Xtratime Community banner

81 - 93 of 93 Posts

·
Greta joke sharer
Joined
·
22,874 Posts
To me that is a penalty. A foul is also a foul even if you didn't intend to foul...
That doesn't make any sense. You could just as well have written "a foul is also a foul even if it isn't a foul".

This is the key part of the rules in this case.

There will be no penalty if:

  • the ball touches a player's hand/arm immediately from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player.
For that to be a penalty you have to deem that the position of the defender's arm was deliberate in order to block the shot. So intent is essential in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,517 Posts
Jumping with arms open is natural. For the typical header which requires a jump, you will raise your arms when taking off, they will come towards the body as you reach the top of your jump to make contact, and they will spread out as you land.

Intention (or recklessness) is a key factor. The whole idea of looking at natural placement of the arms is to simplify the inference of intention so that everything doesn't need to be on a case-by-case basis. If the ball hits you when your arms are where typically where they shouldn't be, then calling it a handball will seem fair because, in most cases, there would be some kind of mental element (usually intention or recklessness) which led to your arms being there. It works quite well for the most part - for cases where the player is on the ground. But the tradeoff is that some players will have to play unnaturally. You now often see defenders in the pen area putting their arms behind their back while moving around. Skriniar and de Vrij do it all the time for Inter.

But the exercise just doesn't translate well at all to players who are jumping. Players can manage to move about the pen area with their arms wrapped behind them. But doing that while jumping will screw up the jump. Headers would become ridiculous if they had to do that. Not to mention that it creates a huge disadvantage for the defending player. In many cases, they may as well not jump at all if the rules are to be applied in the way some are suggesting.

In the present case, I don't think it's a definite bad call. There is some movement where the Milan player raises his left leg and moves his left arm down. Those are the movements which I would say can be deemed unnatural and which may possess either of the main mental elements (intention or recklessness). But the unnatural movement is not simply because he spread his arms at all.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,693 Posts
Intention is not requisit for handball ,they even tried to reduce mentions about it. The rule basics reggarding natural is not about the movement but:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
••the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

So, the point is not if the movement (I would agree with you, if it was the old rules) is natural when jumping, it is the result. I think it is clear the position of the arm in this case made the body bigger than it should (however, the word naturally is a problem).

and they add:

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

I think we can also agree, this is not a VAR problem. It is the handball rule problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,517 Posts
Yes, I'm saying that the current rules simplify things. What makes them seem fair for the most part (but not for jumping, imo) is that intention/recklessness is the rationale behind them or, even if it isn't, can justify them. Whatever the case is, intention/recklessness plays a role (now a background role) even if the rules don't refer to them on a case-by-case basis anymore. They have to, since they're tied to the fairness of the rules. If it were purely strict liability, then the reference to unnatural placement wouldn't fit. IMO.

Leaving rationale and all aside, based on current rules, the issue stays the same. The unnatural aspect in the air in the Juve-Milan game ought to come from the downward movement of the arm and not the fact the arms were spread. Yeah, it's a handball rule problem. They need more clarity on situations in the air and what they mean by unnatural.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
29,693 Posts
they could have, instead of unatural position, said just "if the arm is not close to the body" or "if your arm stops another player chance of goal, finishing or pass to someone in clear scoring position" to simplify things, albeit this wouldn't help people jumping (so they could say if the arm is open due to a jumping montion, like they did with players using arm to get up or prevent a fall).
 

·
Greta joke sharer
Joined
·
22,874 Posts
The phrase natural silhouette used in the rules should obviously mean the arm's natural position in any given situation (except above the head as that is excluded from being natural in the rules). So players using their arms to gain momentum and keeping balance while jumping should be perfectly fine.

Otherwise they should have used other parameters than natural silhouette. If the intention wasn't to allow players to move freely without risking a penalty they could have used absolute measures.

Unfortunately IFAB doesn't seem to specify what a natural silhouette is.

They should just take my advice and make all handballs, regardless of intent, indirect freekicks and deliberate handballs direct freekick/penalty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,472 Posts
That doesn't make any sense. You could just as well have written "a foul is also a foul even if it isn't a foul".
No, there is a difference between no foul and a foul that you didn't want to commit but still committed!!!

As for the ball, if the arm is spread like this and it gets hit/touched than the defender needs to expect a penalty. He does block the shot.
 

·
Greta joke sharer
Joined
·
22,874 Posts
No, there is a difference between no foul and a foul that you didn't want to commit but still committed!!!

As for the ball, if the arm is spread like this and it gets hit/touched than the defender needs to expect a penalty. He does block the shot.
Then they should rewrite the rules again and remove the phrase natural silhouette.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,749 Posts
Poor Chelsea fukin ell, 3 big decisions go against them in 1 game.

Hahahaha. Frank's face. Someone is definitely meeting Stanley tonight.

Do you know why? Because they're above us.
 
81 - 93 of 93 Posts
Top