The New Handball Rule.

[Shahanga]

Not strictly a “Melbourne City” topic but given how often it is affecting us this season it seems the right place to post.

a lot of talk but I’ve attached the actual rule.

now given that ball was going to knock Genreau’s head into next week (or further) there is no way “he made his body bigger”. It’s a straight forward referreeing  error by both the ref and VAR. As to the yellow card, words fail me.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Shahanga

[neio]

So there have been a few this season, and I thought I understood the rule. Now Im confused 

Jakobsen vs Sydney - made himself bigger and stopped cross. Penalty I get it

Broxham vs Brisbane - arm away from body, hits arm. No penalty, getting confused

Delbridge vs Western United - ball comes off Berisha leg, then his own leg brushes arm, penalty and 2nd yellow. Don't understand 

Toivonen vs Wellington - arm away from body, penalty. Yep all good

Genreau vs Brisbane - 1 metre away smashed at his head, protects himself. Penalty and yellow, nah I'm confused again

 

The other thing I don't understand is when a yellow is given for handball and when it isn't. For example the Delbridge one was the most accidental handball I've seen yet he got a yellow. Then you get pretty deliberate ones with no yellow

I think everyone is confused 

[playmaker]

@neio the only people that are confused are the refs and commentator, the rules a crystal clear.

You are correct in all your examples.

Delbridge and Genreau incidents are not penalties.

This league is suffering from incompetence once again and wrecking the game.

You are spot on.

[jw1739]

5 minutes ago, neio said:

So there have been a few this season, and I thought I understood the rule. Now Im confused 

Jakobsen vs Sydney - made himself bigger and stopped cross. Penalty I get it

Broxham vs Brisbane - arm away from body, hits arm. No penalty, getting confused

Delbridge vs Western United - ball comes off Berisha leg, then his own leg brushes arm, penalty and 2nd yellow. Don't understand 

Toivonen vs Wellington - arm away from body, penalty. Yep all good

Genreau vs Brisbane - 1 metre away smashed at his head, protects himself. Penalty and yellow, nah I'm confused again

 

The other thing I don't understand is when a yellow is given for handball and when it isn't. For example the Delbridge one was the most accidental handball I've seen yet he got a yellow. Then you get pretty deliberate ones with no yellow

I think everyone is confused 

The rule is stupid because it is too complicated. I doubt that there's a referee in the country who would remember all those clauses in the middle of a match.

Also, the concept of "making your body unnaturally bigger" is very difficult to interpret. IIRC Delbridge touched the ball when he fell. People who fall don't put their arm underneath their body to support themselves - they put it roughly in line with their shoulder. So that was "bigger naturally" in my book, not unnaturally.

Anyway, we have to move on. The result stands, whether the decision was right or wrong. And we need to stop these late fade-outs - that's what the club has to work on. The rules are the rules and the interpretations will go against us one week and for us the next.

[playmaker]

10 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

The rule is stupid because it is too complicated. I doubt that there's a referee in the country who would remember all those clauses in the middle of a match.

Come on JW.

In the history of world football when has the natural reflex of protecting your face from a ball drilled directly at a players face been a penalty?

Is the defender gaining an advantage?

No because if the ball doesn't hit the hand it hits the face and does damage, broken nose, ruptured eye socket, concussion etc.

This is not in the spirit of the rule and if they don't know this then they shouldn't be a ref.

Pathetic 

Edited November 17, 2019 by playmaker

[jw1739]

1 minute ago, playmaker said:

Come on JW. In the history of world football when has the natural reflex of protecting your face from a ball drilled at a players face been a penalty?

Is the defender gaining an advantage? No because if the ball doesn't hit the hand it hits the face and does damage, broken nose, ruptured eye socket, concussion etc.

This is not in the spirit of the rule.

Pathetic 

It was a general comment, not specifically relating to the Genreau incident. I agree with you - protecting certain parts of the body is a natural reflex action and should not be penalised. What was Denis supposed to do - risk losing his eyesight for example? 

[playmaker]

4 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

It was a general comment, not specifically relating to the Genreau incident. I agree with you - protecting certain parts of the body is a natural reflex action and should not be penalised. What was Denis supposed to do - risk losing his eyesight for example? 

