"It is an offence if a player: immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental" For a video that's meant to clear up confusion and ambiguities, your graphic at 2:48 only adds to the confusion. The 3rd line on the left page should be a subclause to the 2nd line.
Correct, but then it contradicts totally the right side where it says that is no longer an offene (scoring from a accidental handball of yor teammate/ yourself) lol. No clarity here at all.
If this was tifo irl we would be hearing how the handball law is like when you want a bacon sandwich but the sandwich shop says no hats and the definition of a hat is a detachable head covering so you can't come in because you're wearing a wig and don't want anyone to know you're bald
The rule, as open-ended and vague as it may seem, makes sense. What has to change is the way in which referees are trained to interpet rules and situations that amount to a reasonably fair decision. The technology has advanced so much that it requires for institution to cope with the same pace by which it has transformed, and at the crux of it is the knowledge, acumen, and competence of the referees that use, interpret, and apply these laws and tools. It as after all, still a human game.
Yeah the way referees (I used to be one) interepret these rules can be LARGELY different for each person. There are too many loop holes in the rule and as a referee I hated having to kinda guess on my own interpretation instead of it being a "clear cut" explanation of what is and isn't hand ball
The graphic at 2:48 has some important errors. - items 2 and 3 on the left should both be sub-bullets of "Scores in the opponents' goal:" -in item 3 on the left "or a team-mate's" should be removed or crossed out.
2:32 HANDLING THE BALL It is an offence if a player: - immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental. (not a great sentence from the FA but ok i get it) No longer an offence: accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence. these are totally contradictory statements and neither explain how its possible that Reece James got sent off. Also the natural position thing is wasted on refs who never played the game.
It's not contradictory, I think you are just misunderstanding it. The first sentence there is primarily referring to a defending team whereas the second is referring to the attacking one. Reece James' arm blocked the ball from going inside of the net, denying a goal-scoring opportunity - not creating one - and his arm movement after that seemed to push the ball away was reasonably interpreted as intentional, which is why he was sent off. Harsh punishment that ruined the game, but that ball was going in the back of the net if his arm didn't block it. If Reece James had accidentally handled the ball and it fell to Lukaku who then scored, the goal would still stand. So the second statement wouldn't explain why Reece James was sent off because it holds no relevancy to his situation.
I couldn't believe when they changed the rules in 2019 so that it meant you could kick a ball at a player's arm from 3 inches away and a penalty would be given no matter what. It was chaos, pedantic and made zero sense.
I feel like if common sense was applied to the Reece James handball against Liverpool, it would’ve been a penalty and no card. His arm was not in an unnatural position, not moving towards the ball (only looked like that because of the momentum of his body when moving to the side), and it hit his leg first before bouncing into arm. Completely accidental, and yes it’s still stopped a certain Liverpool goal so I think it should be a penalty as to not punish Liverpool, but it’s mental to me to punish a player by ruling them out of the rest of the match as well as getting them suspended for the next match. It’s crazy how you can get a suspension for something completely accidental and unavoidable.
It's only crazy if his arm was moving to the side with the momentum of his body; however, his arm was moving forward of his body and upwards to ensure the ball didn't slip by. It seemed harsh at first, but when you watch it again then you can clearly see that he definitely knew what he was doing as evidenced by the movement of his arm and his shoulder. The referee applied common sense by giving the penalty and sending him off.
It’s a red because a handball to stop the ball going into the goal is an automatic red card accidental or not if you stop a goal from going in with your hand it’s a red
If you have objective rules for handball you take out any human interpretation of the event. That's almost where we were last year and almost everyone hated it. Handball is always a grey area and you can't legislate for every situation. The new rules seem much better than last year's. It would be nice if they applied the rules evenly to clubs like Abu Dhabi FC as well as the likes of Burnley. But I won't hold my breath.
That is... literally the point. For the implenention of any rule (including that of handball) to be situation-specific, there has to be some room for ambiguity and room for interpretation. The laws cannot take into account the unquantifiable scenarios in a football pitch and therefore has to be open enough to apply to general situations but at the sane time, nuanced enough to provide some sense of standardization and consistency.
Is this not what football fans were asking for after the rule change?? This ALLOWS the rule to go back to what it used to be before VAR, only that now you’ll have cameras to further deliberate on the decision rather than relying on a split second decision.
I remember when we were little kids playing football at school and the town's square, when someone made a hard tackle or an obvious handball, we were like "Penalty!". Think about implementing it, FIFA.
