Match #20 - AUS : NED - HAIMOUDI (ALG)

Discussion in 'World Cup 2014: Refereeing' started by Alberto, Jun 17, 2014.

  1. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Location:
    Raleigh
    Club:
    DC United
    Country:
    United States
    There's a mentality among pundits and fans that goes...you can't call that a penalty unless you're 100% sure. And my response to that is, why the hell not? A penalty AGAINST one team is a penalty FOR another team, and whichever way a ref misses a PK call, whether it's a false positive or a false negative, the effect on the game is the same. So if you're one of those people who thinks a PK needs to be 100%, you are basically OK with referees missing more calls than they should. When it comes to PKs, to me, the standard should be 51%. If you're 51% sure it's a PK, call it, because you'll get 51 calls right and 49 calls wrong, and that's+2 on the good side of the ledger.


  2. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Ah, right :) I mean, I think it's wrong, but I understand what you're saying ;)

    I think it's wrong because I don't think it's possible to put a percentage on these things. If you're 'sure' of something that means you're '100% certain' of it. Otherwise you just 'think' it, albeit to varying degrees.

    Also, it's always been the case that refs have been more concerned with being 'sure' the decision is correct in things like penalty calls where the consequences are more severe.

    There was simply no way to make a judgement about whether the defender was 'making himself bigger' or 'using his arms to balance himself' on this occasion so the call shouldn't have been made.

    It was also 'ball to hand' in the most literal sense as the guy didn't have a chance of getting his arms out of the way.

    The call was bad... it's as simple as that.
  3. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    I disagree.
    You may not like the call.
    You may not agree with the call.
    But you cannot really say it was a "bad" call.

    The call is defensible.
    As I said earlier, I thought that while the arm was originally in a natural position, he kept it out there for an unnaturally long time as he moved.

    I don't know that a defensible call can be a "bad call".
  4. Fanaddict

    Fanaddict Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Location:
    streamwood IL USA
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Country:
    United States
    My pet peeve is picky hand ball calls. His arm was down it wasn't out to the side or above his head he didn't move his arm toward the ball. Who runs with his arms absolutely touching his body? He moved his hand after the ball hit his hand. He was a couple yards away the ball was moving too fast for him to get out of the way. If they are going to make these calls players shouldn't try to score just aim for your opponents arm.


  5. seadondo

    seadondo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Location:
    Redondo Beach
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Country:
    United States
    What is he supposed to do with his arm? It was hanging straight down at his side. If you want him to put it behind his back, then that would be an unnatural position!
  6. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Agreed!

    If you watch, the ball actually knocks his hand AWAY from his body. Before then it's exactly where it would have been. I bet, if you saw a thousand examples where the ball isn't hit directly at the defender, you'd see their arm in precisely that position.

    Part of the problem for me, (and others is I believe), is that referees seem to be thinking the defender might deliberately be 'making himself bigger' whereas the attacker, (a naive, 'fluffy-bunny' type character, totally unaccustomed to the ways of the world in general and professional sport in particular), would NEVER deliberately kick the ball towards the area a defender would naturally have his arms to maintain balance.
  7. frasermc

    frasermc Take your flunky and dangle

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Location:
    Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
    Club:
    Celtic FC
    Country:
    Scotland
    I'm jumping into this a little late and it may have been mentioned previously but I can totally understand as to why the referee felt he had to penalise the handball. I also agree that it is an unfair disadvantage to defenders as it would seem they now have to control their bodies in an unnatural fashion, particularly inside the penalty area, for fear of being penalised harshly for unintentional handballs.

    Why can we (and by we I really mean FIFA and other governing bodies) not allow referees to make judgement balls as to intentional and unintentional handballs in the penalty area? If it's an intentional handball then it's a penalty if it is unintentional then its an indirect free kick from the spot the offence occured.

    Most of these crosses that end up being ball to hand are not exactly clear goalscoring opportunities. Heck, most of the time there isn't even a guarantee that an attacking player will get on the end of the cross let alone score. It just seems to me that the defending team are being harshly treated for an unintentional act by one of their players.
  8. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Hmm... maybe!

    I just think the rule, as it was originally written and interpreted for well over 100 years, was fine. We didn't need any 'improvements' or 'clarification'.

    If you stop the video immediately before the ball hits the guy's hand, you'll see his arm is, if anything, tucked in behind him... not flailing around. TBH, it could be argued that his arm in front WAS... but not the one behind particularly. If it had hit the one in front I suspect nobody would be saying it was a bad call.
  9. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    We can use the phrase 'incorrect' or 'unjustified' if you want?

    Stop the video immediately before the ball hits his hand... where do you think his arm should have been?



    Bear in mind, that was pretty much the angle the ref had on it as he was more or less behind the defender too.

