Handball
"...a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm."
What is going on with handball? I feel like this modern obsession with hand-ball has 'snuck up' on us in the past five or six years. What the hell is going on?! I do not understand what all the confusion is about. Ten years ago, this topic was hardly ever discussed. Now, (along with penalty incidents) it's all we ever analyse and talk about.
I'm confused because the rules on handball have not changed. A player must deliberately make contact with the ball.
This is clear. It is not confusing and it is not ambiguous.
If we look at that sentence and apply it to a typical match, it makes 95% of all handball situations a moot point. The ball is kicked, it strikes the hand of the player, but the player did not deliberately handle the ball (in old parlance, it was 'ball to hand') - therefore it is not handball. What is the problem? Where is the confusion?
It means that Player A can stand in the middle of the area (nice and still) with his arms outstretched. If he just stays that way and Player B then kicks the ball and it hits Player A's hand (but he doesn't move his hand towards the ball), that cannot be handball.
I'm confused because the rules on handball have not changed. A player must deliberately make contact with the ball.
This is clear. It is not confusing and it is not ambiguous.
If we look at that sentence and apply it to a typical match, it makes 95% of all handball situations a moot point. The ball is kicked, it strikes the hand of the player, but the player did not deliberately handle the ball (in old parlance, it was 'ball to hand') - therefore it is not handball. What is the problem? Where is the confusion?
It means that Player A can stand in the middle of the area (nice and still) with his arms outstretched. If he just stays that way and Player B then kicks the ball and it hits Player A's hand (but he doesn't move his hand towards the ball), that cannot be handball.
Feel free to stand still like this in the area
|
So why have we had an unofficial rule creep? Just because more and more players - and managers (and entire stadiums) scream HANDBALL whenever a ball is kicked against someone's hand, - it doesn't make it handball. So why are referees giving these decisions?
It now seems that the position of a player's hands is now significant. How so?! The rulebook has not been changed. There is no wording saying '...if a player's arms are outstretched, then it will be deemed handball should the ball strike his hand or arm.... - This has not been added. It also seems to me that there has even been interpretation creep of what constitutes a 'hand'. Nowadays, if a ball strikes a player just below the shoulder, everyone screams for handball. This is utter nonsense! A player must be able to use their upper body and torso to control the ball. This includes the shoulder (which is surely part of the upper arm).
|
Today, pundits and referees talk about the position of the hands as being 'natural' or not. - Why are we adding new scope to the rule? We must stick to the rulebook here.
To me, if we stick to this closely, the only 'dodgy' area we can get into is when a player is about to shoot or cross, and the opposing player deliberately puts his hands out in an attempt to block the shot/cross. This is a deliberate attempt to 'make himself bigger' to try and put a block in and is handball I feel. But this blocking attempt must be done momentarily before the player strikes the ball - otherwise the player striking the ball can have no complaints.
But if a player 'turns away' (because he doesn't want to be smashed in the face) and the ball strikes his hand/arm, it surely cannot be handball. It wasn't deliberate. It's these sorts of decisions you see commonly nowadays.
Again, supporters do not help the cause. Today, an entire stand will scream HANDBALL at virtually anything! This is of course irrespective of whether they actually saw handball committed or not; everyone shouts it.
True handball is a rare occurrence. I think that 95% of all incidents we see week in, week out, are merely the case of the ball being fired into a player. I think people forget: The player does not have to get out of the way! People have arms and people have hands. I think people should firstly recognise that fact.
To me, if we stick to this closely, the only 'dodgy' area we can get into is when a player is about to shoot or cross, and the opposing player deliberately puts his hands out in an attempt to block the shot/cross. This is a deliberate attempt to 'make himself bigger' to try and put a block in and is handball I feel. But this blocking attempt must be done momentarily before the player strikes the ball - otherwise the player striking the ball can have no complaints.
But if a player 'turns away' (because he doesn't want to be smashed in the face) and the ball strikes his hand/arm, it surely cannot be handball. It wasn't deliberate. It's these sorts of decisions you see commonly nowadays.
Again, supporters do not help the cause. Today, an entire stand will scream HANDBALL at virtually anything! This is of course irrespective of whether they actually saw handball committed or not; everyone shouts it.
True handball is a rare occurrence. I think that 95% of all incidents we see week in, week out, are merely the case of the ball being fired into a player. I think people forget: The player does not have to get out of the way! People have arms and people have hands. I think people should firstly recognise that fact.