What is the context in offside? It's a forward pass and the problem is that you need to draw the line somewhere. Now they've changed it so that the lines drawn from the striker and the defender should not overlap, but that just moves the microscope from the toe to the line. I don't think there is no getting around the microscope on offsides as there isn't when checking if the ball crossed the goalline. What I'm hoping is that this will be automated so that the linesmen get it into their ears if it was an offiside or not much quicker and won't have to wait for the play to go on like they do now.
@@srelma it could probably use a new definition like state that a attacking player cannot “surpass” a defending player… instead of just basing the rule on spatial position. It could also state that only players that are aiming for the ball can be offside. There’s many ways of making the game more dynamic without getting rid of the rule.
it would be good enough if a player were offside only when his feet are beyond the last defender. It would speed up var check quite a lot .. and it's absurd to see offsides called with players perfectly in line and the nose or forehead slightly offside.....
@@srelma it's simple: if the offside gives an advantage, it's offside, if they were just standing but someone's hand happened to be slightly closer to the goalpost, then then it's not offside. The rule used to be that, when in doubt, it's not offside. And obviously that interrupted the game much less.
I think this season has seen an improvement in how they rule on offsides with a thicker VAR line and no longer measuring from the armpit. Personally, I think offside should be called on the basis of a players positioning of their feet. Giving calls because a player is leaning slightly offside should not be punished, it should be considered smart offensive play.
It's putting the rules back the other way. Players will take advantage by using particular movements to be able to handle the ball legally. As much as the handball rule needed changing at least it didn't allow refs to let some players off and overly punish others for the same offence. I wish they would be clearer with the rules. VAR as much hate as it got has improved refereeing but it highlighted where the rules are lacking. Clear simple and concise and this move unfortunately is taking them the other direction. Not that I have the solution.
For good or bad football has always been that way and it probably should continue to be, because it seems impossible to fit all the different situations into a very concise and rigid rulebook. At least for such things such as what constitutes natural position of the arm and what body-to-body contact is actually a valid reason for a player to go down. My personal prediction is that without new technology advances in that particular rules would not happen. With the rise of AI I could actually see AI assisted refereeing being a real thing and that could eventually lead to more technology-based solution to that problem.
Well my guess is a better school for referees. They are the main issue. It's not human error, it's a lack of strict rulebook and strict people to enforce the rules. A handball is a handball, unless the arm is tight around the body and it's not on purpose. Is that so hard with VAR? Referees are plain bad, there are no guys like Colina anymore
@@theportugueselegend Define "not on purpose". I care not about Reece James or Chelsea but his handball did NOT look like a handball in their match against Liverpool. To me it didn't feel like it was on purpose. But other analysts easily demonstrated why I could be incorrect.
@@chillaxboi2109 it's exactly the "on purpose" part that is impossible to apply because as you said you can't be sure whether it was or was not. The severity of the offence should be based on its impact on the game (scoring a goal with an arm or denying one for instance). Much less room for interpretation. I think it's very harsh on an attacking team to have a goal denied by an arm intentional or not. I have very little faith that these new rules will improve the consistency and quality of decisions.
@@chillaxboi2109 See, to me, the Reece James red was absolutely justified (I also have no horse in this race as an Atletico and Milan fan). The ball may have bounced off his leg up to his arm, but watching the replay he also used his arm to push the ball forward out of the goal. If it had just hit his arm it would have still gone in, but his arm's forward motion was what kept it out. He could easily say it was unintentional (who knows, maybe it was) but I could easily see how that forward push could make it worthy of a red from the ref perspective. Edit- I also agree with the previous comment that the impact on the game should be taken into account, and I believe that's exactly what happened here. If that handball happened anywhere else other than the goal line, it would not have been a red. Because it blocked a clear and obvious goal, it was. Simple as that. If it had happened ten yards out it probably still would have been a penalty but likely no card would have been given.
Its a good thing that the rules have been made adjustable to situations, but it won't help much when the referee's lack common sense 💀 The refereeing has been pretty bad accross the board for a few years now, and the authorities not taking any action against them won't help.
It has to be said : Most penaltys I have seen given recently made me think "Understandable" at worst. Positive evolution when the neutral spectator or even fan admits there is no scandal.
Yeah I think it's been a while since I've seen a handball penalty that was actually controversial, not just fans of one team saying it was and the other team saying it wasn't. I can't think of any recently. I can think of non-handball penalties such as Sterling in the Euros, but not handballs. Things are going in the right direction for sure.
I'm less optimistic. Fans and pundits have been angry about inconsistent refereeing decisions for what feels like my entire life. Changing the rules of the game to give them more discretion will only exacerbate this. Refs are human and it's well established that they can be swayed by factors like home fans, media scrutiny, and previous decisions. However, I feel that this is going to put them under the spotlight even more and no good will come of it.
