• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

Reffing shockers at CCM games (yeah I know)

Omni

Well-Known Member
They changed it since Kewell’s red. At the time that was the way to do it, now it would probably only be a yellow
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
This fkin stupid way they put their arms behind them to prove to var (aka limit match fixing) they're not handballing is fkin massive joke and almost equivalent to trying to prove not diving for me. Refs are retards/political correctness gone wrong these days.
Players have started doing this ages ago.

There's a point where the arm is clearly close enough to the body that, if shot at close range, it's not a foul.
There's a point where the arm is clearly far enough away that even if shot at close range, it's still a foul.

Then there's the grey area in between.

Players are just trying to avoid the grey area. You got any ideas how to write the law to remove that grey area?

Also, nfi what 'political correctness' has to do with a foul, unless that was a preemptive comment towards yourself?
But that never used to be the rule. Intention was what mattered.

That's still the best rule for me... by far.
And how do you define intention? That's where things like 'natural vs unnatural position' have always been a consideration.

For the arm a bit out from the body in front of an attacker, the laws didn't really change all that much in how they're decided.
 

Dobbie

Well-Known Member
Players are just trying to avoid the grey area. You got any ideas how to write the law to remove that grey area?
The point really is that they shouldn't need to. The ref ought to be able to make a judgement call and if he can't then they have VAR to fall back on. However VAR have done such a poor job on some occasions (e.g. vs Adelaide last season) you end up with players holding their hands together behind their back. It looks ridiculous and demonstrates either the rules or the way they're being interpreted, need changing. Or maybe we should start putting pockets in the players shorts so they can put their hands in them! I don't recall seeing this behaviour in European matches, but I don't watch much of that these days.

I also think it should be about intent. It's usually pretty obvious if some has intentionally handled the ball.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
The point really is that they shouldn't need to. The ref ought to be able to make a judgement call
That's exactly my point
The ref does make a judgement call. Defenders are increasingly avoiding the risk of that judgement call - there's a whole grey area between 'clearly a foul' and 'clearly not' where you'll have disagreement between...well, everybody. Until somebody figures out how to make the laws clear, defenders will do this. And that's fine.

As for it being obvious about intent..players are quite adept at making things look accidental.

If I'm standing in front of a defender, squatting down a bit and sticking my arms out to the side - am I just doing it for balance, or am I deliberately blocking off an extra 6 inches either side of aerial passing lane? What if I move my arms out just a few inches further? Nobody watching me knows.

Anyway, like I said, this was a problem under the old laws and not addressed under the repeated changes - and I remember seeing players on the coast have their arm behind their back some 15-20 years ago.

It's probably coming up more not because VAR adds another variable - and then there's the question of if the ball strikes the arm that's kind of out from the body, it's not only 'is it a foul' but 'was the referee clearly and obviously wrong'? No matter the outcome, one team will complain about VAR there.
 

Dobbie

Well-Known Member
It's probably coming up more
because it looks unnatural and comical, particularly running with arms behind back. It's football not Morris Dancing. I'll run up some comedy gifs when i get time.

I understand why they're doing it (and probably been coached to do so) i just think it's ridiculous it's come to this. Maybe I'm a dinosaur from another age of football!
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
I've done the arms behind back thing for years in park football when squared up one-on-one - it makes the referee aware you're not trying to make yourself big and removes the chance a penalty will be called against you. It's risk management, and nothing to do with the current laws. I started doing it because I watched Italian defenders doing it probably 20 years ago.
 

Allreet?

Well-Known Member
But in trying to run or manouevre with your hands behind your back you're putting yourself at a disadvantage never intended by the original framers of the law.

In reply to message #42, the meaning of intention is simply the natural meaning of the word. Where it all went wrong was when people started trying to "clarify" what the components of manifest intention were instead of just letting the refs get on with it. Expressions such as natural and unnatural position were glosses added to the laws in comparatively recent times and all they've done is muddy the waters by giving refs (and fans) more things to consider instead of just making an instant judgment call on whether someone deliberately handled the ball.

In all honesty, how often in professional (or amateur) football do you think someone truly intends to handle the ball in their own box? It's actually pretty rare.
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Intention isn't as narrow as that. Going back to the Harry Kewell example against Ghana, his arms were slightly separated from his body and he moved towards the ball. He intended to stop the ball, the contact was with his arm. Handball.

He didn't need to do a Luis Suarez from the same world cup (and same opponent, for that matter) and look to 'save' the shot with an outstretched arm for it to be a penalty. Clearly the Suarez action was "worse" but they're both handball, red card, penalty.

This is different to if he had been running with arms in completely normal position and a ball is kicked into one of his arms and he makes no movement towards the ball (and especially if he doesn't see the ball, e.g. it's from behind him).

