Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Penalties for handball

The Bayern v Man City game was a cracking game of football last night. However, the two penalties were ridiculous. Does anyone understand why the old rule of 'intent' has been abandoned? Two penalties were awarded for unintentional handball. The first was against the Bayern defender, who, I think, also got booked for the offence. He even went into the task of defending with his hands behind his back. The second was when the ball flew up from a tackle. As it happened, the two penalties didn't affect the result, but what if the Champions League Final was decided on a penalty resulting from unintentional handball? I assume it won't be long before forwards, particularly wingers running into the box, practise flicking the ball up at the arms of defenders to win penalties. They are probably already doing this in training. Surely, we don't want that to happen. Can we have the old rule back, please, and trust referees to get it right nine times out of ten?

Comments

  • edited April 2023
    It happened before VAR and has got worse since. The football authorities want consistent decisions and leaving it to the judgement of refs doesn't provide that. But it really shouldn't be that difficult, do you think the player intentionally handled or put his/her arms in a position where the ball could be blocked? 

    The final part is why the wording around unantural position was added as a descriptive term to the laws. Typical that it was misunderstood by refs and football authorities themselves. Rather than be specific the laws made things ambiguous, probably to save a few words in the description. Totally stupid and common sense is needed. Other sports really show football up in this area, as well as applying technology.
  • Referees generally have a horrible record in applying new rules as written and intended.

    1994, new rule created to keep the game flowing. The wording and intent was clear, players would have to leave the pitch (if possible) BEFORE receiving treatment. Referees decide that means the players get treated on the pitch as before, thus still holding the game up, and then you force them to leave the pitch for an indeterminate amount of time because nothing is fairer than reducing the fouled against team to 10 men.

    6 second rule, apart from poor Andy Petterson getting blown up around 6.1 seconds after catching the ball, it's a rule that referees have unilaterally decided they don't have to apply. Once when we were in the prem I actually kept a record during a game. The Aston Villa keeper Scott Oakes held on to the ball for at least 13 seconds every time he handled the ball throughout the game.

    Foul throws, there are some absolutely terrible throws in the professional game and the vast majority are taken miles from where they should be (so technically a foul throw), officials do literally nothing to combat this. Felt sorry for Mario Melchiott in a game against us at The Valley. Pretty much every throw he took first half was a foul through, the ball not coming from fully behind the head, or a foot being raised, or some other element of the throw being incorrect. Didn't get pulled up at any stage. Second half he get punished for his first throw, which might have been a foul throw, but was probably his most legal throw of the day up to that point. Having seen there's a foul throw issue in the game FIFA decided rather than making the rules clearer, or getting officials to ensure throws were taken from the correct spot, no, the important change FIFA made was that rather than both feet being ON or BEHIND the line, they now just needed to be ON the line and could therefore be on the pitch as long as part of the foot touched the line.

    I could go on an on, the rules of the game aren't clear enough, the authorities don't care enough, and the officials simply don't know or care about the rules actually being applied correctly.

    On a related not VAR is pointless if the same officials who don't understand or apply the rules are running the system.
  • They either need to return to the old ruling and accept that each officials definition of deliberate is going to vary, or embrace that variation, but mitigate it by changing the rule. What I would propose is make the ruling a lot simpler and more like the hockey foot ruling. If the ball strike the hand/arm then it's handball and an indirect free kick. If the handball is deemed deliberate then it's a direct freekick and a yellow card. The result will be the vast majority of handballs will result in just an indirect freekick and the adjudication of those fouls will be a simple binary "did it touch the hand/arm or not". Only clear cut cases of deliberate handball would result in direct freekicks/penalties/bookings.
  • They either need to return to the old ruling and accept that each officials definition of deliberate is going to vary, or embrace that variation, but mitigate it by changing the rule. What I would propose is make the ruling a lot simpler and more like the hockey foot ruling. If the ball strike the hand/arm then it's handball and an indirect free kick. If the handball is deemed deliberate then it's a direct freekick and a yellow card. The result will be the vast majority of handballs will result in just an indirect freekick and the adjudication of those fouls will be a simple binary "did it touch the hand/arm or not". Only clear cut cases of deliberate handball would result in direct freekicks/penalties/bookings.
    Far too sensible to ever be adopted!
  • edited April 2023
    saw the first given and i was dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity of it. It annoyed me enough that I couldn't even watch anymore of the game. though i did see the complete arse Haaland did with the resulting penalty which did cheer me up slightly. 

