The New Handball Law

Discussion in 'General football forum' started by Psychedelic Casual, 18 Aug 2019.

  1. caseball


    31 Jul 2016
    It's not the rule that's the problem, mate, it's that they disallowed the goal despite the rule not including what happened in its description of handball. In other words, the VAR has disallowed a goal for no reason, with no justification even by the famous 'in the referee's opinion' clause. If it's mistake, it's sackable, if it's not it's bent. That's what the problem is. Along with the universal lying about the rule. All accidental contact with the hand before a goal is not an offence. Handball is an offence if it fits the conditions laid out for all to read first in Law 12 in the 2018/19 book (from IFAB's website):

    A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: • handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

    Handling the ball
    Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
    The following must be considered: • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
    • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
    • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
    The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

    and second in the latest amendments, downloaded from FIFA's website (these do not negate the previous conditions of Law 12 for handball, they add to them):

    Laws of the Game 2019/20

    The Laws of the Game 2019/20 come into force 1 June 2019. A number of changes were approved at the 133rd Annual General Meeting of The IFAB on 2 March this year including:

      • clearer wording for ‘handball’
    Summary of main Law changes 2019/20

    Handball Law 12 Changes
    • Deliberate handball remains an offence • The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
    • the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
    • a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
    • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

    • The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:
    • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
    • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
    •if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
    •If the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a team-mate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

    Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when ‘nondeliberate’ handball is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles:
    • football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
    football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity
    •it is natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling.
    • having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a ‘natural’ position and a player is ‘taking a risk’ by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding
    •if the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hands/arms it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball
    • When the GK clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play, this shows no intention to handle the ball so, if the ‘clearance’ attempt is unsuccessful, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball without committing an offence

    Sorry about the length of that but ther's a lot of lying going on in the media from people who definitely know better and from some who should know better. What is clear, is that for Laporte to have committed an infringement would have required him to complete two separate actions: gain control or possession and score or create a chance. He clearly did not. Also, if you read the underlined clause, it says football expects a player, not a team, to be penalised, if they gain a major advantage after gaining control or possession by the hand or arm. So, that pretty much nails it, Laporte did not handle the ball according to the Laws of the Game, the new changes and the explanation of IFAB.

    The really big questions, yet again, are why was it disallowed? and why are the media not kicking off over it?
    Last edited: 20 Aug 2019
  2. Afterthefact


    7 Mar 2018
    I do not understand why the media cannot or will not answer your point directly. The refs and var have fundamentally misunderstood the wording of the law.

    Why isn’t this being talked about?? Feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

    It’s not just the injustice in this case. More worried that people are actually this stupid.
    Psychedelic Casual likes this.
  3. Bluekiwi


    13 Apr 2009
    New Zealand (since 1974)
    Team supported:
    Manchester City & Adelaide Crows (AFL)
    But if the ball strikes a defenders arm and he then clears the danger (which could lead to a breakaway goal) hasn't he gained an advantage? The IFAB obviously didn't think of that scenario.
  4. bobbyowenquiff


    15 Jan 2007
    No one in the media is challenging this at all. The wording in the handball rules is actually clear and sensible. It rules out goals where a player wins possession with his hand and passes to a team-mate. A bit like Anelka who passed to Goater for the late disallowed goal at the swamp that time. The ball bounced up onto Anelka's hand before he passed to the Goat. The rule is being misinterpreted by officials in this country.
  5. jonmcity


    12 Sep 2008
    The rule is being misinterpreted by officials in this country. Or being ignored as it was City and needed a late goal to win.
    bobbyowenquiff likes this.
  6. Eds


    7 Nov 2005
    It didn't hit his arm though, it hit the side of his body as he slid in IIRC
  7. Eds


    7 Nov 2005
    a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

    If this part of the law said a team gains possession... then fair enough but it doesn't. At the match I was under the impression that any goal that came from an accidental hand ball would be disallowed. However after the Wolves goal and our one it is clear that the law is being wrongly applied.
    bobbyowenquiff likes this.
  8. paulchapo


    23 Nov 2010
    Debatable. I think it hit his body and arm. All irrelevant now as the goal was given as was Spur's in the champions league. They are two examples of how var could and in the champions league game should have got the correct call. Laporte s handball was totally accidental, I doubt he knew anything about it but due to the ridiculous law change it had to be disallowed.
  9. Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    Dave Ewing's Back 'eader

    9 Mar 2007
    Upwind of the Mangrove Swamp
    I've just read the laws again and I have developed two different scenarios - the one that penalised us, Laporte allowing the ball to graze his arm before it bounced down to Jesus to lash home, and Laporte not touching it with a hair on his arm, the ball bouncing down to Jesus who lashed it in with his foot or head but happens to hit his arm on the way in. Does this latter allow the goal.?

    The law states something rather equivocally: it is not usually an offence. . .

    Hahah, not usually an offence unless it's one of our goals for three points on 95 mins!
  10. Elbow beards

    Elbow beards

    27 Sep 2014
    the here and now

Share This Page