Commentary
The soccer world still awaits clarity on the handball rule
- by Ian Plenderleith @PlenderleithIan, Mar 11, 2019
Let’s continue to look back at last Wednesday’s Champions League game between Paris St. Germain and Manchester United. Everybody’s watched multiple repeats of Presnel Kimpembe’s late handball – when, with his back turned to play, Diogo Dalot’s shot struck the defender on the elbow – but there are few who can say with absolute certainty that a penalty kick was the correct decision. The ensuing debate was enough to prompt Europe’s governing body, UEFA, to issue a statement two days later justifying the call.
"Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball traveled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected," it said. "The defender's arm was not close to the body, which made the defender's body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from traveling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick."
That’s a lot of long-winded circumstance to justify what in theory used to be a simple call – did the player deliberately handle the ball or not? My feeling is that you could lean maybe five percent in the direction of backing UEFA’s wordy rationale for the penalty kick. Or you can revert to the 95 percent feeling I had the very first time I viewed the replay that it was a very, very harsh decision at a crucial juncture of such a high-level game.
Another issue is whether or not the video assistant referee was right to intervene. Supposedly this should only happen when a clear and obvious error has been made by the referee. Yet if the referee had stuck to his original decision to indicate a corner kick, the incident would have long been forgotten already, other than the odd Manchester United fan grumbling with little conviction, “Yeah, well we could have had a penalty near the end.”
Will IFAB’s new directive on handball help us in such situations? Next season’s rule will start to move away from intent (or deliberate handball, or non-accidental contact – they all amount to the same thing) and permit referees to call accidental handballs in certain circumstances. “For example,” its website explains, “a goal scored directly from the hand/arm (even if accidental) and a player scoring or creating a goalscoring opportunity after having gained possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm (even if accidental) will no longer be allowed.”
For goals this probably makes sense, but in the case of goalscoring opportunities it’s going to lead to even more video reviews and discussions. Eintracht Frankfurt’s second goal against Bayern Munich in last year’s German Cup final, for example, would likely not have counted (there was an accidental Frankfurt handball 60 yards from Bayern’s goal a few seconds before the long ball that lead to Ante Rebic’s strike to make it 2-1. The incident was reviewed, and the goal stood). The problem is that we will in the future have a two-tiered law for handballs. Accidental handball – a concept that is in any case nowadays open to broad interpretation, as we’ve seen from the Kimpembe incident - will be OK under certain circumstances, but not under others.
As the Kimpembe case illustrated, though, we are no nearer to having a handball law that makes practical sense. UEFA’s talk of the defender’s body being made “bigger” is not helpful. This is a phrase that often comes up at referees’ meetings to justify certain decisions, but it’s not backed by any wording in the rules. If IFAB really wants to rule that players moving their bodies in the natural course of athletic endeavor are risking an infringement of the laws, then they should just go ahead and do so.
Effectively, though, that would be making all handballs illegal, accidental or not. I suspect the new modifications are a first step in this direction. That might lead to more clarity, but certainly not to more fairness and less controversy.
On a more positive note, the other rule changes should both improve the game and make life easier for referees:
• Players being substituted must leave the field at the nearest point on the boundary line. No more time-cheating players trotting, limping and applauding their way to the benches when subbed out, even stopping to shake the referee’s hand on the way. The poor sportsmanship of players means they have brought this change on themselves.
• Red and yellow cards for coaches. Currently, referees have to issue a three-tiered warning for “irresponsible behavior.” The final warning means that the coach must leave the field. In the future, a yellow card at the first sign of nonsense from the bench will hopefully be enough to stall further shenanigans.
• The ball is in play from goal kicks, and free kicks inside the penalty area, as soon as it’s played. Forwards will be able to attack the ball as long as they’re outside the area when the ball’s first played. Good news for coaches who advocate the pressing game, and no more frustrating stops and re-takes.
FOR IFAB'S "At a Glance Summary of the Main Changes 2019/20," go HERE.
(Ian Plenderleith is a European-based soccer writer. His latest book, "The Quiet Fan," is available here. His previous book, "Rock n Roll Soccer: The Short Life
and Fast Times of the North American Soccer League," is available here.)
the last rule that as soon as the ball is kicked from a goal kick it’s in play as you can get the ball inside the goal area might be fine for adults but it’s a bad thing for youth players. The opposition will stand on the goal area and pounce on that ball, youth goalies don’t have the strength to kick very far. Lots of goals will now be scored by sharks now able to get the ball inside goal area.
not a good rule for youth games.
Uffe, the little people now get a "Build-Out Line" to prevent little defenders from barging into the area before the offense gets a couple of touches. Also, leagues often have a No Punting rule at U10 and younger, to encourage the young keepers to play from the back forward. Sadly, I still see coaches allowing their keepers to punt away willy-nilly as if practice punting is more beneficial than defenders getting touches and making decisions in a game environment.
The goal kick law change presents a coachable moment for youth teams - for forwards, be alert to the possibility of winning the ball as soon as it's in play. For defenders and midfielders, offer plenty of movement into space to receive the ball from the goal kick (for example, as attackers are drawn towards pressuring the ball, that will create more space for the defending team). Young players will quickly adapt to the new law. If it initially leads to more goals as teams get used to it, why is that a bad thing? The more goals the better, and the more teachable points from conceding goals the better. Never mind about the scoreline, work on your team's passing and movement.
The change in the GK law is not only not good for youth, it's not good for the game. More importantly, introducing "accidental" as a mode of handling is BAD for the game, as it would elimiinate the vital concept of CHEATING. The PSG incident was not that difficult if fundamentals had been kept in mind. Did that player look for the ball and turn his back to use his elbow to avoid being called for facing on and using the opposite arm OR did he look over his shoulder for the ball and extend his elbow to reach it. Either one would be cheating and therefore a Penalty. However, if he did not know where the ball was and by happenstance it struck his elbow, that's not cheating and should not be whistled.
