross with his head or chest. To get high, he flings his arms out and in the process the ball hits him in the upper arm.

4. A young lady heads the ball with little or no control and bounces off her head and hits her up stretched arm.

A lot of the friends I work with are stricter on their definition of handballs. I've made a few coaches and adult players mad with my interpretation of the LOTG. I'm not overly concerned with the players and coaches opinions, other than enough criticism has given me pause for thought. Any light you can shed on this would be great, as I have been stewing over this for over a year.

Answer provided by Referee Ben Mueller

The main question is did the ball play the hand or did the hand play the ball. If the hand motions to the ball, it should be called. In each situation the referee must evaluate whether they felt that the handball by the player was deliberate or accidental. Good questions to ask are 1. Did the player want to play the ball with hands, 2. Why were the players hands in that position, 3. Did the player have enough time to react to the ball. These questions should help you make that decision. As Always,

Answer provided by Referee Nathan Lacy

Certainly it is difficult to judge how one would respond on the field versus seeing a scenario in print. Given the descripitions these seem like sound and reasonable judgements. As a referee, when looking at these events, something additional to consider is whether or not the player is doing something "out of the ordinary" with their hands. For instance, the defender who "almost inconsequentially" has his hands at his sides but just wide of their hips is in fact deliberately widening their "body." When a striker then takes a shot it "appears" as though the ball was played to the hand of the defender BUT did the defender not intentionally place their hands so as to reduce the area for the shot? That intentional act by the defender warrants, in my opinion, a call. Differentiating these from unintentional acts can be extremely tough and the angle of view is everything which requires the ref to be fit and to be able to get into the correct position to see what is happening. Also, gaining some knowledge of "body language" so that one can determine when something is unusual is invaluable and this boils down to game experience. Just some food for thought. All the best,

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Wes,
Certainly we take into account if the ball strikes the arm or the arm strikes the ball but on a 10, 20 or 30 yard distance the velocity of the shot and the reason the ball is contacting the arms is very unclear in my opinion. A player with his back to play and the 30 yard ball hits his elbow I see as not deliberate handling, place the player facing forward on a 30 yard shot and that shot had better be a 100 miles an hour to not play it with a body part other than not being able to get the hands out of the way. In my opinion I need to see some deliberate action to avoid a ball just as I need to see a deliberate action to play a ball.

The subtle distinction between intent(ional) and deliberate is we are not mind readers we can not tell what a player is actually thinking we can guess of course and to some extent that does figure into a marginal decision. We judge the act of playing the ball! We judge if that act is a consequence of WHAT that player does! In your 2nd question you state a player attempts to head or chest a ball and (the player misplays the ball).

Perhaps it is in the way you worded the 1st and second questions in that you convey the ball is doing all of this independent of the player doing ANYTHING at all!

I see deliberate handing on the misplayed ball if I see the player move into the ball trying to control that ball.

If he realizes that that control move is not working out then I need to see a deliberate attempt to abort! Pull the arms away! Thus it becomes a deliberate attempt to avoid the ball and if the ball is not avoided it does not matter I see no foul because of the player's actions! The reverse is also true I will see the foul BASED on the player's actions! WE cannot reward a mistake simply because it seems like he is sorry. It does not undo the deliberateness of the attempt.

In each case we have the ability as a referee to decide WHAT affects the ball's flight path on its journey to the hand. A resetting of circumstances that can free the player from the deliberate attempt to play the 1st set of circumstances. A player goes up to head the ball as you describe and is bumped by a opponent the ball strikes the out-flung arm I am now reluctant but not totally adverse to see this as deliberate handling. I could see the arms flung into the path of the ball as a continuation of the deliberate act to begin with as he deliberately intercepted the ball flight and placed those arms in the balls path not the opposite.

As with your young lady scenario. Hands raised over the head on unskilled or grassroots soccer is far more common than at the elite or competition levels. Most head a ball incorrectly and often close their eyes. We could see more in the deliberate placement of arms than in the deflection off the head to the arm, but again as referee it will be your opinion that counts.

One major sticking point in ladies football are the arms crossed over the breasts. The protective movement to ward off impact is generally accepted as not a deliberate play on the ball but a deliberate attempt to stave off an impact.

I find the European referee to a North American referee SEEM to have a slightly different mindset. . All accept a wall position with arms over face and private areas as OK. BUT during active play, if there is avoidable circumstances then the arms placed are considered as deliberate play not reflex protective reactions.

In a recent match the referee awarded a DFK for deliberate handling to a lady who had placed her arms across the breasts. Although the arms remained tight to the body the lady moved forward at a run into the ball. The offended player and coach were upset that the arms were only there to protect but the referee CORRECTLY realized that the forward movement into the ball was acting as a battering ram sending that ball back downfield with almost as much force as a decent header which there was plenty of opportunity to do so since this ball was in flight over 25 yards. This was a deliberate handling and should be called every time.

Now in the same match the opposing team rushed into a challenge where the player was a bit late and her opponent smashed a hard ball directly into the oncoming player who raised her arms over the breasts and face. The referee correctly made NO call. The aforementioned coach was again upset saying how was this different than the his player's actions from before. Sometimes as referee you cannot MAKE everyone GET IT!

Your interpretation of the events in the match are your decisions. These decisions are based on what you believe from the experiences you had and the information you learned from others. The BEST referees are consistent within the match they do for that 1 and 1/2 hour. As you develop an understanding of the nuances of a yes or no position you reach a level of comfort knowing a referee with integrity sees what he sees!
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Wes I think you should try and get away from establishing distances in your mind for determining what constitutes deliberately handling the ball. Distance really has not a whole lot to do with it. What is necessary remains a deliberate act to play the ball with the hand or arm. Two things are needed here; the hand or arm hitting, catching, propelling or otherwise doing something to the ball and the act is deliberate.