We were punished by the previous rule in the FA cup final against Leicester and suffer from the new rule against Liverpool. When will the rules favor Chelsea
I view this the exact opposite way. The more ambiguity in the way the law is written, the less consistently it will be enforced. That's the hard part of writing laws. Handball rules in the box shouldn't be based on intentionality because that is very hard to determine and thus will be a coin flip and never enforced consistently. Instead, it should depend on the severity of consequences. Like stopping a goal. Even if it is an accident, why punish the opposing team? It makes no sense to deny a team a goal from open play because of a flailing arm (unless it's the keeper's arm). When you're the last defender and you mess up your tackle, you get a red. Doesn't need to be intentional. But otherwise you punish the attacking team. The more complicated the handball rule, the more controversy you can expect. That's been the only consistent aspect of this constantly in flux handball rule.
@@rgonzalo511 Remove intentionality and silhouette from all the existing rules basically. They're simply impossible to interpret and thus legally meaningless. Red card only when the handball denied a goal.
Graphic at 2:48 is wrong. The left side should read: It is an offence if a player: -deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball (Addition) -touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player's body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised; or (restructured) -scores in the opponents' goal -directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper -immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.
I don't know which team Anthony Taylor is biased towards, but he did everything to hold Chelsea back. After all, that was the only way Liverpool would have scraped a point
He actually gave everything to Chelsea, let Chelsea players dive all around the pitch, the only decision that went against Chelsea only happened because of VAR, otherwise he'd have allowed Reece James to play goalie
I think the VAR is more solid with this Handball rule. Let's take Reece James example against Liverpool last week: He accidently touched the ball with his hands, but he blocked an obvious chance to score. In that situation, the referee should give him two options: Either they give him a red card and a penalty like what happened last week .. OR they will count it as a goal without sacrifying a player. That's my idea of better handball management.
Wait, isn't there a contradiction here? It is an offence if a player: - scores in the opponent's goal immediately after the ball has touched their or a teammates hand/arm, even if accidental. No longer an offence: - accidental handball that leads to a teammate scoring a goal or having a goal scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence. So is it an offence or not? lol
@@kukzzktara4925 its the complete opposite🤦♂️ his hands made him (twice btw) unnaturally bigger and in this situation it was off the line how is it not handball, so according to your logic suarez in the 2010 wc wasn't handball as well
@@aadas281 Yeah exactly I couldnt see any difference between the two. James clearly stopped it intentionally with his hand not like he was moving across, it hit his thigh and then his hand. Its a penalty but never a red
Couldn't we, after a handball by a defender in the penalty box, proceed with indirect free kick instead of a penalty kick? Would make the whole thing less severe.
The hand ball rule is a joke. They make it too specific, reduce the specification, mix the specification. Seems so backwards. Something with common sense and a clear guide to follow where the referee can make a structured decision is what's needed.
@@jacobweddell2438 I think you saw just the photo like the refree himself the ball came of his thigh and I was fine with a penalty but he didn't deserve a red card...even the the Anfield was booing that bizzare decision..!!
It’s easy if it touches your arm or hand it’s a hand ball and should be called that way. It doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose or by accident. That’s the rule plain and simple. If it happens in the box the other team get a penalty kick.
thats such a dumb expectation tho. there should be a focus on the game itself and not having to be worried that someone kicks the ball to your hand/arm and they get a penalty kick even if the shot was no where near being a goal
@@luiscamberos3404 I had a guy move to hit it with the hand but because he didn’t lift the arm it was not a penalty. The ball was gonna go in. We were robbed of that goal and the win. The game of soccer is trash this is the last season I’m going to coach over all the bs.
You also missed a few other parts, namely if the ball hits a different body of the player BEFORE hitting the hand, that would have not been handball but that part is taken out of this year's rules. Meaning there is actually less rules defending the player. The penalty and red card conceded by Chelsea last week would have not been given under last year's rule because it hit a different body part before hitting the hand.
Agreed in principle, with exceptions for things like findings of fact (e.g. did it touch his arm or not; did the defender actually make contact with the attacker's leg in the box or did he fall on his own, etc).
Hockey (the NHL and IIHF) has a better rule for goals where the puck doesn't come off a player's stick and used it for decades. If it's ruled unintentional (regardless of the player's body position or motion), it's a goal. If the player intentionally puts a body part or a skate in a position to redirect it, it's disallowed. Why can't soccer do that?
