Roundball_Fan
Member
Where does this “traditionally” occur? Genuinely curious.. I’ve never seen/heard of such a thing.
Ask the ref?
- Thread starter EastYoungstown
- Start date
Where does this “traditionally” occur? Genuinely curious.. I’ve never seen/heard of such a thing.
I've never fully understood the "incidental contact" exception to hand ball in soccer. Every time I think I have it nailed down I see something like this:
https://tinyurl.com/yahdmztu
Is this a blown call or incidental contact? If it's incidental contact,Why?
https://tinyurl.com/yahdmztu
Is this a blown call or incidental contact? If it's incidental contact,Why?
EastYoungstown
Active member
belied dat
Active member
I would have whistled for handling. No doubt about it. Allowed attacker to gain control of the ball to her advantage.
EastYoungstown
Active member
I did watch it.
I was asking you.
I'm not sure her hitting the ball did anything except actually make the ball bounce away from her and make it harder for her to collect it and score. Otherwise it drops right at her feet.
No intent.
No advantage.
In the moment it's tough. I probably call that on first glance.
Looking at the replay though I think that's a goal and if that's what the ref gave then kudos to him/her.
So its as I thought... Total judgement call on incidental contact. The ref did allow the goal over strenuous objections from the coach. And in another discussion two former refs say its a handball because the arms were away from the body.
Ultimately it did not change the outcome if the game.
Ultimately it did not change the outcome if the game.
belied dat
Active member
While the rules say "deliberate," I think we all can agree that judging "intent" isn't exactly what is done on handling calls.
Her hands/arms were "deliberately" in a non-soccer playing position, so there could be the reasoning behind whistling the handling.
Her hands/arms were "deliberately" in a non-soccer playing position, so there could be the reasoning behind whistling the handling.
MJ_SoccerRef
Active member
I took a look at the video.....and here's MY 'opinion'......
Whistle / Handling. No goal. The arm began in an elevated position, with the hand near shoulder level......IMHO, an unnecessary position position given the fact the player didn't jump THAT high off the ground. More importantly.....MOST importantly......the arm moved downward & caused the contact with the ball. "Intent" is derived from what we SEE happen.....a player's arms go where the mind tells them to; the arm doesn't act independently......thus the very act of 'handling' (a verb indicating action) at the least implies 'intent'. This is contrary to a ball striking the limb, that is both not moving AND in a more natural position, one where the player is not "making themselves' bigger' (the more recent wording from FIFA).
It should be noted that whether the ball/hand contact 'benefitted' the player has NEVER been a consideration for ruling said contact 'handling'. That's one of 'The Old Wive's Tales" of soccer.......right next to "I got the ball first!" & "The Throw-In has spin on it!".
Lastly......many, if not most, infraction calls are "In The Opinion Of The Referee", and frequently "Opinions Vary", among a number of other factors that affect how we evaluate what we see, IF we in fact SEE it.....
Whistle / Handling. No goal. The arm began in an elevated position, with the hand near shoulder level......IMHO, an unnecessary position position given the fact the player didn't jump THAT high off the ground. More importantly.....MOST importantly......the arm moved downward & caused the contact with the ball. "Intent" is derived from what we SEE happen.....a player's arms go where the mind tells them to; the arm doesn't act independently......thus the very act of 'handling' (a verb indicating action) at the least implies 'intent'. This is contrary to a ball striking the limb, that is both not moving AND in a more natural position, one where the player is not "making themselves' bigger' (the more recent wording from FIFA).
It should be noted that whether the ball/hand contact 'benefitted' the player has NEVER been a consideration for ruling said contact 'handling'. That's one of 'The Old Wive's Tales" of soccer.......right next to "I got the ball first!" & "The Throw-In has spin on it!".
Lastly......many, if not most, infraction calls are "In The Opinion Of The Referee", and frequently "Opinions Vary", among a number of other factors that affect how we evaluate what we see, IF we in fact SEE it.....
Interesting discussion on the natural hand position being a factor and not the advantage. Did anyone see the handball call in the girls D1 final? In the video stream you could barely tell the hand hit that ball and the hand was in a natural position. It resulted in a PK but didn’t change the outcome of the game. Just wanted to hear someone’s explanation on how that was egregious enough to qualify for a PK.
MJ_SoccerRef
Active member
Without having seen the video.......in general, I think it's important when evaluating Calls & No Calls to attempt to visualize what the particular incident looked like from the angle & distance the Center Referee had at that point in time. We NEVER have the same angle as anyone recording a video.......and observing play from an elevated position makes the Field Of View 3 dimensional, vice the 2 dimensional view we have at field level, among the players. Just some factors.......
If it is outside of the penalty area (in non-referee parlance, the "18-yard box"), the goalkeeper is like any other field player and is governed by the same rules as it relates to handling.
