PDA

View Full Version : NHC Handball rule change



worcesterhibby
17-01-2013, 09:57 AM
The whole issue of handball is one that's getting on my nerves at the moment, what with the Saurez goal and the handball given against West Ham last night as just two examples. There are two problems with the current rules that I would change

1) getting the ball blasted against your hand is a harsh way of giving away a penalty when there is no real intent. It's very hard for defenders to ALWAYS have their hands fixed firmly to their sides riverdance style, just to balance when twisting and turning at speed you need to hold your hands out...someone shoots, the ball hits your arm/hand and bingo it's a penalty. I would change the current law to state that ANY handball deemed to be unintentional (ball to hand rather than hand to ball) is an indirect free kick, not a penalty unless it saved a certain goal (defender is on the goal line when it happens with nobody behind him). Any handball deemed to be intentional (hand to ball) is a penalty. Simple..problem solved and lots of fun indirect free kick in the box.

2) Now the Suarez/Henry problem...In the event that a goal is scored and the defence claims that a hand was used (as in Saurez case) then the Referee should have the right to officially ask the player if the ball has hit his hand. If the player denies that it has hit his hand or a hand was used and then after the game is found to have lied due to video evidence, then he should receive a 5 game ban and a fine for bringing the game into disrepute. If the player says that "he doesn't know" if it hit his hand, then it should be deemed that it has and an indirect free kick given to the defending side.

Good ideas or am I a pedantic git :greengrin:confused:

Jones28
17-01-2013, 12:16 PM
I like the second one :agree:

The football authorities in Scotland have for once made a good decision about having a compliance officer, this is another part of improving the system.

Elephant Stone
17-01-2013, 12:20 PM
For number one, it is harsh on the defender to concede a penalty if it's not deliberate but on the flipside it would be unfair on the attacking team if handballs which prevent a likely goal didn't lead to a penalty. If a defender of an opponent was on the line and the ball struck his hand which was extended but accidentally you'd be pissed off if all you got was an indirect freekick. If someone's got to lose out it should be the rule breaker.

superfurryhibby
17-01-2013, 12:21 PM
The whole issue of handball is one that's getting on my nerves at the moment, what with the Saurez goal and the handball given against West Ham last night as just two examples. There are two problems with the current rules that I would change

1) getting the ball blasted against your hand is a harsh way of giving away a penalty when there is no real intent. It's very hard for defenders to ALWAYS have their hands fixed firmly to their sides riverdance style, just to balance when twisting and turning at speed you need to hold your hands out...someone shoots, the ball hits your arm/hand and bingo it's a penalty. I would change the current law to state that ANY handball deemed to be unintentional (ball to hand rather than hand to ball) is an indirect free kick, not a penalty unless it saved a certain goal (defender is on the goal line when it happens with nobody behind him). Any handball deemed to be intentional (hand to ball) is a penalty. Simple..problem solved and lots of fun indirect free kick in the box.

2) Now the Suarez/Henry problem...In the event that a goal is scored and the defence claims that a hand was used (as in Saurez case) then the Referee should have the right to officially ask the player if the ball has hit his hand. If the player denies that it has hit his hand or a hand was used and then after the game is found to have lied due to video evidence, then he should receive a 5 game ban and a fine for bringing the game into disrepute. If the player says that "he doesn't know" if it hit his hand, then it should be deemed that it has and an indirect free kick given to the defending side.

Good ideas or am I a pedantic git :greengrin:confused:

Both good ideas. In fact I'm sure that the first one is actually in situ, just that modern day refs choose to ignore. I can't say when I last saw an indirect free given for a handball offence.

Geo_1875
17-01-2013, 12:30 PM
I think the current rule of big teams get penalties, underdogs don't needs to be looked at.

SmashinGlass
17-01-2013, 12:35 PM
The whole issue of handball is one that's getting on my nerves at the moment, what with the Saurez goal and the handball given against West Ham last night as just two examples. There are two problems with the current rules that I would change

1) getting the ball blasted against your hand is a harsh way of giving away a penalty when there is no real intent. It's very hard for defenders to ALWAYS have their hands fixed firmly to their sides riverdance style, just to balance when twisting and turning at speed you need to hold your hands out...someone shoots, the ball hits your arm/hand and bingo it's a penalty. I would change the current law to state that ANY handball deemed to be unintentional (ball to hand rather than hand to ball) is an indirect free kick, not a penalty unless it saved a certain goal (defender is on the goal line when it happens with nobody behind him). Any handball deemed to be intentional (hand to ball) is a penalty. Simple..problem solved and lots of fun indirect free kick in the box.

