View Full Version : Should the un-intentional handball in box rule be scrapped away for FFS ?....
every other match nowadays this crap about whether the handball was intentioanal or unintentional has everyone at loggerjams...but my question is, doesnt it obstruct play ,and many times a goal scoring chance in the box AFTERALL...referees will always make subjective decisons and this strange rule is further complicating the matter.If a player stops a goal scoring chance even unintentionally by tripping a player,isnt it still a goal scoring chance lost?....why not keep things simple and make handball,whether intentional or unintentional in box a strict no-no...wouldnt it help to make things much easier for everyone?...
what do you guys think?....
gazlfcforever
13-9-11, 10:52
Makes it harder for refs to fix games though :IN:
I see what you mean, but I think it there then would undoubtedly be very contentious situations where it would seem unreasonably harsh to call it a penalty. Players could even start to attempt hitting defenders hands in the box as a strategy to get a penalty, something which I don't think really happens the way things are now
I see what you mean, but I think it there then would undoubtedly be very contentious situations where it would seem unreasonably harsh to call it a penalty. Players could even start to attempt hitting defenders hands in the box as a strategy to get a penalty, something which I don't think really happens the way things are now
its not easy to execute that startegy every time,especially with game flowing at such rapid pace and speed of the ball....also this is the time where referees have to jump in if they see such a thing just as they do for simulation....imo a handball,intentional or not stops genuine chances in box and should be simplified to make the game much smoother in flow....
ZonalMarked
13-9-11, 11:28
Loggerjams?:confused:
Anyway, I'm the type of person who plays by the rules, and will exploit it if I have to. If I was in Suarez's situation, I would have also handled the ball considering that I have not cut the chances of a definite goal to a 50% chance (penalty). The red card and a suspension means nothing to me because in the grand scheme of things it could help my team win.
Also, if I'm the last man and I have the opportunity to stop a one on one situation developing, I would hack down the attacker, receive the red card and give away the penalty or free kick rather than take the risk.
The reason why I say this is because even though this is my opinion, it seems to be a common practice amongst players as well.
If they really want the deliberate hand balls to be stopped, then as long as the shot was destined for the back of the net, it should stand as a goal and the red card should be shown.
As for the last man issue, unfortunately there is no way of determining whether it would have been a goal or not, so the rule should remain as is.
McMahonBarnes
13-9-11, 11:35
Loggerjams?:confused:
Anyway, I'm the type of person who plays by the rules, and will exploit it if I have to. If I was in Suarez's situation, I would have also handled the ball considering that I have not cut the chances of a definite goal to a 50% chance (penalty). The red card and a suspension means nothing to me because in the grand scheme of things it could help my team win.
Also, if I'm the last man and I have the opportunity to stop a one on one situation developing, I would hack down the attacker, receive the red card and give away the penalty or free kick rather than take the risk.
The reason why I say this is because even though this is my opinion, it seems to be a common practice amongst players as well.
If they really want the deliberate hand balls to be stopped, then as long as the shot was destined for the back of the net, it should stand as a goal and the red card should be shown.
As for the last man issue, unfortunately there is no way of determining whether it would have been a goal or not, so the rule should remain as is.
I agree with awarding a "penalty goal". This is the perfect case for a video ref to make the call to take the pressure of the refs. The play would be stopped as there was a foul committed and the incident can be viewed from many angles to see if the ball was goal bound.
Players are coached into sacrificing themselves for the sake of the team just as they are coached to take the fall if there is the slightest chance of contact in the box. As you say, until the stakes are raised it will continue.
PejiVanbasten
13-9-11, 11:35
i think people like messi, who has great close control will just chip the ball up once he is in the box as the chances are, he will hit a hand. he is good enough to exploit this if it was a rule as are many players.
i see what you mean though.
when a united player or chelsea player hand balls, its unintentional yet when another team player does it, its a pen.
one way around it is to have another assistant for the penalty area as the reffs seem to be way to overweight to keep getting from box to box. have one guy who operates each box and his job is to stand in the box and make the decisions. if he calls it a pen, its a pen.
Loggerjams?:confused:
Anyway, I'm the type of person who plays by the rules, and will exploit it if I have to. If I was in Suarez's situation, I would have also handled the ball considering that I have not cut the chances of a definite goal to a 50% chance (penalty). The red card and a suspension means nothing to me because in the grand scheme of things it could help my team win.
