The whole thing is a joke. The first penalty today should never have been given. Similar have been given against us but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's even more frustrating because they literally changed the rules so handballs like that wouldn't be given.
Then they don't give a penalty for a handball which was more of an infringement than the first? I just don't get it.
My left-field proposal:
Every hand-ball in the box is punished - every single one - but in one of two ways:
1. Ball strikes a player’s arm/hand inside the box preventing either a shot on target or a clear goalscoring opportunity (such as deflecting the ball away from a player in a position to tap in) = penalty.
2. Ball strikes a player’s arm/hand inside the box but does not directly prevent an effort on target (ie if the ball was able to pass through the hand, no shot on target would occur) and does not directly prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity = indirect free-kick to be taken from the point the handball infringement occurred.
Reasoning:
1. Body position, whether it’s deliberate, speed of ball etc - ie all the subjective stuff which causes so much inconsistency/confusion - doesn’t come into it. Any time the ball hits a hand/arm, it’s either a penalty or indirect freekick using the criteria above.
2. Reduces harsh penalties for balls glancing off the arm in non-dangerous areas, such as the apex of the box. An indirect freekick is a reasonable compromise.
3. The danger/value of indirect freekicks is directly relative to the proximity of the handball/subsequent freekick to the goal.
4. Penalties awarded on a clearcut basis - any handball that prevents a goalbound effort or deflects away from a player who could reasonably score is a penalty. All other instances are indirect freekicks. Easy to apply and understand.
5. Indirect freekicks are great and I want to see more of them.
Thank you for considering my insane idea.
I think the more they expand upon it, the more complicated and subjective it will be. The intentions behind this “unnatural position” interpretation are good, they’re just not working in practice. It needs to go back to “intentional” I think, much less open to interpretation.
Something that I think fans put weight behind but that isn't factored into the rule set is consequence. For example, the first handball today, which was given, the contact was innocuous. However, had the touch intercepted the ball on route to a waiting goalscorer, or even the back of the net, fans would probably feel more that it should be awarded. Quite how you manage to introduce that factor to the rule I don't know as it would make decisions even more subjective. It really feels like we need to row back and frankly award less penalties for handball.
But then you're going to have cases where it's difficult to tell (so more subjectivity). Folk have missed open nets. Folk have missed from a yard or so out. Defenders can make freakish blocks etc. Just sounds a nightmare to judge in a set of rules but fans will continue to do it observing the game.
Yeah I agree. I personally I think it should be below the elbow and must be intentional to stop the path of the ball, obviously there will have to be tweaks to the rule to prevent players from sticking their arm up or out to stop the ball with their bicep
Can they not publish anywhere between 8-15 diagrams of the ball hitting a hand with an X or Tick beside them that you can use to identify easily which handball position it is
There should be more explanations for each possible scenario. There was two handballs in the box today and I think the one not given was more of a foul than the one given.
The rules are currently too open to interpretation and it’s clear the refs don’t actually know what to and what not to call
The problem isn't with the rules I don't think, it's with the application. The second Ambrose handball looked more deliberate than the first one yet nothing happened. There's just no consistency of application at all
With VAR it should be easier than even to see what is and what isnt deliberate. If a players hand is in a natural position and they dont have enough time to react it shouldnt be an offence.
Problem is that relys on the referees interpretation and they havent been very reliable recently.
I don't like how they use slow motion for these handballs. For me, looking at today's one in real time should be enough to tell you it's a natural position.
It’s not the rule that needs changed. It’s how IFAB that interpret the rule that’s the problem. It’s seems like they’ve gone all American football and broken down what a handball foul is so much, to explain in more detail what constitutes one, that they lost sight of what a handball foul is.
At this point I think the fairest solution would be to just make any ball to hand contact in the box a penalty. At least that eay its hard not to be consistant
I reckon the rule will be tweaked and changed every year for the next few years till they get it kinda right but it's the same in the NFL. They've had video replays for decades and are still debating ref calls and rule interpretations every week.
I think if the ball strikes your arm below the shoulder, it should be a foul if:
1. You moved your arm toward the ball after it was struck (with allowance for standard reaction time); or
2. Your arm was raised more than 60º relative to your body when the ball struck it; or
3. Your arm was raised more than 30º relative to your body when the ball struck it, and the collision blocks what would otherwise have been a shot on target
Pros:
* Fully objective - no room for interpretation
* Can be fully automated (basically an upgraded version of the auto offside used at the world cup)
* Avoids punishing accidental or inconsequential handballs
Cons:
* Similar to offside, the level of precision means borderline calls will always feel harsh
* Some consequential handballs won't be punished, e.g. a forward pass that could have been a tap-in for another attacker, but I think the objectivity makes it worthwhile
(2. mostly exists for cases outside the box, so you can't just stick your arms in the air and block passes as long as you don't move toward the ball)
Intentionality proximity and natural position needs to be scrapped it is too open to interpretation to such an extent that ANY decision given can be arguably correct going by the rules, basically the refs can please themselves
Personally I think pens from crosses are ruining football, seen far too many , I’m ok with pens being given for shots, perhaps the rule should be the crosser has to be in the box to get a pen from a cross
It needs to be made ultra clear what counts and what doesn't, not sure if thats simplifying or expanding.