I don't do arms behind my back when I'm running trying to block a cross or lunging to block a shot, it's when I'm basically jockeying with a striker in front of me or if I can see a shot's about to come from beyond the distance I can try to get a block in. The same way a keeper sets with arms out, I set with arms back.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
But in trying to run or manouevre with your hands behind your back you're putting yourself at a disadvantage never intended by the original framers of the law.

In reply to message #42, the meaning of intention is simply the natural meaning of the word. Where it all went wrong was when people started trying to "clarify" what the components of manifest intention were instead of just letting the refs get on with it. Expressions such as natural and unnatural position were glosses added to the laws in comparatively recent times and all they've done is muddy the waters by giving refs (and fans) more things to consider instead of just making an instant judgment call on whether someone deliberately handled the ball.

In all honesty, how often in professional (or amateur) football do you think someone truly intends to handle the ball in their own box? It's actually pretty rare.
Natural vs unnatural have always been a consideration - the 'additional instructions' at the back of the book listed a number of things to consider, one of which being the position of the arm. So, that is taken to mean natural vs unnatural position.

After all, referees aren't mindreaders - so it's about what cues are there to determine intent. Having your arms further out from the body than needed being one such cue.

And imagine if we suddenly got really lenient on that - you'd start to see a lot more flailing arms to block shots.

It was always weird that intent was left in this law - the only other law that kept intent was the 'backpass' law. I'd say 'carelessly handles the ball' fits better with what should apply - though you still have issues of interpretation.

If defenders keep their arms close to their body as the squat down in front, there's no problem. It's the grey area of how far out is too far out.

But then there's also opportunity to react - there's an expectation that players avoid contact with the arm; that is, if they have more than enough opportunity to react, and choose not to, then that's on them.

The problem with Kewell's is that the arm even came out as the shot was taken. Now, it didn't strike that part of the arm - but he's gone to chest/shoulder the ball and misjudged it. I don't really want situations where 'I tried to chest it but misread the ball and blocked it with my arm' become non-fouls.

funnily enough, with the more recent laws I'm not even sure if it would be a foul, given the upper arm stopped being part of the arm for handball (for some stupid reason)

And that's why I think 'carelessly handles the ball' works better. I doubt he consciously intended to handle the ball - but also, none of us know if there was part of him that realised he screwed it up but wanted it to hit his arm anyway.
 
Last edited:

Kilsin

Active Member
In all my years of playing CB, I never put my arms behind my back in free play, I did in a wall.

Typically, I used my natural bodies movement to get into a position to defend as fast as I could to block shots with no intention of using my hands or arms.

As a Personal Trainer, you cannot move optimally into a position with your arms behind your back, you lead with whatever is closest to the direction you want to go and momentum plays a huge part in that. So quickly moving to the left would require your left arm and/or leg to extend in that direction to generate momentum, if the ball was kicked onto my arm while I am moving in that direction (and I did not play at the ball) it should be considered a natural movement and dismissed as a handball. I believe the Refs should be able to tell the difference but it's frustrating to watch VAR slow it down and make it look exaggerated, view it in real-time once or twice and make a decision then move on.

In my opinion, it shouldn't be left open to interpretation with so much confusion, it should be a hard rule with a clear defining ruleset.

If you play at the ball with your hand or arm - Handball
If you make a genuine effort to move in a direction and the ball is kicked at your arm or hand - Play on

But I am not a ref, just a frustrated ex-player and fan. I would love to hear from people who ref as to why that can't be the case?
 

Allreet?

Well-Known Member
I've said it before, I'll say it again... I 100% believe Harry tried to get his chest or shoulder to the ball and I still reckon it's impossible to tell on replay what part of his body it hit first.

So, very difficult for the ref to make the correct call on that in real time on just one view. Huge consequences for the result though - big difference between no foul/play on and red card/penalty. My own immediate reaction at the time was no foul play on.

There would be far fewer arguments if we'd stayed with the old rule: has to be intentional and ref decides in real time with the assistance of his ARs.
 

Allreet?

Well-Known Member
But I am not a ref, just a frustrated ex-player and fan. I would love to hear from people who ref as to why that can't be the case?
I completely agree with your analysis.

I'm not a ref either but I am a lawyer and understand something about rules and their interpretation. I've also written a lot about the idiotic handball laws on the FTBL site.

My brother in law is president of one of the Sydney refs associations and we frequently debate the handball law. Thing is, he can't help but defend the rule (no matter how abstruse and illogical) because he has a vested interest in being a custodian of the laws.

But the other day I said to him: wouldn't you rather just go back to plain intention and the ref alone has the final word?

He opened his mouth to argue, but then just grinned and said: Yeah, I guess so.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
I've said it before, I'll say it again... I 100% believe Harry tried to get his chest or shoulder to the ball
Agree, but I'm completely okay with 'I tried to play it with a different part of the body and misjudged it' being a foul

d I still reckon it's impossible to tell on replay what part of his body it hit first.

