The Referee Forum: Tottenham penalty? - The Referee Forum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Tottenham penalty?

#1 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2016 - 06:14 PM

Agree or disagree?

For me that was harsh!!!

#2 User is offline   Elliot 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 10-January 12
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:MCFC and reffing

Posted 10 January 2016 - 08:00 PM

I can see why he gave it. Outstretched arm makes contact with a slowly moving ball but it's completely unintentional imo (as viewed from behind the goal) he has no idea where the ball is and it just happens to hit him.

#3 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 10 January 2016 - 08:20 PM

Harsh yes, but I also think correct. I think you have to look at why his arm was outstretched like that, and my view it was an attempt to hold Rose back. Holding or impeding an opponent isn't allowed, so that means his arm was in an unnatural position.

#4 User is offline   Goldfish 

  • Select Group
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 3,685
  • Joined: 02-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 10 January 2016 - 09:03 PM

Hi
Not deliberate. Ball bounces up of his heel , he puts his arm across Rose which happens all the time and the ball hit his hand. No way the raised arm would ever be given as a penalty. Poor decision IMO. Pressured IMO by Rose appeal. Leicester appeal as well because Rose *handled* it as well

#5 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2016 - 10:26 PM

Just shows how one simple call can have more than one interpretation, shame this was a game changer but you see what you see and how can we truly judge player intent!

#6 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 11 January 2016 - 06:46 AM

View PostRustyRef, on 11 January 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

Harsh yes, but I also think correct. I think you have to look at why his arm was outstretched like that, and my view it was an attempt to hold Rose back. Holding or impeding an opponent isn't allowed, so that means his arm was in an unnatural position.


Haven't seen it, but I'd agree with that interpretation.

#7 User is offline   maninblack 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,529
  • Joined: 04-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leicester

Posted 12 January 2016 - 05:28 PM

think the ref saw it from behind and saw the arm go out and the ball go sidewards away from rose and guessed at handball,,,no way he could have saw contact and the assistant had no credible view either...poor decision,,,as an assessor i would be asking "what did you see"

#8 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 12 January 2016 - 06:26 PM

View Postmaninblack, on 12 January 2016 - 05:28 PM, said:

think the ref saw it from behind and saw the arm go out and the ball go sidewards away from rose and guessed at handball,,,no way he could have saw contact and the assistant had no credible view either...poor decision,,,as an assessor i would be asking "what did you see"


I really don't think any referee guesses at that level. They know that after the game every decision will be reviewed from 10+ different angles. If they miss something that they couldn't possibly see they might get away without a terrible mark, whereas if they guess and get an incorrect KMI as a result they are going to get slaughtered and potentially lose their livelihood as a result.

I think he could see, and if he couldn't the 4th official and / or the inactive assistant would certainly have been able to and it only takes a second to say handball over the comms system.

#9 User is offline   maninblack 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,529
  • Joined: 04-January 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leicester

Posted 13 January 2016 - 06:17 PM

to be honest from replays i have seen the best angle is from corner flag,,,ref 4th and assistants all seemed blind side

#10 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2016 - 07:58 PM

View PostRustyRef, on 10 January 2016 - 08:20 PM, said:

Harsh yes, but I also think correct. I think you have to look at why his arm was outstretched like that, and my view it was an attempt to hold Rose back. Holding or impeding an opponent isn't allowed, so that means his arm was in an unnatural position.

Are you mixing the two calls up though Rusty, his hands certainly were in a natural position if he was attempting to impede the opponent, therefore consequently I don't believe he was trying to handle the ball deliberately as it seemed to be behind him when it struck him, as the referee blew for the HB then we have to discount the impeding argument as it isn't relevant in the call..

I think the consensus that I've heard from quite a few sources is that it was very very harsh.

#11 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 13 January 2016 - 08:52 PM

View PostSheffields Finest, on 13 January 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Are you mixing the two calls up though Rusty, his hands certainly were in a natural position if he was attempting to impede the opponent, therefore consequently I don't believe he was trying to handle the ball deliberately as it seemed to be behind him when it struck him, as the referee blew for the HB then we have to discount the impeding argument as it isn't relevant in the call..

I think the consensus that I've heard from quite a few sources is that it was very very harsh.


No, that's my point. Had he just tried to challenge Rose normally his hand wouldn't have been anywhere near the ball, but because his first instinct is to try and hold him back or impede him his arm comes out. His arms were in a natural position if he was trying to impede the opponent, but he isn't allowed to do that and therefore his hands shouldn't be there as part of normal and legal play.

#12 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2016 - 10:02 PM

View PostRustyRef, on 13 January 2016 - 08:52 PM, said:

No, that's my point. Had he just tried to challenge Rose normally his hand wouldn't have been anywhere near the ball, but because his first instinct is to try and hold him back or impede him his arm comes out. His arms were in a natural position if he was trying to impede the opponent, but he isn't allowed to do that and therefore his hands shouldn't be there as part of normal and legal play.