2) Now the Suarez/Henry problem...In the event that a goal is scored and the defence claims that a hand was used (as in Saurez case) then the Referee should have the right to officially ask the player if the ball has hit his hand. If the player denies that it has hit his hand or a hand was used and then after the game is found to have lied due to video evidence, then he should receive a 5 game ban and a fine for bringing the game into disrepute. If the player says that "he doesn't know" if it hit his hand, then it should be deemed that it has and an indirect free kick given to the defending side.

Good ideas or am I a pedantic git :greengrin:confused:

Whilst I think your ideas are ok in principle, you have not taken into account a further, possibly over-riding, factor - the ref. Ultimately, regardless of what's happened, if the ref is unsighted, or is unsure, then a pen can't be given. If the ref is not 100% sure, he cannot award the foul, to either team. I'm also against rule changes which will sterilise the game beyond all doubt, which would make football a non entity. How many of these decisions are argued about in the pub after games? I, for one, enjoy the post match pub discussions :greengrin

Twa Cairpets
17-01-2013, 12:40 PM
Both good ideas. In fact I'm sure that the first one is actually in situ, just that modern day refs choose to ignore. I can't say when I last saw an indirect free given for a handball offence.

You should hopefully have never seen an indirect kick for a hand ball - its not in the laws.

The hand ball rule is actually fairly clear - its pundits that cloud it, as well as referees making mistakes - in a nutshell (and I'm not quoting from the laws), a free kick/penalty is awarded if a hand ball is deliberate or a hand is in an unnatural position when contact is made.

I also don't like the OP's second idea. What if the player genuinely doesn't know if the ball hit him? He's a liar for not knowing? And the minute you put a sanction in for any hand ball, you just create more problems, not fewer.

Leave it as is. Its nor perfect, but it works for the vast majority of the time.

Suarez's goal should never has stood by the way, in my opinion

Woody70x2
17-01-2013, 01:08 PM
I think it would be easier to simply sign players that have no arms, therefore totally removing the problem. The only exception is the goalkeeper and one player for throw ins :greengrin

Ross4356
17-01-2013, 01:13 PM
Regarding number two, how does that really help when the game has finished and the result stands? What about all the other examples of when a player could readily admit that a decision that went in his favour is actually wrong, you surely can't ignore them either so it's a non starter for me.

If Henry has lied he would have missed the Tournament so I think its meant to be a deterrent

Ross4356
17-01-2013, 01:14 PM
Regarding number two, how does that really help when the game has finished and the result stands? What about all the other examples of when a player could readily admit that a decision that went in his favour is actually wrong, you surely can't ignore them either so it's a non starter for me.

If Henry has lied he would have missed the Tournament so I think its meant to be a deterrent, i think its a graet idea

RyeSloan
17-01-2013, 01:56 PM
I think the rules are fine...it's the application of them that can lead to the problem. Fact is though refs are human and all decisions are open to individual interpretation so there will always be inconsistency no matter what rules are in place.

The West Ham penalty was a tough one but to be fair the defenders arm is in front of his body and the ball striking it has prevented a dangerous pass going across goal...I see why the ref gave it but I don't think it was a pen. The United version of the same incident wasn't the same IMHO as the defender had tried to control the ball legally and the ball then spun across him and off his arm..no pen and the correct decision.

RyeSloan
17-01-2013, 01:59 PM
As for asking a player if the ball had hit his hand...none starter. A ref asking a player if he had infringed the rules and if he confirms yes then the goal is struck off, as if! The player can easily claim it was accidental even if it looked deliberate. The refs decision is final is a fundamental tenant of football and asking for player input to assist in the decision especially when cooperation would result in that players team losing an advantage seems a rather bizarre step to take.

worcesterhibby
17-01-2013, 06:03 PM
As for asking a player if the ball had hit his hand...none starter. A ref asking a player if he had infringed the rules and if he confirms yes then the goal is struck off, as if! The player can easily claim it was accidental even if it looked deliberate. The refs decision is final is a fundamental tenant of football and asking for player input to assist in the decision especially when cooperation would result in that players team losing an advantage seems a rather bizarre step to take.

