New handball rule being misinterpreted

[Thank you Sir Jack]

Please forgive me if this has been raised elsewhere.
An article in today's Telegraph points out that the Premier League is misinterpreting what was originally intended by the body that makes world football rules. The intention was that no player should gain control of the ball using their hand/arm and "it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body of a player who is close".
Dendoncker's goal should have been allowed if the PL had interpreted the instructions correctly.

 

[Mr Chad]

Please forgive me if this has been raised elsewhere.
An article in today's Telegraph points out that the Premier League is misinterpreting what was originally intended by the body that makes world football rules. The intention was that no player should gain control of the ball using their hand/arm and "it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body of a player who is close".
Dendoncker's goal should have been allowed if the PL had interpreted the instructions correctly.

If that's what the Telegraph is saying, then they are the ones that are wrong. The point it that "it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body of a player who is close". Note the word "usually". In circumstances where a goal results, the new directive that a goal cannot result from a handball, even if accidental, will take effect.

Think the new rules are wrong, but they are being interpreted correctly.

 

[ShropshireLad]

Please forgive me if this has been raised elsewhere.
An article in today's Telegraph points out that the Premier League is misinterpreting what was originally intended by the body that makes world football rules. The intention was that no player should gain control of the ball using their hand/arm and "it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body of a player who is close".
Dendoncker's goal should have been allowed if the PL had interpreted the instructions correctly.

Too late, now matey. I hope the law will be interpreted consistently until the end of the season as our two points can't be awarded to us.

I read in the paper today that since the Man City disallowed goal there were protests about changing the law but the Prem authorities refused. There wasn't an outcry when it happened to us. From Phil Neville it was, "Accept it, deal with it, it's the law" and basically "Get a life." ****!

 

[Pessimistic Wolf]

My understanding from the press release from IFAB is that the section of the law you quote specifically refers to a defender conceding a penalty.

In circumstances where handling of the ball (intentionally or not) leads to a goal, this clause does not apply.

Essentially, ball to hand as a concept remains intact if you're a defender, but not if you're an attacker. It's a worrying distinction because beyond killing the soul and passion of the game, it explicitly discriminates against and penalises forward players and discourages attacking football.

The very simple resolution would be to make that 'ball to hand' clause a universal fixture.

It's completely uncontroversial to legislate against goals unfairly scored by a handball. It's also uncontroversial to accept that, anywhere on the pitch, the ball may accidentally hit your arm.

The aim is to take the pressure of referees' interpretation of the law, particularly when it's a tough call. It's now so tremendously black and white that refereeing decisions can no longer be challenged.

I see it as a very reactive position for IFAB to take, clearly in the face of criticism from pundits, fans, players and managers. Surely the objective should be to improve referee decision making and interpretation, whilst safeguarding the flow of the game. This is almost the opposite, and I think will lead to a stagnation in the quality of referees.

 

[ShropshireLad]

It'll be interesting to see how those two lost points will affect our position at the end of the season.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

I spent a good hour on here arguing the same as the Telegraph after the Boly incident last week. The full rules quoted in that thread and even one of the initial PL tweets after the incident, make it clear that possession needs to be gained by the player touching the ball with his hand/arm. That’s clearly not the case in either of the incidents where this has ruled out goals and is especially not so in Bolys case.

Where it all falls down is in the summary description of how the rule is being applied, which basically says any accidental contact by an attacking player in the lead up to a goal. That’s what has been consistently applied, and it’s questionable whether that is correct.

 

[themanwhobuiltthemoon]

I think the mere fact we're still debating this a week after the Leicester game proves it's a complete mess.

 

[fev123]

Please forgive me if this has been raised elsewhere.
An article in today's Telegraph points out that the Premier League is misinterpreting what was originally intended by the body that makes world football rules. The intention was that no player should gain control of the ball using their hand/arm and "it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the head or body of a player who is close".
Dendoncker's goal should have been allowed if the PL had interpreted the instructions correctly.

The part you've quoted there is paraphrased from a larger passage within law 12 as follows:



You see how they have conveniently left out the "Except for the above offences" bit. The sad reality of that goal is that its a perfect demonstration of how VAR will often get the laws of the game applied better but spoil the game of football at the same time by taking away all the spontaneity.