Also, if I'm the last man and I have the opportunity to stop a one on one situation developing, I would hack down the attacker, receive the red card and give away the penalty or free kick rather than take the risk.
The reason why I say this is because even though this is my opinion, it seems to be a common practice amongst players as well.
If they really want the deliberate hand balls to be stopped, then as long as the shot was destined for the back of the net, it should stand as a goal and the red card should be shown.
As for the last man issue, unfortunately there is no way of determining whether it would have been a goal or not, so the rule should remain as is.
no no...my main contention is the thing about clashes between coaches and referees about unintentioanl/unintentional aspect...the goal benefitting coach says it was intentional,the others says it was unintentional and th referee gets clattered form both sides...mostly its a subjective decison and many times referees indeed see the handball but based on their subjectivity take this aspect of intentional/uninetntional....whay not reduce these inconsistencies and make an in the box handball,anyway,a foul?....it would help the game a lot as it would help referees make decison objectivily and not subjectively,a good thing imo....also penalties are a very impirtaant issue and it would be better to deal with them objectively(ie penalty for any handball in box)
i think people like messi, who has great close control will just chip the ball up once he is in the box as the chances are, he will hit a hand. he is good enough to exploit this if it was a rule as are many players.
i see what you mean though.
when a united player or chelsea player hand balls, its unintentional yet when another team player does it, its a pen.
one way around it is to have another assistant for the penalty area as the reffs seem to be way to overweight to keep getting from box to box. have one guy who operates each box and his job is to stand in the box and make the decisions. if he calls it a pen, its a pen.
1)exactly my point...why not squash this aspect for once and all....
2)also subjectivity is not a good way for an issue as impotant as penalties in box handling.
Not for me - seeing penalties given for a the ball striking someone’s hand when kicked at them from a foot or two away without any real idea if it was a shot or cross or miss kick would be a sorry state of affairs.
I see the point of the OP but this way at least we're trying to achieve 'what's right' - yes there will be some bad decisions lost in the middle but we shouldn't just then make blanket bad decisions just for consistency sake
Afterthought
13-9-11, 11:53
I hate the idea. The rule is actually pretty clear - if it's intentional, it's a foul, if it isn't then it's not. It's not hard to tell the two apart. When a ball is hit hard at a player/hit at a player from close range, and it hits their arm it's not going to be a hand ball. If a player is trying to take their arm out of the way of the ball, but isn't quick enough... it's not a hand ball.
Due to basic human anatomy, your arms have to go somewhere to your sides, and if the ball hits them when you know nothing about it, it's ridiculous to award a foul. What could you do to stop it? Start awarding free kicks/penalties for unintentional handball, and you would have the ridiculous situation of forwards in the penalty area actually trying to hit the defenders' arms with the ball from close range, because there would be nothing the defender could do to get out of the way.
There's a reason that 'pass backs' aren't given for deflections, and obstruction isn't given when a player puts a ball past a player, and then runs into him and falls over..
Also, people have to remember that arms are used to provide balance - if you're crouching down, your arms will automatically spread a bit wider to keep your centre of gravity. If the ball then strikes someone's hands, should it be a foul? Not in my eyes.
Seems some people are just complaining about the hand ball rule because we had some shouts turned down. Didn't see people complain after that FA Cup final v Arsenal...
People need to stop complaining about hand balls and start complaining about all of the shirt tugging and grabbing going on. The typical hand ball shout is nothing more than a ball being kicked at someone's arm or someone moving their arm to balance themselves. Do a kicking motion and keep your hands on your sides. Not so easy is it?
Grabbing someone's shirt or at their body is not natural at all. It's simply inexcusable. That is something refs should key in on. The whole handball issue always evens itself out over a season.
I do confess that I am at loggerjams concerning this issue... It should be taken care of!
ThelateCatcatcat7
13-9-11, 13:03
People need to stop complaining about hand balls and start complaining about all of the shirt tugging and grabbing going on.
True. The penalty Carra conceded was a penalty because he had his arm round Walters. But it wasn't a penalty because it was no different than happens at EVERY corner.