Exactly.

Just ridiculous and so easy to decide with VAR making it so much easier to call.

[Mr MO]

5 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Exactly.

Just ridiculous and so easy to decide with VAR making it so much easier to call.

The VAR did it all correct, unlike in the Premier League - the VAR asked the referee to make the call on the monitor.

 

[HeartFc]

If your arms are within "the silhouette" of your body you're not stopping an attacking play.

If Denis doesnt have his hand there it smashes into his face...wtf is going on? Why was that given?

 

[playmaker]

2 hours ago, Mr MO said:

The VAR did it all correct, unlike in the Premier League - the VAR asked the referee to make the call on the monitor.

 

That's my point. The ref had the advantage of having a replay to make the correct decision, so obviously he doesn't know the rules.

[Nate]

The handball call was totally not in the spirit of the game but at the very least, it's an equaliser for the shitty one Fenton and Wellington copped against us so it balances out.

Very average refereeing all-round though

[fensaddler]

Whilst we can feel aggrieved by both penalty awards, its worth remembering that Delbridge could have copped a penalty in the first half, and in the second there was a very tight decision about whether the ball was over the line, which went our way. The problem wasn't that we were particularly unlucky. We just weren't very good. 

[Harrison]

Up until yesterday the rule made sense to me. The 'unnaturally bigger' clause is to do with players raising their arms above the 'natural silhouette' and it was introduced to stop the practice of defenders putting their arms behind their backs when facing an incoming shot. 

Genreau putting his arm up above his shoulder puts it in an unnatural position because of the way the rule is written but is it making his body unnaturally bigger if the arm is raised to protect his face? It's absurd. The ball is thumped from a metre away and Genreau puts his arm up to his face reflexively, which is perfectly natural and which doesn't make the body unnaturally bigger because it's 'within' his silhouette. The ball would smash his teeth if not for the hand so it's not stopping the shot in the same way a hand extended out to his side would. Referees should apply common sense in those situations. 

So I come back to thinking that the referee got the decision wrong. Once again we see our referees making the wrong decision in crucial moments. And as @fensaddler says above, Delbridge was fortunate not to give away a penalty in the first half. Looked like one to me. This is about getting the decisions right more often. I'm fine with some decisions going our way and some going against us (that's sport) but it seems to me that they're doing this by making the wrong decisions.

The standard is still too low. They've done the right thing in establishing the referee group (I forget the name but it's modelled on the PL's PGMOL) but there's a long way to go.

[Jovan]

I don't think the decision was wrong based on the rule, for me the rule is wrong or vague or actually open to interpretation. 

These decisions happen throughout a season, we should have not been in a position to allow a bad call decide a game, and 1:3 up we should have managed the game much better. 

[Torn Asunder]

in slo mo, showed forward then reverse, over and over, it was handball.  In natural speed, it was pure split second self preservation  that made no difference to the play itself, nor did it make the player 'bigger'.  Personally, its a horrible decision.

[rass]

I'm trying to understand how a half in which 5 goals were scored, plus VAR stoppages had less extra time than a half (Sydney v Victory) where only 2 goals were scored and generally was so boring, I would have preferred to have been shot in the face.

Our ref was shithouse. He couldn't wait to blow his whistle right on 5:00 - I thought that was indicative of how he officiated our game.

[jw1739]

47 minutes ago, Torn Asunder said:

in slo mo, showed forward then reverse, over and over, it was handball.  In natural speed, it was pure split second self preservation  that made no difference to the play itself, nor did it make the player 'bigger'.  Personally, its a horrible decision.

I have a major and fundamental problem with reviewing one single incident in slow motion. It's selective review. If you're going to do that for 3 seconds of a match, then review the whole bloody match in slow motion and see what "should have been." The game is played in real time, and that's the way it should be reviewed.

On the same principle, I think we need to move on. Didn't Brisbane also hit the post - maybe twice? We threw the match away by silly tactics after we were 3-1 up. One single incident didn't define the match.

 

[Harrison]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

I have a major and fundamental problem with reviewing one single incident in slow motion. It's selective review. If you're going to do that for 3 seconds of a match, then review the whole bloody match in slow motion and see what "should have been." The game is played in real time, and that's the way it should be reviewed.

