Hand ball

[armchair]

Does anybody know the definitive rule regarding hand-ball?

Twice today I've seen hand-balls given but no yellow card.

I thought that for a hand-ball to be given it had to be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). A deliberate hand-ball is an automatic yellow yea? (or a red if it stops a goal).
So that means that every time a handball is given it must be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). and therefore a yellow (or a red if it stops a goal)

Is there such a thing as accidental hand-ball where a free-kick is awarded but no yellow card? I ask that question but it happened twice today so far........

[Perryashburtongroves]

Does anybody know the definitive rule regarding hand-ball?

Twice today I've seen hand-balls given but no yellow card.

I thought that for a hand-ball to be given it had to be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). A deliberate hand-ball is an automatic yellow yea? (or a red if it stops a goal).
So that means that every time a handball is given it must be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). and therefore a yellow (or a red if it stops a goal)

Is there such a thing as accidental hand-ball where a free-kick is awarded but no yellow card? I ask that question but it happened twice today so far........

I've always thought the same; for it to be deemed handball, it needs to be deliberate so therefore a card should be given. No fucking idea how it works in reality, except that the refs seem to do whatever they want and give decisions depending on who it will benefit and whether they want to stay in a manager's good books.

[armchair]

Does anybody know the definitive rule regarding hand-ball?

Twice today I've seen hand-balls given but no yellow card.

I thought that for a hand-ball to be given it had to be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). A deliberate hand-ball is an automatic yellow yea? (or a red if it stops a goal).
So that means that every time a handball is given it must be deliberate (in the eyes of the ref). and therefore a yellow (or a red if it stops a goal)

Is there such a thing as accidental hand-ball where a free-kick is awarded but no yellow card? I ask that question but it happened twice today so far........

I've always thought the same; for it to be deemed handball, it needs to be deliberate so therefore a card should be given. No fucking idea how it works in reality, except that the refs seem to do whatever they want and give decisions depending on who it will benefit and whether they want to stay in a manager's good books.

And it gets even more confusing when its in the box.

Like you say and I always thought - free-kick for hand-ball must be deliberate and must be yellow. If not deliberate no free-kick no yellow.

[rodders999]

We didn't get the penalty for the ox one but they got a free for the EXACT same incident involving alexis. Absolutely insane that decisions like that are almost always given outside the box but hardly ever inside. A foul is a foul no matter where. Wrighty was right they're all little hitlers

[dPmunky]

even if the handball is NOT deliberate, if advantage is gained because of it, it MUST be called. Especially when the arms are away from the body. And i would argue that the one in the box with chamberlain was an example of this.

[armchair]

The one involving Ox looked a nailed on deliberate hand-ball to me.

[Yankee_Gooner_Dandee]

The one involving Ox looked a nailed on deliberate hand-ball to me.

that was the clearest of the bunch, def a penalty.

[SteveO 35]

I think the rule is this:

In the event of the attacking team being either a huge underdog or a team without a league title in 55 years, there should be no logic applied whatsoever and a penalty should be instantly awarded to ensure Niall Quinn and Martin Tyler get to tug each other off in the commentary box

In the event of Arsenal claiming a spot kick, only photographic evidence of the defender catching the ball and running 80 yards with it before scoring a try at the other end, shall result in a spot kick being awarded. Even in this event the Dowd-Atkinson discretionary rule should be applied especially if the opposition are a dear old little team that everyone has adopted as their Valentine's crush

[Red Snapper]

I think the rule is this:

In the event of the attacking team being either a huge underdog or a team without a league title in 55 years, there should be no logic applied whatsoever and a penalty should be instantly awarded to ensure Niall Quinn and Martin Tyler get to tug each other off in the commentary box

In the event of Arsenal claiming a spot kick, only photographic evidence of the defender catching the ball and running 80 yards with it before scoring a try at the other end, shall result in a spot kick being awarded. Even in this event the Dowd-Atkinson discretionary rule should be applied especially if the opposition are a dear old little team that everyone has adopted as their Valentine's crush

This is my understanding of the rule too except retrospectively the Duckworth Lewis method can be applied to point out that Robert Pires once dived to gain an advantage.

[Ed Hunter The Gooner]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

[casgooner]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

[Ed Hunter The Gooner]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

It hit also his armpit and arm as far as I saw it. Penalty to me.

[augie]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

It hit also his armpit and arm as far as I saw it. Penalty to me.

And this ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why confusion reigns when it comes to handball's......even when it doesn't hit the hand or arm, we will still have referee's who decide to give a penalty anyway

[arseofacrow]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

It hit also his armpit and arm as far as I saw it. Penalty to me.

And this ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why confusion reigns when it comes to handball's......even when it doesn't hit the hand or arm, we will still have referee's who decide to give a penalty anyway

But if you jump like that, isn't it reasonable for your arms to be positioned like that - it's not as if they were above his head. Therefore, his hands are in a natural position. No penalty.

You're welcome

[armchair]

If the ref gives a free kick for hand-ball he has to deem it deliberate right?
So if its deliberate hand-ball it has to be a card yea?
So this means that every free kick given for hand-ball should result in a card being shown by the ref?

Patently didnt happen on at least two occasions yesterday. Free kicks were given for hand-ball without a card being shown.

So is there a rule where the ref can give a free kick for hand-ball without showing a card if it was deemed accidental?