The referee is wise to remember Newton's Third Law when watching a player, "To get high, he flings his arms out" because this only reduces the height a footballer can jump. The arms are there just in case the ball hits them. That is a deliberate act and if the ball hits them it is, in fact, deliberately handling the ball.

The hand well out to the side, used to regain balance or maintain balance, and having the ball hit it, not all that uncommon a thing, is not deliberately handling the ball it is trying to stay upright and having the ball hit the hand or arm. This act, called "handball" by the players, coaches and parents usually gets a whistle; though it shouldn't.

The young lady who mishits the the header and has the ball hit her arm, how young is she? U-10, it hit the arm -- U-23 she knows exactly what she's doing and if you don't intervene she gets away with deliberately handling the ball.

A male player that moves his hands to his groin and watches the ball hit the back of his hand is, in fact, moving his hand to a place where it can play the ball, deliberately handles the ball here, too! Conversely, that same player moves both hands to his groin area while slamming his eyes shut and turning his head away is just keeping the various parts attached -- a reflex. This "foul" play, called "Keeping the parts attached", is not one of the direct or indirect free kick offenses listed in Law 12. What happens, he usually gets pulled up for it. Especially if it lands at his feet and he stuffs it in the back of the net. For me the gent is doubly lucky, the parts remain attached and he gets a goal. For most others, TWEET.

The referee MUST look at each instance and make the determination if the act of the ball striking the hand or arm could have been avoided and if so did the player avoid or TRY to avoid the contact or not. He must look at the eyes of the player and see if they are looking at the point of contact on the hand or arm. He must look and see if the footballer actually used his hand or arm to "make himself bigger".

After all that thinking the referee must understand when he has seen the ball striking the hand or arm, in a manner NOT initiated by the player, then falling kindly the act does not become a deliberate one. It is just lucky! Reason, the historical fact; the ball hitting the hand or arm can not be changed. It remains something happening in the past, abet recent past but still history.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Debbie Hoelscher

Hi Wes, I agree with Ref Fleischer that distance isn't, in my mind, part of the equation. I would also tend to go with "no" to all of your scenarios. This is why: Each of the individual descriptions you give communicate to me that no deliberate attempt to play the ball was made. HOWEVER, there are subtleties which require the presence of the referee for that moment, that player, and the actions surround that specific event. Two scenarios with a subtle distinction: 1) player has hands out, but the hands are essentially relaxed (bent at the elbows, but relaxeds at the wrists). Ball hits hands, which go flying due to the owner of said hands not prepared to take this hit. This in my mind, is NOT handling. Clearly if there is no preparation (by balling up the fists or tensing up to stop the ball) there is no deliberation involved. 2) Player has hands out, but relaxed (as in the first scenario), this time watches the ball come in and make the decision to keep their hands there and use them as a "back stop" for the ball by tighting up her muscles to absorb the impact of the ball. This IS handling. The difference is very subtle and can really only be appreciated by the referee right there. Additionally, I would like to speak to the issue of protection. It is a given that the gents in the game of soccer would do just about anything to protect their groin area. At about an 80-1 ratio in the ranks of the referee's world, this is a mutual concern, as most referees are men and "feel their pain" if you will. As for me, I can only imagine the pain....much like only a man could imagine the pain of child birth, menstrual cramping, and... getting hit by the ball in the area of the chest that is as sacred to the female, as the previously mentioned area of the body on a male is to the guys. Know this. A female will do just about anything to keep from getting hit there as well. The difference is, of course, where on the body it is. This is not to say that we females won't chest trap a ball, we can (after proper instruction about how to aviod the unthinkable) and do. But the fact remains that the area of concern for females is in a the playable area (meaning you aren't going to see anyone trapping a ball down using their groin area. You do see players -- male and female -- chest trap the ball). As a result, you will find that women/young ladies will put their hands up more often then men to make sure they are "safe" from any unfortunate impact. For guys, the ball is more easily played should a ball come in at the height of their mid-section, but stepping aside slightly, and using their leg/thigh, knee, shin, foot, whatever. For women, stepping aside isn't necessarily the next best choice. Now you have the neck and face right up the street to deal with! Noone likes a ball to the face either. So arms are up to protect the upper chest, neck and face. As a result, more real estate to cover means more opportunity to have the ball hit the hands.
It is important to realize that the distinctions between the men's and women's game reduce themselves as the level of play becomes higher. You will not find a WNT Under 16 team throwing their arms about in protection as you would an Rec GU16. Simply because the WNT (Women's National Team) is more physically fit and has a high level of ball skills with which to compensate.
The moral to my story is this: It depends is the only answer one can give for the 'handling the ball' foul. The referee must take into account not just the 2-dimensional aspect of the written LOTG, but add in the 3-dimensional component to make the right call. It's much like the famous judge who once said "It's impossible to define, but you know it when you see it."

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

1. Regardless of how far the kick is, the referee has to ask the question, "could this have been avoided?" If not, then the ball played the hand and no handling. If yes, then give a handling violation. 2. Maybe. If the players hands are in a normal position and the contact appears to be totally by accident and the player does not redirect the ball, then no. 3. Yes. In my mind, the player has deliberately put his hands in an area where the ball could hit them. To me, this is akin to standing at a wall with your hands over your head. 4. How old is this player? A U12 rec player I doubt I'd give a handling call. U19 Select, I'd expect her not to leave her hand in the way. Still, all these scenarios are a "you had to be there" to be sure.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 12866