On the same principle, I think we need to move on. Didn't Brisbane also hit the post - maybe twice? We threw the match away by silly tactics after we were 3-1 up. One single incident didn't define the match.

Was it just me or did the ball look to go over the line? Goal-line technology would be helpful. Scrap VAR and introduce that instead. 

[fensaddler]

8 minutes ago, Harrison said:

Was it just me or did the ball look to go over the line? Goal-line technology would be helpful. Scrap VAR and introduce that instead. 

I definitely thought we'd conceded watching in real time and on replay. That was just one bit of luck that we still didn't make the best of. Delbridge was lucky to get away with a penalty in the first half, and not long after Brisbane hit the post and saw the ball run right across the goal before being cleared. Could easily have been 7-3 if we'd been really unlucky. IMHO, we were lucky to get away with 4-3. Lucky to have a striker as clinical as JMac, and lucky not all of the marginal decisions went against us. 

[jw1739]

43 minutes ago, Harrison said:

Goal-line technology would be helpful. Scrap VAR and introduce that instead. 

I completely agree with this.

[Embee]

19 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I completely agree with this.

Unfortunately it's apparently very expensive.

The current set-up is piss poor though. VAR in place of goal-line, but with camera angles which are effectively just broadcast angles and therefore give no real further analysis as to whether the ball has crossed the line or not.

I do like the A-League, against my better judgement perhaps, but this amateur bullshit doesn't make it easy.

[neio]

If you want to be further confused by it all. Gordon from CCM just stopped a cross with his arm away from his body in the box. No penalty 

It's a bloody lottery 

[Shahanga]

9 minutes ago, neio said:

If you want to be further confused by it all. Gordon from CCM just stopped a cross with his arm away from his body in the box. No penalty 

It's a bloody lottery 

Yeah under the new rule I thought it was a clear pen. 

[Harrison]

1 hour ago, Shahanga said:

Yeah under the new rule I thought it was a clear pen. 

Same referee, Alex King, who gave the penalty against Genreau. 

Laughable. 

[Shahanga]

So today a bloke from Brisbane waves his arm in the air, collected by the football and its “play on”. 
According to IFAB it’s a penalty if your body is unnaturally bigger or arm position is not justified by their body movement.

Seems a stonewall pen to me.

No wonder Wollongong were not happy.

[bt50]

10 hours ago, Shahanga said:

So today a bloke from Brisbane waves his arm in the air, collected by the football and its “play on”. 
According to IFAB it’s a penalty if your body is unnaturally bigger or arm position is not justified by their body movement.

Seems a stonewall pen to me.

No wonder Wollongong were not happy.

Total fuck up imo. I'd love to know what their angle for denying the pen was, cos i sure as hell can't find it.

Edited March 21, 2021 by bt50

[Mr MO]

2 hours ago, bt50 said:

Total fuck up imo. I'd love to know what their angle for denying the pen was, cos i sure as hell can't find it.

Without having seen the incident the other factor taking into account is the distance between the two players and thus if there was time to react.

[Harrison]

13 hours ago, Shahanga said:

So today a bloke from Brisbane waves his arm in the air, collected by the football and its “play on”. 
According to IFAB it’s a penalty if your body is unnaturally bigger or arm position is not justified by their body movement.

Seems a stonewall pen to me.

No wonder Wollongong were not happy.

Funny because I don’t think that was a penalty going by the current rules. But they’re definitely given and that’s the issue.  There’s a lack of consistency here. 

[Imtellingyou]

It would be a clear penalty for us. It would be also not penalty against us, based on the current fan handbook rule.

[jw1739]

56 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

Without having seen the incident the other factor taking into account is the distance between the two players and thus if there was time to react.

Remember Genreau? No time to react at all - a reflex action to prevent his head being knocked off but the penalty was given nevertheless.

[bt50]

26 minutes ago, Harrison said:

Funny because I don’t think that was a penalty going by the current rules. But they’re definitely given and that’s the issue.  There’s a lack of consistency here. 

Curious, on what basis?

