Comments on: Out of Tune and Harsh

By: Tap-in and Taboo - The Run of Play

Tap-in and Taboo - The Run of Play — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:56:54 +0000

[...] when it comes to violations of this essential taboo: look at what happened to Harry Kewell, as already discussed in these pages. This is one area in which the law-makers seems likely to stir themselves. I bet we’ll get [...]

By: A.

A. — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:15:01 +0000

@MaisieDribble

Well a Europa League-style third assistant referee would have been perfectly placed to have seen the Luis Fabiano incident.

Most handballs are obvious. In most of the cases where there’s some doubt the answer is no. And then there are ones that are simply not seen by officials.

By: MaisieDribble

MaisieDribble — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:11:42 +0000

@Brian Phillips Now that offside has finally been desubjectified (goodbye and good riddance, “interfering with play”), handball is indeed the One True Mess that remains in the laws of the game. Everyone seems to agree that it urgently needs sorting out, but how? Balls will always ricochet off players’ upper arms while some players will always try to gain an advantage by handling (or, more often, nudging or elbowing) the ball. How can the former be condoned while the latter is penalised, if it isn’t by means of a subjective call? I fear – because I’m no fan of the idea at all – that the only way will be to give the fourth official a TV. But although that would work in goal-related cases, such as Luis Fabiano’s against Ivory Coast or Thierry Henry’s assist against Ireland, in most instances it just wouldn’t be feasible. Usually, when handball isn’t given, the decision isn’t immediately followed by a goal or the ball otherwise going out of play, so referees signal their denial of any handball appeals simply by waving play on. In such cases, if video reviews were implemented, would play then be stopped thirty seconds later, when the ball was perhaps at the other end of the pitch, because a little voice had just said “Actually, he didn’t chest it down” in the referee’s ear?

By: MaisieDribble

MaisieDribble — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:44:07 +0000

@Brian Phillips Maradona last night: "The players know what their duty is: to make people happy." Somehow, even allowing for his difficulties communicating in English, I can't see Fabio Capello putting it quite like that, can you?

By: Alan Jacobs

Alan Jacobs — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:47:51 +0000

@Dan It's true, I have never seen a hockey game and I never will! But the reason I didn't mention that rule is that, as I understand it, the hockey official doesn't have any discretion in the matter — he has to wait until possession changes. But the soccer referee decides whether there's an advantage to be played, which is where equitable judgment comes in. I'm happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:38:06 +0000

“Curiously, soccer is the only sport I know of that has built something like a principle of equity into the rules, through the concept of playing the advantage: referees are actively encouraged to evaluate situations in which a strict following of the rules—say, calling a foul on a player who has certainly fouled, but at a time when the whistle would interfere with a scoring opportunity for the other team—would produce injustice.”

I suppose you’ve never watched a hockey game, as this also applies on the ice. A foul will not be called against a player while the opponent’s team in in possession of the puck. The foul will not be called until the next time the fouling team touches the puck.

By: Brian Phillips

Brian Phillips — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:19:44 +0000

The IFAB has reportedly been considering a change to the law concerning the “triple penalty” that’s assessed in Kewell’s situation (a penalty, a sending-off, and a suspension, all for one questionably voluntary action). So as Alan said, the law may be harsh, whatever you think of the enforcement of it.

For me, the problem with handball rules generally is that they require referees to judge intention as well as action. That’s never easy to do, especially at game speed, and raises a whole host of complications. The vagueness of the intention rule could be a way for referees to exercise discretion, but FIFA mucks it up with all sorts of guidelines for inferring intention from action (i.e., if a free kick is taken from 3 meters away, movement toward the ball might be accidental, but if it’s taken from 10 meters away, movement toward the ball must be on purpose) that sort of half-circumvent the requirement while keeping it technically in place. Whatever you think of Kewell call, it’s a mess.

By: A.

A. — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:39:08 +0000

@Alan Jacobs Well I don't agree that it can be harsh either. The decision, that it was handball by Kewell, was either right or wrong. If he didn't deliberately handle the ball, the decision is plain wrong the penalty should not have been awarded, let alone a red card.

By: Alan Jacobs

Alan Jacobs — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:30:29 +0000

@A. I'm just kidding about it being "bollocks," of course, But I think it was perhaps a little, um, harsh because I don't think Kewell handled the ball deliberately, and the rule says it has to be deliberate. (This, I think, was the justification for the non-call on Torsten Frings against the U.S. in the 2002 Cup, which really was bollocks, since he stood in exactly the same place Kewell stood and stuck his bloody hand out.) And then you can have a debate, not about the ref's call, but about whether the rule as it is now written is a good one or whether it should be changed. A wholly separate question, of course.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:44:32 +0000

@dollymix aka, the delayed penalty. Great rule.