The change in the GK law is not only not good for youth, it's not good for the game. More importantly, introducing "accidental" as a mode of handling is BAD for the game, as it would elimiinate the vital concept of CHEATING. The PSG incident was not that difficult if fundamentals had been kept in mind. Did that player look for the ball and turn his back to use his elbow to avoid being called for facing on and using the opposite arm OR did he look over his shoulder for the ball and extend his elbow to reach it. Either one would be cheating and therefore a Penalty. However, if he did not know where the ball was and by happenstance it struck his elbow, that's not cheating and should not be whistled.
The PSG call was exactly as referees have been taught to call it for some time. The fact that players and fans don't know or understand it is the fault of commentators and writers in the media, such as this article's author, who don't know that.
Imagine this. A free kick is being taken, 25 yards out from the goal. Players get into a wall but instead of facing the ball, they face the goal, and jump up in the air on a signal from the GK. As they do so, they stick their arms up above their heads. The ball, headed in the direction of the goal, strikes one of them on their arms.
Handling? In the spirit of the rules?
Well, they weren't looking, so plainly they didn't intentionally move their hands or arms in the path of the ball, right? But can anyone say that this is "what soccer wants", that we would consider it within the rules?
No, we cannot.
It's the same in the PSG situation. The player plainly jumps into the air in the path of the ball. He has his arm out away from his body, which does "make his body bigger". Now, can we say with certainty that he was doing so in the hopes that he would/could block the ball?
No, we can't, but we (referees) say that he deliberately did the things he did, and that led to the handling, so it's deliberately handling the ball and it stopped a goal.
Whether or not one agrees with this theory behind it, it's nonsense for people (including this article's author) to pretend that there's no reasoning behind how we've been calling this instance for some time. The bit about not scoring off a handball, even an unintentional one, is similar; players don't want that. They don't. And it goes against the spirit of the game to do so- so let's eliminate that.
It's actually how it's been taught and in the guidance given to referees, but is now being codified in the Laws of the Game.
Your example of the free kick is a good one - the players (and referee) know exactly when the shot is coming, so intent is simple to telegraph. In the PSG case, the defender's reaction was far more instinctive and at a closer range, and intent far more difficult to second-guess. It's not a case of me not undertsanding the guidelines, it's a case of making those guidelines workable and consistently applicable for referees, and sellable to both players and fans.
Also remove the two touch on free kicks.
All the complaining n surrounding the refree
would end. The attacker would simply
dribble from the spot of the foul and force the D to deal with it. If he wanted a set play that would still b an option
Do CK the same and all the holding in the
penalty area would end. The fouled team
or team awarded the CK would rightfully control the restart instead of the ENDLESS D coplaints
The usual FIFA excrement. There are too many LOTG that players undermine because the referees are told abate, i.e., picking up the ball after a fouling an opponent and encroachment on free kicks just to name a few. Players know what they can get away with because of "selective" rule interpretations. IMHO, FIFA continues to be a rigged organ when it can do far more to get the global game of soccer on a higher level. If the LOTG are not enforced, eliminate them.
“For example,” its website explains, “a goal scored directly from the hand/arm (even if accidental) and a player scoring or creating a goalscoring opportunity after having gained possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm (even if accidental) will no longer be allowed.” What's so new about this quote?
Currently a goal scored with the hand/arm can be allowed if the referee rules that it was unintentional.
I normally try to avoid thinking changes are bad, but I don't like the change to goal kicks at all. This is going to disadvantage passes on the ground, which are relatively slow, although backs can start and receive the pass inside the area now. Like others said, it is a new advantage for pressing.
You were doing fine....well, OK. Until, "very harsh decision at such a crucial juncture
of a very high level game". Implies that rules change, calls are/should be different depending on the level of the game or minutes into it...must disagree.
Add me to, rule change on GK is a terrible idea.
No, I was highlighting that the ambiguity of the law makes a nonsense of the win/lose concept at this level of the game. Manchester United did not progress because of a moment of sublime soccer skill, they progressed because a shot that would likely have sailed over the bar struck an opponent on the elbow. Regardless of how we interpret the law on that call, and whether or not the VAR was right to call it in for review, that was a massive slice of arbitrary luck for the eventual victor at a crucial moment of the biggest game of the season for both clubs. Which is not to say that I didn't jump up and down celebrating Rashford's conversion along with everyone else in the pub!
Instead of carding coaches, I would have liked to see the "rights" of the keeper addressed--something that clarifies, that keepers are treated like outfield players wrt careless/reckless/excessive force play--not just tackles. The most dangerous plays in the game involve the keeper, yet IFAB doesn't want to confront the old-school "but he got the ball" types. Insert Neuer/Higuain meme here.
I agree. Protecting the keeper from harm is different from allowing dangerous play to pass without warning. Although this is not technically a rule change.
R2 explain the build up line to me.
yes I know that U10 have no punting in some leages and that and no heading are good rules.
the new rule and not just U10 but up to U12 the goalies can’t kick very far. I reffed so many games when the opposing team just line up at the goal area and pouncing on the ball don’t see how this would help. At least before the goalie can kick the ball out to the side to outside backs and if the kick is not hard enough the opposing team can’t intercept in side the goalie area, it’s a free run on the goal if u get the ball inside goal area. Nope don’t like it.
Typically there is a blue line somewhere between the 18 and the center circle, so that on a goal kick the keeper can pass out to her backs, with those defenders left to assess the pressure and wall pass forward or to another defender, or a long pass. The opponents can't go beyond the blue line until the keeper releases the ball. Also, there a No Offside component to this.