TheDarknessIsCalling
13-9-11, 13:17
True. The penalty Carra conceded was a penalty because he had his arm round Walters. But it wasn't a penalty because it was no different than happens at EVERY corner.
It was different, this wasn't a crowded box with the ref having to keep an eye on several incidents. I don't think the ref had a lot of choice, if it had happened outside the box it would have been a free-kick and other instances not given doesn't mean it wasn't a foul/penalty, just that there probably should be more penalties.
ZonalMarked
13-9-11, 13:25
no no...my main contention is the thing about clashes between coaches and referees about unintentioanl/unintentional aspect...the goal benefitting coach says it was intentional,the others says it was unintentional and th referee gets clattered form both sides...mostly its a subjective decison and many times referees indeed see the handball but based on their subjectivity take this aspect of intentional/uninetntional....whay not reduce these inconsistencies and make an in the box handball,anyway,a foul?....it would help the game a lot as it would help referees make decison objectivily and not subjectively,a good thing imo....also penalties are a very impirtaant issue and it would be better to deal with them objectively(ie penalty for any handball in box)
Abhi, I think that Afterthought has answered your question quite well below...
I hate the idea. The rule is actually pretty clear - if it's intentional, it's a foul, if it isn't then it's not. It's not hard to tell the two apart. When a ball is hit hard at a player/hit at a player from close range, and it hits their arm it's not going to be a hand ball. If a player is trying to take their arm out of the way of the ball, but isn't quick enough... it's not a hand ball.
Due to basic human anatomy, your arms have to go somewhere to your sides, and if the ball hits them when you know nothing about it, it's ridiculous to award a foul. What could you do to stop it? Start awarding free kicks/penalties for unintentional handball, and you would have the ridiculous situation of forwards in the penalty area actually trying to hit the defenders' arms with the ball from close range, because there would be nothing the defender could do to get out of the way.
There's a reason that 'pass backs' aren't given for deflections, and obstruction isn't given when a player puts a ball past a player, and then runs into him and falls over..
Also, people have to remember that arms are used to provide balance - if you're crouching down, your arms will automatically spread a bit wider to keep your centre of gravity. If the ball then strikes someone's hands, should it be a foul? Not in my eyes.
Seems some people are just complaining about the hand ball rule because we had some shouts turned down. Didn't see people complain after that FA Cup final v Arsenal...
I agree with this. There are many contentious refereeing decisions, but I have never seen many regarding ball to hand incidents.
As you said, common sense would dictate that if a player is standing a yard or 2 away and the ball hits the defenders arm then there is no way he could have got his arm out of the way. But when a defender puts his hand up or jumps to reach the ball then it's a no brainer.
Also, as you mentioned, we might have decisions that go against us, but we have also had the rub of the green go our way at times. Look at the goals against Arsenal, depending on the linesman on the day and different interpretations of the offside rule, we could easily of had those the second goal disallowed.
ThelateCatcatcat7
13-9-11, 13:26
It was different, this wasn't a crowded box with the ref having to keep an eye on several incidents. I don't think the ref had a lot of choice, if it had happened outside the box it would have been a free-kick and other instances not given doesn't mean it wasn't a foul/penalty, just that there probably should be more penalties.
Sure, I guess what I'm getting at is that there needs to be consistency with these things - remember that world cup game involving Poland with Howard Webb a few years ago, where he gave a late penalty for pulling in the area? That's a perfect example - he gave the right decision based on the offence in isolation but the wrong decision based on the fact that a dozen similar offences probably went unpunished in the same tournament.
TheDarknessIsCalling
13-9-11, 13:36
In hockey does it matter if the ball hits your foot intentionally or otherwise?
For me advantage is as important as intent, a lot of players are using their arms and making themselves wider without it being "hand to ball", making themselves bigger and relying on not being had for intent/handball.
It's quite hard to actually prove intent, not nearly as hard to prove an advantage was gained and I'm sure players would accept the argument of advantage gained over intent. It might increase the number of penalties, but if a player unintentionally gets his arm in the way of a cross should it matter that it wasn't intentional as they've still blocked the cross and gained an advantage off a part of the body shouldn't be making contact with the ball.
Unintentional or intentional. Maybe aimed for his hand or maybe it was deliberate. A hand is a hand.
Things like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opFbmi_We8U) or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxw1-Id91lQ) will also continue to happen....you can blame the ref, but the end result will not be changed.