    As I say, there is NO WAY he could have been certain it was deliberate.
  10. Paper.St.Soap.Co

    Paper.St.Soap.Co Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010

    I think that would add yet another later of subjectivity to the decision. Besides, "intent" isn't judged in handling, it's deliberate vs non-deliberate. Semantics to those of us thinking about the non-soccer definition, but in our world those two words mean different things. If the handling is not deliberate we already have a solution for that -- Play On!
  11. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    He deliberately moved his hand from in front of him to behind him as the ball went behind him.

    Everyone should understand that that is a deliberate movement.
    The question is, "was it a natural movement?"

    The referee concluded it was not and called the PK.
    You may disagree, but it is perfectly within the laws.

    Let me ask, how did the hand get there if it wasn't a deliberate movement?
  12. Simmer

    Simmer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Location:
    Holland
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Never a penalty.
  13. Rufusabc

    Rufusabc Member+

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Unless, of course, it had been an Aussie defender!!
  14. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    Except that that isn't exactly the requirement now is it.
  15. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    Quite straightforward...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_control

    The movement could either have been deliberate, (or intentional... strictly speaking, they're synonyms), or it could equally have been unintentional.

    There's no basis to make a judgement.
  16. Iforgotwhat8wasfor

    Iforgotwhat8wasfor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    It is the handling that must be deliberate not the movement. Otherwise every player on the field would have to be in the midst of grand mal seizure to avoid the call. Having seen the incident for the first time - good Lord that is a horrendous call - how could his arm be anywhere else when he has to counterbalance his full stride??
  17. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I think you're ignoring how high the expectation is for what the powers that be deem accuracy at this level. "Defensible" doesn't cut it. Nishimura's call in the opener, with a hand on the shoulder, was "defensible." Almost any subjective call (rather than an error in Law) is "defensible." But plenty of defensible calls are still bad. You can understand why the referee called something, given what he saw, but that doesn't make it a good call.

    If all defensible calls are inherently not "bad," we might as well shut down the forum.

    As someone mentioned above when it happened, I'd be very interested to learn whether or not FIFA had "penalty" on this one or not.
  18. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    But it is not a matter of intent as Maximus is making it out.
    The defender deliberately moved his arm from in front of his body to behind his body and into the path of the ball. Whether he intended to handle is not relevant to whether it can be handling or not.

    He made a deliberate movement that blocked a passing lane, made contact with the ball, and benefitted from that contact.
  19. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    That's fair.
    Do you think this was a "bad call"?
  20. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Country:
    United States
    I hate to punt on this one, but it's why I said I'd be interested to learn what FIFA has. I want to know if they think this is a "bad call" or not.

    Personally, I think it shouldn't be deemed deliberate handling. But that's a 30,000 foot level response to a question like "did the defender really do anything that should be punished by a penalty?"

    With all the instruction we've had about deliberate handling in USSF over the years, I think the answer to "is this supposed to be called as a penalty?" is much murkier. And I don't know what the FIFA instructions are/were for the WC referees, which is what matters. But I have trouble getting past a natural running motion, no reaction time, and a ball kicked directly at the arm. So, yeah, I lean "bad call" but wouldn't be shocked if FIFA went the other way, either.
  21. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
  22. footyref1

    footyref1 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Club:
    Fulham FC
    Country:
    United States
    Thank you for posting the link to the video. One of your main points is that the defender moved his arm from in front of his body to behind/the side and therefore deliberately handled the ball (by either blocking the passing lane or making himself bigger). But what I see in the bigger context of that 8-10 second period is that his hand is not static in front of his body, but constantly moving from in front of his body to behind, as he's defending the player and moving with him. About 6-7 times his left arm crosses in front and then behind him. To me, this only makes the case stronger that his arm is in a natural position, because he didn't do it just the one time the ball hit his hand, but had been running that way the entire length of this play. Natural position for me.

    What does everyone think of the referee's reaction? It looks at first as if he's going to keep playing, I think the left arm goes up to indicated something, but then goes back down and finally he blows the whistle.
  23. Naughtius Maximus

    Naughtius Maximus Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2001
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Country:
    England
    So you're saying that all these people are deliberately moving their hands into the expected path of the ball, ('making themselves bigger', as the phrase has it)?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It looks more to me like they're simply extending their arms front and back to counteract the natural turning movement of their trunk.
  24. Alberto

    Alberto Member+

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2000
    Location:
    Northern, New Jersey
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Country:
    United States
    I see that handball as a terrible misinterpretation and application of the laws of the game. The ball is struck from less than five yards away, probably 3 yards. The defender is not making himself bigger. He is merely running in a very natural fashion. The ball plays his hand, not the other way around. To call a handball and to restart with a penalty is a terrible injustice. Not the first time either of course. I can't recall the particular match , but the late Ken Aston wrote about it during the Japan Korea World Cup if my memory serves me of a hand ball penalty that was called that was not a deliberate hand ball.
  25. sjt8184

    sjt8184 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Club:
    DC United
    not to argue your point to much, but their front arm(or extension of such) IS deliberately moved into the path of the ball.
    seadondo and beamish repped this.

Share This Page