    Sometimes i really dislike this sport. the way players fake injuries and the way refs seem to be conned by alot of it. It's almost as if refs have never watched or played the game. I know they are just doing their job and the players antics put pressure on them to give certain decisions but it just seems like common sense is completely alien to them. 

  • saw the first given and i was dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity of it. It annoyed me enough that I couldn't even watch anymore of the game. though i did see the complete arse Haaland did with the resulting penalty which did cheer me up slightly. 

    Sometimes i really dislike this sport. the way players fake injuries and the way refs seem to be conned by alot of it. It's almost as if refs have never watched or played the game. I know they are just doing their job and the players antics put pressure on them to give certain decisions but it just seems like common sense is completely alien to them. 

    But how old does a ref have to be to have played when the game was decent? Even if they have played, most of these refs have grown up with diving and feigning injury. They probably see it as "all part of the game" just like the players. 
  • sam3110 said:
    What's laughable too is that it's not applied across all games and in all areas of the pitch. In the build-up to a goal on Monday night Trent Alexander-Arnold had a ball kicked at him which struck him on the elbow. He gained possession of the ball from that incident, and played the ball through to Salah who scored. VAR checked and decided the incident was too far from the point at which they scored to rule out the goal, despite the fact the handball directly led to said goal. However I'm sure if the same incident happened in the box, they would have ruled it a handball and Leeds would have got a penalty! Insane
    Yes. that decision was a real head scratcher. Alexander -Arnold's intervention was fundamental to the goal.
  • Referees generally have a horrible record in applying new rules as written and intended.

    1994, new rule created to keep the game flowing. The wording and intent was clear, players would have to leave the pitch (if possible) BEFORE receiving treatment. Referees decide that means the players get treated on the pitch as before, thus still holding the game up, and then you force them to leave the pitch for an indeterminate amount of time because nothing is fairer than reducing the fouled against team to 10 men.

    Iirc this came in after the 1994 World Cup in the US where they had golf buggies to ferry players off the pitch to be treated. Idea was to speed up play so that any treatment was done off the pitch to allow play to restart asap. 

    But stupidly the FA didn't follow through with that so in the end we had, like you said, players being treated ON the pitch before having to go off to come back on again. 

    Mad.

    As for handball I totally agree. Done my head on on Monday evening when Liverpool scored their 2nd after a player clearly moved his arm towards the ball to control it. It might have been reactional or instinctive but it lead to.a goal. Apparently VAR didnt get involved as it didnt DIRECTLY lead to a  goal......but about 5 seconds later it did 🙄.

    Debated with my son about this & I think it should be black or white. Either ANY time ball hits the hand it's an infringement- penalty or free kick......or nothing happens & ball hitting hand is just treated like any other part of the body. 

    Current laws are a farce.
  • edited April 2023
    Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out wide of his torso and it hit his hand, deflecting the ball away from the intended location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.
    The problem with removing the intentional part of the law is the result would be attackers just booting at defenders as hard as they can knowing they'd get a penalty a good percentage of the time. That's why I proposed making the majority of handballs into indirect free-kicks. Intentional handball would then be similar to a professional foul, a distinction we already make int he game.
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out wide of his torso and it hit his hand, deflecting the ball away from the intended location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.
    The problem with removing the intentional part of the law is the result would be attackers just booting at defenders as hard as they can knowing they'd get a penalty a good percentage of the time. That's why I proposed making the majority of handballs into indirect free-kicks. Intentional handball would then be similar to a professional foul, a distinction we already make int he game.
    I'm always in favour of making things more consistent so that's a decent idea and one I would support.
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    This ⬆️
  • The World Cup final in 2018 and the Champions League final in 2020 was massively influenced by absurd handball decisions.
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    It looks bad slowed down, but in real time there is no way the defender decided he was going to handle the ball. Definitely wasn't a penalty.
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    It looks bad slowed down, but in real time there is no way the defender decided he was going to handle the ball. Definitely wasn't a penalty.
    Why did he move his hand away from behind his back then?
    It may have been instinctive but he should have just kept it where it was & it wouldn’t have been a pen 🤷‍♀️
  • The rules were never broken in the first place. Was it a deliberate handball? Not that difficult to judge if you have any common sense...maybe some 50/50 cases but we can all accept those as interesting talking points and grey areas. These things will never be binary. As soon as you create new rules, you create unintended consequences and referees with no common sense feeling bound to literal interpretations of the law as if they were judging a court case.