It's impossible to demand perfectly correct decisions every time, in every match. The pace of the game is constantly rising and without the help of any kind of electronics/sensors/camera I fear that we'll continue to see these wrong decisions whistled (or vice versa). Very often they end up to be crucial to the outcome of the game.
I agree with Kenny's statement, from few months ago. It's unfair that the officials can get away with their decisions without any explanation or sanctions afterwards...
For me, if the handball stops the ball from going towards the goal it should be a pen, whether intentional or not. If the hand wasn't there the ball would have been going goalwards, so the handball had a direct impact
Afterthought
13-9-11, 13:58
In hockey does it matter if the ball hits your foot intentionally or otherwise?
For me advantage is as important as intent, a lot of players are using their arms and making themselves wider without it being "hand to ball", making themselves bigger and relying on not being had for intent/handball.
It's quite hard to actually prove intent, not nearly as hard to prove an advantage was gained and I'm sure players would accept the argument of advantage gained over intent. It might increase the number of penalties, but if a player unintentionally gets his arm in the way of a cross should it matter that it wasn't intentional as they've still blocked the cross and gained an advantage off a part of the body shouldn't be making contact with the ball.
This isn't hockey, it's football.
Actually, the foot rule is one of the reasons I dislike hockey - it's an utterly unfair law. People essentially get penalised for things they have no chance of preventing.
As for whether intent should matter or not - yes, it should. Just like it matters with the back pass rule, and the obstruction rule.
As I said in my other post, you'd have the ridiculous situation where rather than trying to score goals, players would be trying to hit the defenders arm with the ball in the penalty area in order to get a penalty. If you want to talk about unfair advantages, there's one far bigger than any unintentional handball could ever be.
You say players are 'making themselves bigger' - I know it is something football commentators and journalists love to harp on about - but usually it's just a question of balance. If you are crouching slightly, so as to move quickly one side or the other, by spreading your arms a bit wider you improve your balance. If you don't believe me, just try it.
Its difficult to penalise somebody for being anatomically human.
CreamOfTheKop
13-9-11, 16:08
Its difficult to penalise somebody for being anatomically human.
This sums it up for me.
I'd prefer if more attention was focused on defenders trying to hump the opposition at corners and free kicks, rather than looking where the ball is going.
ThelateCatcatcat7
13-9-11, 16:09
Its difficult to penalise somebody for being anatomically human.
In which case it's surprising that Martin Skrtel does get penalised more often.
King7Dalglish
13-9-11, 16:10
I see what you mean, but I think it there then would undoubtedly be very contentious situations where it would seem unreasonably harsh to call it a penalty. Players could even start to attempt hitting defenders hands in the box as a strategy to get a penalty, something which I don't think really happens the way things are now
this
RafatheSpecial1
13-9-11, 16:40
We had 2 handballs vs Stoke: Delap from Kuyt's knockdown and Upson from Suarez's chip.
It has been acknowledged that the Delap one should've been a peno and the game would've been different. I just hope ref's have this in mind in future when the occasion occurs so we don't miss out again.
Like KK said post-match vs Stoke we've not been given a thing from Ref's so far whereas we should've had a lot more points and been further up the league. Is this just to give the Mancs daylight between us before they start giving us anything. Conspiracy theorists discuss! :D
I'm glad we're playing so well and based on our performances so far I expect us to win the vast majority of our games this season, like say, Pld 38, W26, D8, L4 = 86pts is my guess. But not until ref's start to give us what we deserve!
every other match nowadays this crap about whether the handball was intentioanal or unintentional has everyone at loggerjams...but my question is, doesnt it obstruct play ,and many times a goal scoring chance in the box AFTERALL...referees will always make subjective decisons and this strange rule is further complicating the matter.If a player stops a goal scoring chance even unintentionally by tripping a player,isnt it still a goal scoring chance lost?....why not keep things simple and make handball,whether intentional or unintentional in box a strict no-no...wouldnt it help to make things much easier for everyone?...
what do you guys think?....
You make a good point about accidental fouling. I agree with you. Though if arms are by their sides I think it shouldn't be a pen. But if arms are raised.. even slightly and it hits you even accidentally I think the rules should imply it's a penalty. Not many people intentionally handle the ball believe it or not.