 

[Rufio]

Let it go

 

[wolvesjoe]

The part you've quoted there is paraphrased from a larger passage within law 12 as follows:

View attachment 11715

You see how they have conveniently left out the "Except for the above offences" bit. The sad reality of that goal is that its a perfect demonstration of how VAR will often get the laws of the game applied better but spoil the game of football at the same time by taking away all the spontaneity.

Still as clear as mud. The offence mentioned is only from the hand/arm of the player who scores, and it is implied that if it is a deflection from another team-mate then it should be treated as an ordinary accidental handball, and therefore no free kick. Both the high profile goals ruled out so far fall into that most unclear category of being deflections from team-mates. Its an appalling mess.

 

[reanswolf]

The part you've quoted there is paraphrased from a larger passage within law 12 as follows:

View attachment 11715

You see how they have conveniently left out the "Except for the above offences" bit. The sad reality of that goal is that its a perfect demonstration of how VAR will often get the laws of the game applied better but spoil the game of football at the same time by taking away all the spontaneity.

I would argue that in Dendoncker's goal nor the City goal v Spurs, that handball occurred because the player whose arm/hand touched the ball did NOT "gain control or possession of the ball" and then create a goal-scoring opportunity.

Also it does not apply according to that paragraph, if the ball accidentally touches the hand/arm if the hand/arm is in a natural position.

You can hardly argue that Boly gained control or possession of the ball nor was his arm in an unnatural position?? Same with the City goal.

 

[fev123]

Still as clear as mud. The offence mentioned is only from the hand/arm of the player who scores, and it is implied that if it is a deflection from another team-mate then it should be treated as an ordinary accidental handball, and therefore no free kick. Both the high profile goals ruled out so far fall into that most unclear category of being deflections from team-mates. Its an appalling mess.

"The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of ANOTHER player who is close."

 

[Mr Chad]

Still as clear as mud. The offence mentioned is only from the hand/arm of the player who scores, and it is implied that if it is a deflection from another team-mate then it should be treated as an ordinary accidental handball, and therefore no free kick. Both the high profile goals ruled out so far fall into that most unclear category of being deflections from team-mates. Its an appalling mess.

Leave out all the caveats and things and its quite clear.

"It is an offence if a player . . . gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then . . . creates a goal-scoring opportunity."

 

[wolvesjoe]

Leave out all the caveats and things and its quite clear.

"It is an offence if a player . . . gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then . . . creates a goal-scoring opportunity."

Read it closely again. "If a player gains possession after it has touched THEIR hand/arm", nothing about deflection from another teammate.

I am ready to be proved wrong but, as you yourself have quoted, that isnt what it says.

 

[JayStringer]

The current interpretation is a well-leading mistake. A slight tweak would fix it. Rather than simply ruling out any goal that has touched an attacking players hand/arm during the buildup, they should change it to whether the contact changes the direction of the ball, regardless of intent.

So, for instance, Boly's goal against City last year would clearly be ruled out. But the goals for us and City in the last two weeks would stand.

 

[Bill S Preston Esq.]

My understanding from the press release from IFAB is that the section of the law you quote specifically refers to a defender conceding a penalty.

In circumstances where handling of the ball (intentionally or not) leads to a goal, this clause does not apply.

Essentially, ball to hand as a concept remains intact if you're a defender, but not if you're an attacker. It's a worrying distinction because beyond killing the soul and passion of the game, it explicitly discriminates against and penalises forward players and discourages attacking football.

The very simple resolution would be to make that 'ball to hand' clause a universal fixture.

It's completely uncontroversial to legislate against goals unfairly scored by a handball. It's also uncontroversial to accept that, anywhere on the pitch, the ball may accidentally hit your arm.

The aim is to take the pressure of referees' interpretation of the law, particularly when it's a tough call. It's now so tremendously black and white that refereeing decisions can no longer be challenged.

I see it as a very reactive position for IFAB to take, clearly in the face of criticism from pundits, fans, players and managers. Surely the objective should be to improve referee decision making and interpretation, whilst safeguarding the flow of the game. This is almost the opposite, and I think will lead to a stagnation in the quality of referees.

But that would still result in unfair goals being awarded. Willy Boly last season made no attempt to touch the ball, therefore it was ball to hand. It was still dodgy though.

 

[fev123]

I would argue that in Dendoncker's goal nor the City goal v Spurs, that handball occurred because the player whose arm/hand touched the ball did NOT "gain control or possession of the ball" and then create a goal-scoring opportunity.