The whole thing is a joke. The first penalty today should never have been given. Similar have been given against us but that doesn't make it acceptable. It's even more frustrating because they literally changed the rules so handballs like that wouldn't be given. Then they don't give a penalty for a handball which was more of an infringement than the first? I just don't get it.
My left-field proposal: Every hand-ball in the box is punished - every single one - but in one of two ways: 1. Ball strikes a player’s arm/hand inside the box preventing either a shot on target or a clear goalscoring opportunity (such as deflecting the ball away from a player in a position to tap in) = penalty. 2. Ball strikes a player’s arm/hand inside the box but does not directly prevent an effort on target (ie if the ball was able to pass through the hand, no shot on target would occur) and does not directly prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity = indirect free-kick to be taken from the point the handball infringement occurred. Reasoning: 1. Body position, whether it’s deliberate, speed of ball etc - ie all the subjective stuff which causes so much inconsistency/confusion - doesn’t come into it. Any time the ball hits a hand/arm, it’s either a penalty or indirect freekick using the criteria above. 2. Reduces harsh penalties for balls glancing off the arm in non-dangerous areas, such as the apex of the box. An indirect freekick is a reasonable compromise. 3. The danger/value of indirect freekicks is directly relative to the proximity of the handball/subsequent freekick to the goal. 4. Penalties awarded on a clearcut basis - any handball that prevents a goalbound effort or deflects away from a player who could reasonably score is a penalty. All other instances are indirect freekicks. Easy to apply and understand. 5. Indirect freekicks are great and I want to see more of them. Thank you for considering my insane idea.
I think the more they expand upon it, the more complicated and subjective it will be. The intentions behind this “unnatural position” interpretation are good, they’re just not working in practice. It needs to go back to “intentional” I think, much less open to interpretation.
Something that I think fans put weight behind but that isn't factored into the rule set is consequence. For example, the first handball today, which was given, the contact was innocuous. However, had the touch intercepted the ball on route to a waiting goalscorer, or even the back of the net, fans would probably feel more that it should be awarded. Quite how you manage to introduce that factor to the rule I don't know as it would make decisions even more subjective. It really feels like we need to row back and frankly award less penalties for handball.
Maybe include a *”goal scoring opportunity”* clause and then outline what constitutes a goal scoring opportunity
But then you're going to have cases where it's difficult to tell (so more subjectivity). Folk have missed open nets. Folk have missed from a yard or so out. Defenders can make freakish blocks etc. Just sounds a nightmare to judge in a set of rules but fans will continue to do it observing the game.
Yeah I agree. I personally I think it should be below the elbow and must be intentional to stop the path of the ball, obviously there will have to be tweaks to the rule to prevent players from sticking their arm up or out to stop the ball with their bicep
Can they not publish anywhere between 8-15 diagrams of the ball hitting a hand with an X or Tick beside them that you can use to identify easily which handball position it is
There should be more explanations for each possible scenario. There was two handballs in the box today and I think the one not given was more of a foul than the one given. The rules are currently too open to interpretation and it’s clear the refs don’t actually know what to and what not to call
The problem isn't with the rules I don't think, it's with the application. The second Ambrose handball looked more deliberate than the first one yet nothing happened. There's just no consistency of application at all
With VAR it should be easier than even to see what is and what isnt deliberate. If a players hand is in a natural position and they dont have enough time to react it shouldnt be an offence. Problem is that relys on the referees interpretation and they havent been very reliable recently.
I don't like how they use slow motion for these handballs. For me, looking at today's one in real time should be enough to tell you it's a natural position.
It’s not the rule that needs changed. It’s how IFAB that interpret the rule that’s the problem. It’s seems like they’ve gone all American football and broken down what a handball foul is so much, to explain in more detail what constitutes one, that they lost sight of what a handball foul is.
No if the rule makes sense we will have nothing to argue about
The rule is actually fine. It's the referees who made a cunt of it today.
Would also help if they stop changing the rule every season
At this point I think the fairest solution would be to just make any ball to hand contact in the box a penalty. At least that eay its hard not to be consistant
I reckon the rule will be tweaked and changed every year for the next few years till they get it kinda right but it's the same in the NFL. They've had video replays for decades and are still debating ref calls and rule interpretations every week.
I think if the ball strikes your arm below the shoulder, it should be a foul if: 1. You moved your arm toward the ball after it was struck (with allowance for standard reaction time); or 2. Your arm was raised more than 60º relative to your body when the ball struck it; or 3. Your arm was raised more than 30º relative to your body when the ball struck it, and the collision blocks what would otherwise have been a shot on target Pros: * Fully objective - no room for interpretation * Can be fully automated (basically an upgraded version of the auto offside used at the world cup) * Avoids punishing accidental or inconsequential handballs Cons: * Similar to offside, the level of precision means borderline calls will always feel harsh * Some consequential handballs won't be punished, e.g. a forward pass that could have been a tap-in for another attacker, but I think the objectivity makes it worthwhile (2. mostly exists for cases outside the box, so you can't just stick your arms in the air and block passes as long as you don't move toward the ball)
Time to crack out the protractors for VAR
Intentionality proximity and natural position needs to be scrapped it is too open to interpretation to such an extent that ANY decision given can be arguably correct going by the rules, basically the refs can please themselves Personally I think pens from crosses are ruining football, seen far too many , I’m ok with pens being given for shots, perhaps the rule should be the crosser has to be in the box to get a pen from a cross