So, very difficult for the ref to make the correct call on that in real time on just one view.
Well, I reckon the ref there had a better angle than any of teh cameras

There would be far fewer arguments if we'd stayed with the old rule: has to be intentional and ref decides in real time with the assistance of his ARs.

Well, the case here is under the old law. The law changes didn't actually change all that much at all - in fact, they actually gave more reasons for it to NOT be a handball, and the current law is almost back to the old law now anyway.
Now we have
- deliberate
- making body unnaturally bigger (which was always a consideration under the old law anyway)
- scoring from accidental handling (the only part of the law that's really different to the old one)

It's all well and good to say 'oh it should just be deliberate' - ref's aren't telepaths, so all they can do is make an inference from an action. Handling the ball when the arm is moving outwards from the body? There's really only one inference to make there. And like I said, the laws always had a lot more than simply 'deliberately handles the ball' - most of the changes have been moving a block of text from one part of the book to another.

So, as for your BIL - literally, the only thing he has to worry about now versus 15 years ago is accidental handling that scores a goal/immediately leads to a goal by that player (and I'm glad I don't have to judge this - I can imagine even this would cause a lot of arguments on the pitch, probably more than before)

If you play at the ball with your hand or arm - Handball
If you make a genuine effort to move in a direction and the ball is kicked at your arm or hand - Play on

But I am not a ref, just a frustrated ex-player and fan. I would love to hear from people who ref as to why that can't be the case?

And everything in between?

Like I said - take the example of a defender squatting in front to jockey. Arm, say, 6 inches out and gets struck? No foul. Sticks his arm out 90 degrees? No, that's on him, even if kicked from point blank. Foul.
What about everything in between?

I'd personally like the laws to be clearer - but IFAB tried that and screwed it badly.

Take the bad habit many players now have of jumping with arms out at 90 degrees. That does nothing for your body mechanics, yet we still have disputes over whether that should be a foul. The laws could be clearer.

The laws until this season did do one thing nicely which was deal with the difficult issue of a self-deflection. Well, the laws attempted to deal with it but the problem was they were written incredibly badly.

If somebody kicks the ball amd miskicks it onto their arm that's out at 90 degrees, is that a foul? Well, both answers could be an interpretation under the current law.

They did provide some nice guidance on players dragging the arm behind on a slide tackle/block.
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
They changed it since Kewell’s red. At the time that was the way to do it, now it would probably only be a yellow
To use a few examples I think Harry's was a red as whether deliberate or not it denied a clear goal . Pedj against wsw was ball to hand from a deflection but the wsw players was hand to ball.
 

Capn Gus Bloodbeard

Well-Known Member
. They are profoundly different.
How so? Except for the 'accidental handling leading to a goal', of course. Even the previous year wasn't as significant as people were saying (this season we've almost entirely gone back to the old laws). In the last few seasons the only substantial difference was no discretion for arm above the shoulder, and the laws attempting to clarify a self-deflection (but completely failing to do so, and actually making that clause completely redundant as it was still subject to the natural position anyway!!)

Honestly, most of the time when there was some foul that people were debating and complaining 'see, this is the problem with the new laws', it would have been a foul under the old ones....They clarified moreso than changed; ie confirmed what was already happening
 
Last edited:

Kilsin

Active Member
And everything in between?

Like I said - take the example of a defender squatting in front to jockey. Arm, say, 6 inches out and gets struck? No foul. Sticks his arm out 90 degrees? No, that's on him, even if kicked from point blank. Foul.
What about everything in between?

I'd personally like the laws to be clearer - but IFAB tried that and screwed it badly.

Take the bad habit many players now have of jumping with arms out at 90 degrees. That does nothing for your body mechanics, yet we still have disputes over whether that should be a foul. The laws could be clearer.

The laws until this season did do one thing nicely which was deal with the difficult issue of a self-deflection. Well, the laws attempted to deal with it but the problem was they were written incredibly badly.

If somebody kicks the ball amd miskicks it onto their arm that's out at 90 degrees, is that a foul? Well, both answers could be an interpretation under the current law.

They did provide some nice guidance on players dragging the arm behind on a slide tackle/block.
Refs call, that's what they're there for, after all, they can utilise their better judgement in real-time or with a quick VAR check.

If it's clear and obvious, then handball, if not clear and obvious then the benefit of the doubt should be given.

I know it's not as simple as that but it really should be, a couple of hard-set conditions to qualify handball and if not met, play on.
 

Online statistics

Members online
38
Guests online
249
Total visitors
287

ccmfans.net merch

For more info or questions about the merch, check out this post

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
6,412
Messages
316,572
Members
2,433
Latest member
ShaneBep
Top