Also it does not apply according to that paragraph, if the ball accidentally touches the hand/arm if the hand/arm is in a natural position.

You can hardly argue that Boly gained control or possession of the ball nor was his arm in an unnatural position?? Same with the City goal.

Yea as I posted above its this part that sees to that:

"The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close."

So Dendoncker took control from Boly's handball. Fans of VAR will say its a miracle it got to the right decision. Personally I think the new rules are ridiculous and favour the defending team (still accidental for defenders) which is what all of the referees in the presentation I was at thought and like I say, even if it gets more decisions right it takes all the fun, passion, excitement out of the game. Never again will we have those amazing moments where last minute goals give us moments of joy.......

Agueroooooooooooooo.................. I swear you’ll never see anything like this ever again. So watch it, drink it in... two goals in added time from Manchester City to snatch the title away from Manchester United.

CHECKING VAR”

No thanks

 

[Mr Chad]

Read it closely again. "If a player gains possession after it has touched THEIR hand/arm", nothing about deflection from another teammate.

I am ready to be proved wrong but, as you yourself have quoted, that isnt what it says.

I agree there can be a debate over what constitutes gaining possession.
I had misunderstood your original post, and thought you were talking about the ball being deflected onto a team mates hand/arm, rather than the deflection off hand/arm falling to a team mate.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I think the fundamental problem is that they want VAR to rule on factual mistakes, things like offside that are black and white (well except for the grey bits). So they changed the rule to be simple - the ball touched Boly's arm so it's not a goal. Nobody can argue if that's the rule. If you start to question intent it becomes a matter of interpretation and VAR has to rely on the on-field ref. So despite people (including me) continually saying it's the rules not the VAR in fact it is the VAR really, because the rules have been changed to suit the use of VAR.

 

[wolvesjoe]

The current interpretation is a well-leading mistake. A slight tweak would fix it. Rather than simply ruling out any goal that has touched an attacking players hand/arm during the buildup, they should change it to whether the contact changes the direction of the ball, regardless of intent.

So, for instance, Boly's goal against City last year would clearly be ruled out. But the goals for us and City in the last two weeks would stand.

I cant see that....

In both instances there was a slight change of direction so that the ball fell for a teammate, who then scored. Rather than looking at outcomes, which will be very hard to call and not clear up the problem, the tweak should be rather about intention. Go back to the existing distinction between accidental and intentional, (which is quite rigorous in itself), and the problem lessens. A separate proviso could be added for those few occasions when a player accidentally scores a goal directly from hand/arm contact, (like Boly against City last year....although I have never been quite sure if it was accidental...)

 

[reanswolf]

Leave out all the caveats and things and its quite clear.

"It is an offence if a player . . . gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then . . . creates a goal-scoring opportunity."

Which Boly didnt ??

 

[reanswolf]

"The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of ANOTHER player who is close."

It says that ONLY applies "if" the arm is in an unnatural position OR if deliberate (If you are talking about Rule 12 highlighted in post 8).

 

[BigSteve]

Absolutely bizarre and unfair rule change (and there is most definitely ambiguity in the drafting of the new rule no matter how much people want to state that it makes things 'black and white').

What about fairness? Does that matter at all?

If someone blasts the ball at your arm from three feet away, you can't react. This is why we don't penalise 'ball to hand': because it would be unfair to do so. And now we've effectively codified this unfairness into the rules

The new text states "Football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)"

YES IT DOES! (or, at least, I do) This statment is the crux of the matter. It's unfair to penalise the scoring team, we accept the goal.

Sure it is hard to discern intent but referees are required to so in all other areas of the pitch. Refereeing involves judgement and always will.

YES I'M TRIGGERED.

 

[JayStringer]

I cant see that....

In both instances there was a slight change of direction so that the ball fell for a teammate, who then scored. Rather than looking at outcomes, which will be very hard to call and not clear up the problem, the tweak should be rather about intention. Go back to the existing distinction between accidental and intentional, (which is quite rigorous in itself), and the problem lessens. A separate proviso could be added for those few occasions when a player accidentally scores a goal directly from hand/arm contact, (like Boly against City last year....although I have never been quite sure if it was accidental...)

There's no way to prove intention, that's the problem.