If hand is outside of the natural shape then its clearly a handball isn't it. IFAB have made it crystal clear that reaction time is irrelevant and unless it comes off another part of his body i can't see how its not given.

[Mr MO]

32 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Curious, on what basis?

If hand is outside of the natural shape then its clearly a handball isn't it. IFAB have made it crystal clear that reaction time is irrelevant and unless it comes off another part of his body i can't see how its not given.

I think you find the answer in who actually kicked the ball onto his arm???? However I would still claim a penalty if it was against us haha.

I was his own team mate, this takes most of our other points out of the equation. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Mr MO

[Harrison]

7 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Curious, on what basis?

If hand is outside of the natural shape then its clearly a handball isn't it. IFAB have made it crystal clear that reaction time is irrelevant and unless it comes off another part of his body i can't see how its not given.

Well the recent clarification by IFAB was around the ‘unnaturally bigger’ phrase. And in that they said ‘referees should continue to use their judgment in determining the validity of the hand/arm’s position in relation to the player’s movement in that specific situation.’

And the situation is the player is turning around quickly in the air and trying to get out of the way of a clearance by a teammate from a few metres away. 

[Mr MO]

24 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Remember Genreau? No time to react at all - a reflex action to prevent his head being knocked off but the penalty was given nevertheless.

Yes that was a shot from the opponent, not a clearance from your own teammate. 

Just now, Harrison said:

Well the recent clarification by IFAB was around the ‘unnaturally bigger’ phrase. And in that they said ‘referees should continue to use their judgment in determining the validity of the hand/arm’s position in relation to the player’s movement in that specific situation.’

And the situation is the player is turning around quickly in the air and trying to get out of the way of a clearance by a teammate from a few metres away. 

This.

Next to this the “suspicion” still needs to be there if it’s debatable deliberate, which of course is not the case from a clearance by a team mate.

[Shahanga]

25 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

I think you find the answer in who actually kicked the ball onto his arm???? However I would still claim a penalty if it was against us haha.

I was his own team mate, this takes most of our other points out of the equation. 

No where in the rules says anything about who kicked it.

Proximity: He was a lot further away than Denis was that day.

[Shahanga]

As to the deliberate question, if that was the test then there’d be hardly any handballs, as I don’t think many players think “I’ve got a smart idea, I’ll smack this ball with my hand and give away a penalty” 

[Mr MO]

2 hours ago, Shahanga said:

As to the deliberate question, if that was the test then there’d be hardly any handballs, as I don’t think many players think “I’ve got a smart idea, I’ll smack this ball with my hand and give away a penalty” 

Correct but......

The deliberate term is aimed towards a player who deliberately is trying to block a shot or cross with his body. It also needs to be related to an immediate goal or scoring opportunity towards goal.

You can’t use this term in the same way for team mates can you?

Unless they are very poor teammates haha only something Salah and Mane would do to each other.

I would screaming murder if it was against us but I can I can I understand why this wasn’t given.

3 hours ago, Shahanga said:

No where in the rules says anything about who kicked it.

Proximity: He was a lot further away than Denis was that day.

It does appear so in relation to the deliberate terminology but I’m no expert by any means.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/a-league/124610225/why-the-referees-were-right-to-deny-the-phoenix-a-penalty-against-the-roar

 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Mr MO

[Harrison]

11 minutes ago, Mr MO said:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/a-league/124610225/why-the-referees-were-right-to-deny-the-phoenix-a-penalty-against-the-roar

Thanks for posting. This is essentially what I wrote this morning. And it did look like Danzaki was trying to move his arm away from the ball. 

[jw1739]

Just like the present offside rule (if a referee can remember all that then he should be on one of those "Mastermind" quiz shows) the changes to the handball rule have made the game worse and not better.

Rules should always be expressed in as simple a way as possible. Once you have to go through them line by line with eithers, ands and ors, and terms such as "unnatural position", all over the place then you make the game very difficult to officiate, whether by the field referee or the video assisted referee.

Football is a simple game really, and IMO the rules should be kept that way. I still believe that the only technology that should be used is that of determining whether the ball has crossed the goal-line.

[johnno cpfc]

For me the biggest f/up at the moment is the offside rule/s as this changes from game to game . Holding the flag down to see what happens is total bullshit .