I get that but having your arms out for balance and looking like you are impeding someone can be easily confused, in this case the referee clearly saw no problrm on that issue... I don't quite understand this un natural position malarkey, he clearly did not try and handle the ball, that's obvious, he did though in completing the perfectly natural movement of the arms handle the ball, you can't have it both ways Rusty...it clearly isn't either, handball or impeding and I think the ref got suckered in by hysterics from a raucous crowd and desperate attacking team looking for any opportunity for an equaliser.. We've all been there... Damned if you do and damned if you dont

#13 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 13 January 2016 - 10:24 PM

View PostSheffields Finest, on 13 January 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

I get that but having your arms out for balance and looking like you are impeding someone can be easily confused, in this case the referee clearly saw no problrm on that issue... I don't quite understand this un natural position malarkey, he clearly did not try and handle the ball, that's obvious, he did though in completing the perfectly natural movement of the arms handle the ball, you can't have it both ways Rusty...it clearly isn't either, handball or impeding and I think the ref got suckered in by hysterics from a raucous crowd and desperate attacking team looking for any opportunity for an equaliser.. We've all been there... Damned if you do and damned if you dont


I think that's where handball interpretations come in and will always differ between referees. For me he has no right to have his hands out there, just as the Newcastle defender didn't last night. Neither has deliberately handled it in the traditional sense (i.e. ball to hand rather than hand to ball) but in the current guidance and interpretation they have both made themselves bigger and / or had arms in unnatural positions.

#14 User is offline   Refelee 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: 23-January 10

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:04 AM

View PostRustyRef, on 14 January 2016 - 01:24 AM, said:

I think that's where handball interpretations come in and will always differ between referees. For me he has no right to have his hands out there, just as the Newcastle defender didn't last night. Neither has deliberately handled it in the traditional sense (i.e. ball to hand rather than hand to ball) but in the current guidance and interpretation they have both made themselves bigger and / or had arms in unnatural positions.

I am not aware of any guidance or interpretation issued by the IFAB (or FIFA on their behalf) that mentions a player making themselves bigger. As for having their arms in an unnatural position, the only mention of arm position is the one that states:

Quote

the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement


This stipulation means that, according to the IFAB (the only body authorised to issue guidelines or interpretations of the laws) having the hand/arm in whatever position (whether natural or not) does not automatically indicate a handling offence.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what "current guidance" you are referring to.

This post has been edited by Refelee: 15 January 2016 - 05:54 AM


#15 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 15 January 2016 - 10:12 AM

View PostRefelee, on 15 January 2016 - 02:04 AM, said:

I am not aware of any guidance or interpretation issued by the IFAB (or FIFA on their behalf) that mentions a player making themselves bigger. As for having their arms in an unnatural position, the only mention of arm position is the one that states:



This stipulation means that, according to the IFAB (the only body authorised to issue guidelines or interpretations of the laws) having the hand/arm in whatever position (whether natural or not) does not automatically indicate a handling offence.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what "current guidance" you are referring to.

But you must agree that when you state that position does not automatically indicate handling offence then the opposite must also be true, namely that it may actually indicate an offence. To me this means that if there's an obvious risk that the ball might strike the hand, depending on circumstances, the player with his arm out might have to take full responsibility for a contact between hand and ball.

#16 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:27 PM

View PostBartek, on 15 January 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

But you must agree that when you state that position does not automatically indicate handling offence then the opposite must also be true, namely that it may actually indicate an offence. To me this means that if there's an obvious risk that the ball might strike the hand, depending on circumstances, the player with his arm out might have to take full responsibility for a contact between hand and ball.


You have to be sure that the handling offence was deliberate hand TO ball, this flicked up off something!!! The balance must be on not guilty ma lord, i would have thought!!!http://refereeforum.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

#17 User is offline   Goldfish 

  • Select Group
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 3,685
  • Joined: 02-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:04 PM

Hi
Time to change deliberate handling. The game has struggled with handling for a long time now. 100 refs can look at this and 50 will say handling and 50 say otherwise. A day later slightly different situation the 50 who say handling might have a different view as he was a yard closer, he had his back turned, unnatural / natural hand position whatever that is or whatever. Ref here IMO thought that it was a smart reach in by Dyer to knock the ball away from Rose which it wasn't.
I would go as far as to say that the only handling that should ever be called is the 100% stonewall grasp of the ball. The ball that hits a players should not be penalised.
Maybe we should go back to 1858 as per SF's post " •The ball may be pushed or hit with the hand, but holding the ball.... is altogether disallowed." :lol:/>

#18 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 08:41 PM

This is really my point, the laws need to be rewritten. Whatever they say associations have certainly issued guidance on handball, I've been in seminars when it has been talked about and Graham Poll mentions it here .. http://www.dailymail...ox-penalty.html

If you stick to the must be deliberate approach, and don't allow the arguments of the hands being in an unnatural position / player making himself bigger you face a real problem. Take a scenario where a player comes out to block a shot by having his arms out in a star shape. If the ball hits his arms he hasn't deliberately handled it, and it would very much be ball to hand. So under the laws of the game if you take them strictly as written this cannot be handball, but it certainly should be as he has deliberately made himself bigger even though he couldn't be sure the ball would hit his arms.