 

[BigSteve]

There's no way to prove intention, that's the problem.

The new rule removes the perceived problem of judging intent and replaces it with a new and much worse problem of treating people in an unfair manner.

 

[JayStringer]

The new rule removes the perceived problem of judging intent and replaces it with a new and much worse problem of treating people in an unfair manner.

Don't disagree. But this is the point of the process, they're trying to find a better way. Clearly haven't found it yet.

 

[Pessimistic Wolf]

But that would still result in unfair goals being awarded. Willy Boly last season made no attempt to touch the ball, therefore it was ball to hand. It was still dodgy though.

I take your point, and it seems that Boly's goal against City was a sort of catalyst for this law change. You're right that it was very much "ball to hand", but nevertheless was an unfair goal. That said, my argument isn't against VAR, and under the previous laws of the game with VAR installed, it would have picked that up and rightly disallowed it.

In that situation though, the referee has to make a decision based on his or her interpretation of the laws of the game. The obvious interpretation would be that although it striking Boly's hand was incidental, it conferred a very unfair advantage to Wolves. Perhaps then, the element of the law that is contestible is the fact that a 'ball to hand' incident in the build-up to a goal is now penalised, such as Dendoncker's or Gabriel Jesus's goals. I think if you used VAR and applied last seasons laws, even on closer inspection they may be adjudged goals. Maybe that could be because even from the point that the ball strikes the arm, there are a number of variables that all have to converge for a goal to occur.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

When there is so much debate about what the rules mean, then it’s clear they are poorly drafted, whether you agree with the intent or not.

In response the media and some analysts have over-simplified their meaning as “any accidental handball by an attacking player in the build up to a goal”, but while this is less ambiguous, it’s factually incorrect.

Seems obvious that those officials responsible for interpreting the new rules, need to review and release an accurate summary that can be applied consistently. If they can’t, then the rules need to be amended.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

I think the genuine reason behind this rule change was to try and cut out some of the subjectivity and give VAR a factual yes or no application to handball in the build up to a goal. I think it was designed to stop goals like Boly at City or Thierry Henry vs ROI. Given how often we see hand ball leading to goals, which is not often I think, it was likely deemed 'for the greater good'.

Same rule simply could not apply defensively given the pure amount of accidental hand balls we do see from defenders facing crosses and shots from point blank range.

I certainly don't think the rule change is correct but I do think the intention was to make a positive change. 2 high profile incidents in the first 2 weeks of the season have clearly shown the rule to be non-sensical no matter how well intentioned.

 

[WolvTown]

It'll be interesting to see how those two lost points will affect our position at the end of the season.

4th instead of 3rd

 

[Zigwolf]

But does this apply only in the penalty area, and also, only immediately before the goal was scored - if not - how far back in the flow of the game do you look ?

 

[shaygriff]

Apparently, the EU are to blame: MUNDIAL on Twitter

 

[JonahWolf]

Apparently, the EU are to blame: MUNDIAL on Twitter

That’s brilliant.

My favourite comment:

Infamous football bell-end in ‘something only a bell-end would say’ shocker.

 

[Mr Chad]

That’s brilliant.

My favourite comment:

Infamous football bell-end in ‘something only a bell-end would say’ shocker.

I notice he's now saying he didn't say that because "I'm not that stupid". Anyone taking a vote ???

My money's on "Oh, yes he is !"

 

[Amiga-wolf]

To me VAR should be simplifying not adding complications. The two VAR incidents involving Wolves are maddingly frustrating, Goal scored off an accidental handball, should be allowed. simple and nobody would argue, keeps the game flowing and not hard for VAR to deal with.

Mouthinio being checked for offside was another ridiculous time waste. simply draw a line with feet, if you foot is offside, then fair enough, but to check where your body and hand are is taking decision making to ridiculous levels. Keep it simple, and let the game flow.

 

[Plastic Shrapnel]

they changed the rule to be simple - the ball touched Boly's arm so it's not a goal. Nobody can argue if that's the rule. If you start to question intent it becomes a matter of interpretation and VAR has to rely on the on-field ref.

But they are fine with interpretation of intent when it's a ball hitting the arm of a defender in the penalty box.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

But they are fine with interpretation of intent when it's a ball hitting the arm of a defender in the penalty box.

A very fair point. Somehow they can see that anything else would be daft - but only for defenders!