By my rule change it wouldn't matter if it was accidental..it would still be a foul and it wouldn't count. If players thought they would miss 4 games and be fined if they lied then why wouldn't they tell the truth ?

I get sick of the fact that "cheating" is an intrinsic part of the game. Everyone claims every corner and throw in even if they know fine that they touched it last. Players dive all over the place at the slightest touch. Then there's the shirt pulling and wrestling at every corner.

Newcastlehibby
17-01-2013, 07:03 PM
From Law 12 of Fifa's 'Laws of the Game'

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)

The interpretation of FIFA Law 12 tells referees to consider a few things when determining handball infractions. First, the movement of the hand is considered. If the hand moved to the ball, then the handling of the ball is most likely intentional. But if the ball moved to the hand, it may not be intentional. Second, the distance of the player to the ball is considered. A handball that occurred from a ball played close is unexpected and most likely unintentional. But when a ball is played from far away, a player has time to anticipate the ball and avoid handling it with their arm or hand. Finally, the position of the hand is considered. Touching the ball with an arm that is hanging away from the body is not necessarily an infraction. Once again, the handling of the ball must be intentional.

worcesterhibby
17-01-2013, 07:24 PM
From Law 12 of Fifa's 'Laws of the Game'

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)

The interpretation of FIFA Law 12 tells referees to consider a few things when determining handball infractions. First, the movement of the hand is considered. If the hand moved to the ball, then the handling of the ball is most likely intentional. But if the ball moved to the hand, it may not be intentional. Second, the distance of the player to the ball is considered. A handball that occurred from a ball played close is unexpected and most likely unintentional. But when a ball is played from far away, a player has time to anticipate the ball and avoid handling it with their arm or hand. Finally, the position of the hand is considered. Touching the ball with an arm that is hanging away from the body is not necessarily an infraction. Once again, the handling of the ball must be intentional.

In practice though that doesn't actually happen. Refs give penalties for ball hit hand at close range a lot of the time. It seems to depend on how far away from the body the hand/arm is at the time of contact. If we changed the rule to say it's an indirect free kick of it's ball to hand (the hand doesn't move and isn't above shoulder hight) then it would actually simplify the situation and make it easier for Refs.

clerriehibs
17-01-2013, 09:43 PM
Regarding number two, how does that really help when the game has finished and the result stands? What about all the other examples of when a player could readily admit that a decision that went in his favour is actually wrong, you surely can't ignore them either so it's a non starter for me.


I don't actually like the idea; but I don't rate your reasons for rejecting it either. There are currently retrospective actions taken, e.g. red cards rescinded, stevenson-esque bans offered where the ref has missed (or chosen to miss) serious foul play ... whatever the outcome, the result ALWAYS stands.

worcesterhibby
18-01-2013, 10:10 AM
Well I'm very sorry that you don't rate my reasons but they are however my reasons and I stand by them. I'm all for improvement of the game but another rule change that in reality does not stop someone effecting the result by scoring an illegal goal is not progression my opinion.

But surely if players knew that blatant handball WOULD be retrospectively punished, then they would admit to the referee that it hit their hand and then it WOULD effect the result. I don't really want more retrospective punishment, I want a deterrent in place so that unfair goals are less likely to be scored.

This isn't a go at Suarez by the way..Henry's was much worse and just about every footballer in the Premiership would have done exactly the same as Suarez - BECAUSE there is no incentive NOT to cheat.

Hibbyradge
18-01-2013, 11:09 AM
I quite like your first idea, but it will still depend on the referee's interpretation.

The second one won't happen because although it's quite clever in theory, it couldn't be brought into the Laws of the Game as it would only apply to the tiny proportion of games which are broadcast on TV.

worcesterhibby
18-01-2013, 01:50 PM
I quite like your first idea, but it will still depend on the referee's interpretation.

The second one won't happen because although it's quite clever in theory, it couldn't be brought into the Laws of the Game as it would only apply to the tiny proportion of games which are broadcast on TV.

Surely if they are going to allow goal-line technology (which FIFA are now trialling) then you could use TV cameras as well. Not all matches will have the goal line technology.