    The whole defending with hands behind the back is a nonsense. I can't stand seeing it. It's terrible defending to restrict your movement with an unnatural running style. What if the ball hits the hand behind the back? To me that's the most unnatural position your hand could possibly be in but now referees treat it as natural. The whole thing is absurd.

    The penalty to Bayern was just next level stupidity. It really makes you wonder what the point is any more....and the cherry on top was the always reliable Peter Walton, there to make a case for the referee. Generally if Peter Walton agrees with the decision, you know it's ludicrous except to a pen pushing melt in the referee association who spends the weekend pouring over literal interpretations of the law and telling everyone with self righteous confidence that it was the 'correct decision' as if they are law.
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    It looks bad slowed down, but in real time there is no way the defender decided he was going to handle the ball. Definitely wasn't a penalty.
    Why did he move his hand away from behind his back then?
    It may have been instinctive but he should have just kept it where it was & it wouldn’t have been a pen 🤷‍♀️
    Have you ever tried defending with your hands behind your back. Or any other sport that involves movement. It's natural to put your arms out to balance yourself. Thats why the new laws around having your hands by your side is nonsense imo. 
  • But if your arm is outstretched and turns out to deny a goalscoring chance for the attacking team, I don't see why there shouldn't be a punishment. Whether intentional or not.
  • My understanding is that when the hand/arm is in an unnatural position then whether handball is deliberate or not isn't relevant.

    The law states: "By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited April 2023
    Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    It looks bad slowed down, but in real time there is no way the defender decided he was going to handle the ball. Definitely wasn't a penalty.
    Why did he move his hand away from behind his back then?
    It may have been instinctive but he should have just kept it where it was & it wouldn’t have been a pen 🤷‍♀️
    Have you ever tried defending with your hands behind your back. Or any other sport that involves movement. It's natural to put your arms out to balance yourself. Thats why the new laws around having your hands by your side is nonsense imo. 
    Yes.
    And if it were that difficult it’s amazing how geezers manage to keep their hands locked to their Crown Jewels when a free kicks being taken 🤷‍♀️🙄🤣🤣
  • Didn't see anything wrong with the award of the first penalty, personally.

    The guy started with his hands behind his back but by the time the ball reached him, his hand was out & wide of his torso. The ball hit his hand, deflecting it away from the intended shot location.

    The defender probably didn't mean to get his hand in the way, but his actions have cost the attacking team a potential goal and IMO awarding a penalty is the correct decision.

    Intentional vs unintentional handball is a bit odd, like saying a foul shouldn't be a foul if the defender didn't intend to bring the opposition player down.


    Keep your hands and arms tucked closely into your torso and you shouldn't be penalised - the rule can't get much more black and white than that.
    It looks bad slowed down, but in real time there is no way the defender decided he was going to handle the ball. Definitely wasn't a penalty.
    Why did he move his hand away from behind his back then?
    It may have been instinctive but he should have just kept it where it was & it wouldn’t have been a pen 🤷‍♀️
    Have you ever tried defending with your hands behind your back. Or any other sport that involves movement. It's natural to put your arms out to balance yourself. Thats why the new laws around having your hands by your side is nonsense imo. 
    Yes.
    And if it were that difficult it’s amazing how geezers manage to keep their hands locked to their Crown Jewels when a free kicks being taken 🤷‍♀️🙄🤣🤣
    They're generally standing still at the time....or jumping up vertically. They're not having to twist or turn, anticipate what the opposition player is about to do or, dare I say it, make a bleedin' tackle !!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!