#19 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:17 PM

By making himself bigger though how is he intentionally handling the ball, his arms are naturally part of his body and move up down, left right and unless he makes like a goalkeeper and 'saves' it he is being struck by a ball to which he has little control in evading most of the time....his job is to defend and the ones that put there hands behind their back are silly IMO.

I agree that there are too many experts putting their spin or interpratation of what's what and better clarification is required.

Please don't confuse this with the plainly obvious hand to ball incidents....

#20 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 15 January 2016 - 10:31 PM

http://refereeforum.net/forum/public/style_images/master/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Sheffields Finest, on 15 January 2016 - 02:27 PM, said:

You have to be sure that the handling offence was deliberate hand TO ball, this flicked up off something!!! The balance must be on not guilty ma lord, i would have thought!!!

Haven't seen the incident. Only replied to the law part.

#21 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 15 January 2016 - 10:36 PM

View PostSheffields Finest, on 15 January 2016 - 10:17 PM, said:

By making himself bigger though how is he intentionally handling the ball, his arms are naturally part of his body and move up down, left right and unless he makes like a goalkeeper and 'saves' it he is being struck by a ball to which he has little control in evading most of the time....his job is to defend and the ones that put there hands behind their back are silly IMO.

I agree that there are too many experts putting their spin or interpratation of what's what and better clarification is required.

Please don't confuse this with the plainly obvious hand to ball incidents....

Oh no, old man! By DELIBERATELY making yourself bigger you DELIBERATELY increase the risk of the ball hitting your hands and arms. This must be considered DELIBERATELY handling the ball. The tricky bit here is to figure out what is intentional and what is accepted as part of normal play. The worst one are the jumping in covering defenders.

IMHO the english referees let a little too much slide whereas the southern european referees are bat **** crazy in the other direction, punishing more or less any and all contact between hand and ball. As usual the scandinavians get it perfectly right. In this case toghether with the Germans.

#22 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:28 PM

View PostBartek, on 15 January 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Oh no, old man! By DELIBERATELY making yourself bigger you DELIBERATELY increase the risk of the ball hitting your hands and arms. This must be considered DELIBERATELY handling the ball. The tricky bit here is to figure out what is intentional and what is accepted as part of normal play. The worst one are the jumping in covering defenders.

IMHO the english referees let a little too much slide whereas the southern european referees are bat **** crazy in the other direction, punishing more or less any and all contact between hand and ball. As usual the scandinavians get it perfectly right. In this case toghether with the Germans.


I would agree totally with that based on my experience ...

Southern European referees are ultra harsh on handling

Northern European referees are middle ground on handling

English referees are far too lenient on handling

#23 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:33 PM

View PostBartek, on 15 January 2016 - 10:36 PM, said:

Oh no, old man! By DELIBERATELY making yourself bigger you DELIBERATELY increase the risk of the ball hitting your hands and arms. This must be considered DELIBERATELY handling the ball. The tricky bit here is to figure out what is intentional and what is accepted as part of normal play. The worst one are the jumping in covering defenders.

IMHO the english referees let a little too much slide whereas the southern european referees are bat **** crazy in the other direction, punishing more or less any and all contact between hand and ball. As usual the scandinavians get it perfectly right. In this case toghether with the Germans.


You said it yourself, the ball unluckily hits you....rather than your hand MOVING moving towards the ball as I'm sure what handball should represent...

Seems that Eqyptian heat and that Swedish frost has crisped that beard Bartek

#24 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 16 January 2016 - 09:02 AM

View PostSheffields Finest, on 16 January 2016 - 12:33 AM, said:

You said it yourself, the ball unluckily hits you....rather than your hand MOVING moving towards the ball as I'm sure what handball should represent...

Seems that Eqyptian heat and that Swedish frost has crisped that beard Bartek

Nope! You're stuck on the MOVING part - thanks for making that extra clear for me. If you make yourself bigger by stretching your arms out in order to make the ball hit them then it is not inlucky that it hits you - it is a deliberate act no matter what part of the equation is moving and not. Didn't think the floods had gotten to your parts but your thoughts seem rather soggy atm. =)

FYI - the OSLO area has about a half a yard of snow atm, and it's cold as hell. The Swedish frost would be better anytime.

#25 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2016 - 03:32 PM

Assuming that the player puts his arms there before the ball is struck how the devil has he deliberately 'handled' a ball that wasn't there when he put them there. Im afraid all this natural, un-natural stuff is hogwash, rules designed by committees, 95% plus of handball claims are complete cobblers..

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact withthe ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following intoconsideration:

  • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) (COUGH)
  • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) (COUGH)
  • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is aninfringement (COUGH)
  • touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.)counts as an infringement
  • hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as aninfringement

you need to put that qualifications to some use and design yourself a deliberate handball recognition app!!! http://refereeforum.net/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

This post has been edited by Sheffields Finest: 16 January 2016 - 03:54 PM


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users