HSfooty1977
Member
Intent does not matter, if it is an intentional hand ball, it should be a yellow card, red card if it prevents a goal.
IN regards to this video, the player arm is away from body and it is a poor touch that allows the ball to strike the hand and gain an advantage. Definitely a blown call!!
IFAB/FIFA laws of the game change effective 6/1/19.
Should be noted that this is not yet in effect for USSF sanctioned games, as USSF does not implement the revised IFAB/FIFA LOTG until the following January 1st.
Obviously NFHS (high school) and NISOA (college) have not implemented it for this year, though who knows what they will do come one year from now.
MJ_SoccerRef
Active member
Obviously, the Keeper can legally play the ball inside his/her own Penalty Area. The Keeper may be called for handling ONLY when they are contacting the ball with the hand, arm, etc. AFTER the entire ball has cleared the 18, and hence the PA itself (ALL of the lines on the field are part of the area they form a boundary for). Any 'Illegal Touching" of the ball within the PA, for a variety of reasons, by the Keeper does NOT yield a PK restart, but rather an IDK at that spot, or if inside the Goal Area on the 6 closest to that spot.
If the Keeper has the ball contact the hand or arm while the entire ball is in fact outside the PA, then the Referee must use that same evaluation as with every other player: did the ball 'play the player' or did the 'player play the ball' with hand, arm, etc.? The amount of time, the distance the ball traveled prior to the contact, the positioning of the limb.....all can factor into that evaluation.....
OhioBobcatFan06
Well-known member
With regards to keeper handling outside the box...
Once you decide it is handling, the key consideration becomes if the ball is definitely going in the back of the net in which case it's dogso/red/send-off... If it's not a clear cut goal, then the keeper only gets a yellow. That distinction is not well understood by many.
Once you decide it is handling, the key consideration becomes if the ball is definitely going in the back of the net in which case it's dogso/red/send-off... If it's not a clear cut goal, then the keeper only gets a yellow. That distinction is not well understood by many.
Never heard that but it does make sense.
Seems most often you see the straight red.
reggieDunlop
Member
NFHS Rule Question: On a corner kick, how close can a defender be to the ball on the kick? Does this limitation change if the offensive team has a player positioned close to the ball to take a short kick?
belied dat
Active member
The corner kick is the same rule, 11 yards from the flag. There is a corner kick arc with the flag that is 1-yard radius, a mark should be off the field that is 10-yards from that corner kick arc.
OhioBobcatFan06
Well-known member
Also a 2nd attacker doesn’t change it.
Timing issue. Press box did not turn off clock a couple of times in first half. Official did signal for stoppage and normal timing still applied. Maybe 1 to 2 minutes was lost. Who is the official timekeeper? Should that time have been added or am I just watching too much pro soccer?
reggieDunlop
Member
I'm interested in the answer here as well. I've kept clock for football and now I'm being asked to do soccer as well. The OHSAA page for football has a nice PDF which describes all the timing rules for the clock operator, but I'm having trouble finding a similar document for soccer.
Can't do "added time" in high school like in the pros. Ideally, the referee would notice the error at the time, and instruct the clock operator to fix it. If that doesn't happen, it truly is just lost time.
Here's a good PDF the OHSAA recently made and distributed for soccer- https://www.ohsaa.org/Portals/0/Sports/Soccer/TimekeeperGuidance.pdf
Here's a good PDF the OHSAA recently made and distributed for soccer- https://www.ohsaa.org/Portals/0/Sports/Soccer/TimekeeperGuidance.pdf
reggieDunlop
Member
Thanks for the PDF!
soccerdad72
Well-known member
I knew they added the provision that the referees could ask for a clock stoppage late in the game for substitutions seemingly done for time wasting, but interestingly enough, the ref in a game this weekend asked for one late in a 2-0 game (less than 2 minutes left) when the leading team stalled on the throw in (e.g. one player picked up the ball, then put it back down for a slowly moving teammate). Center ref then seemed to warn the player about to throw in, saying something like, "You know you're ahead - don't do that again". I didn't think that they had the option of stopping the clock for something like that (at least if ref wasn't giving a card for it).
AR waves flag for a foul he believes was committed, center ref allows play to continue/does not see. "Foul" occurred 25 yards out from goal, player continues breakaway and just misses the shot. Center ref discusses with AR and gives the offensive team free kick from original foul location....thus allowing second opportunity to score.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Per NFHS rules this year, the clock MUST stop inside the last five minutes of regulation when the leading team is substituting, unless they are up by six or more (i.e. running clock is in effect) -- as per NFHS rule 7-4-3. There has been no change to the rule that the referee has the right to stop the clock at his discretion for other types of time wasting -- as per NFHS rule 7-4-1