Great video as always Tifo ! Keep up the great work. I'd personally love to see a video explaining why players get a yellow card for taking their shirt off when celebrating... especially when they have an extra layer underneath. This follows on from when Sterling celebrated his goal against Hungary last night by paying tribute to someone close to him. Think it's wrong that player get punished for that.
It's one thing when a penalty is given because the handball rules are too strict, but it's even more infuriating when a penalty is given because the ref didn't read the rulebook. Case study: Atletico almost got robbed off 3 points when a penalty was given when the ball bounced off Llorente's chest uncontrollably onto his wrist in the first league match against Celta. A similar penalty was given against Atletico in the UCL game against Lokomotiv when it bounced off Herrera's chest. This time, the rulebook clearly stated that a self-inflicted accidental handball does not constitute a penalty, yet the ref gave the penalty anyway.
So it's an offence if a player scores "immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental" but no longer an offence for "accidental handball that leads to a teammate scoring" ... so which is it? 🤔
I still remember the champions league final spurs vs liverpool, when the ball struck sissoko’s armpit and was given a penalty. Totally ruined the rest of the game as liverpool parked the bus after the penalty.
This is the decision I always think about when it comes to the handball rule. I support neither Liverpool nor Tottenham but that decision infuriated me as a defender.
At the end its all depends on the referee decision. If the referee is knowledgeable and have a common sense than its okay. But PL referee is just.. *sigh
the law should be written and followed universally. Not given to a one person interpretation of it.. !! That's a huge mistake!! The law has to be clear and no ambiguity at all!! No chance of different outcomes if given to different people.. it would not be an applicable law!! It would be who's who guessing game! This a game killer !!! Creating confusion and chaos!! That's sad!!
Do you know which version of the rule was in place when a penalty was given against Ivan Perišić for handball in the 2018 World Cup final? I can't remember when the first major change happened. Thanks.
It would be awesome to have your insight on Vini Jr's score with his shoulder for Real Madrid in his last game against Almeria. Was it correctly allowed?
Yes it hit his thigh first, then to the arm. But it was a clear obstruction of the goal, without Reece standing there it would 100% be a goal, so it was a red. Not to mention there was a slight motion from his arm that prevented the ball from going in
@@Bork_In_Volcanic It was most certainly not deliberate, that was just the instinctual motion anyone would make when the ball is coming at them. The only way James could have avoided a handball is to have cut off his arm. That's how stupid the rules have become. I agree it was a penalty but it most certainly was NOT a red card.
@@areebsiddiqui758 or if he did the sensible thing in the first place an tucked his hands behind his back. He's not jumping he didn't need his hands in that situation
Personally, despite the positive improvements, I still think the new handball rule is worse, not better, than the pre-2019 rules. If a player completely accidentally handles the ball, then scores, that's disallowed. But if they instead square it to a team-mate for a tap-in, that's a goal. In what world does that make sense? Furthermore the whole discourse of 'unnaturally bigger' makes no sense. Your arms are a part of your body, how can they make it 'unnaturally bigger'? The original rule was, at least, simple. Deliberately handling the ball is a foul, anywhere on the pitch, regardless of what happens next. Inadvertently handling it (e.g. it ricochets into you while you're stretching to intercept a cross) is never a foul. Yes there's always going to be an element of subjectivity in whether it was deliberate, but that still makes so much more sense to me than disallowing goals such as Mac Allister's against Spurs at the weekend where the ball was literally fired into his arm from point-blank range.
This is all great. But if you're Anthony Taylor, you just look to see if the ball had touched his hand/arm and give a penalty, then send the naughty player off.
Because that would make a Luis Suarez incident (world cup vs Ghana where he saves the ball with his hand) more likely to work out. And it would go against the spirit of football. A handball is a foul.
The only thing that made Reece James red card was the movement of the arm forward, and even then is a very soft penalty and card. But I doubt the referee even saw that before making the decision.
But the ball had already hit is arm and deflected away from goal before he swung his arm forward. The ball went straight from leg to arm, and then he flicked his arm and missed
How was that anything less than stonewall? His arm being where it is is the only reason the goal doesn't happen. It's the most obvious penalty you'll see all season
@@bri1085 the question is, is his arm in natural position when the ball strikes his arm? Given he shifted suddenly to legally knee the ball first, I'd say yes. Its a close call because as soon as he moves his arm after, if he had made contact it would be handball, but he doesn't make any contact I could see (which could be unsportsmanlike conduct, but not a handball). It's definitely not obvious, last year this explicitly wasn't a handball since they had the close deflection clause
@@logtron it's not last season anymore, hasn't been for 3 months. His hands is enlarging his silhouette to give him an advantage, like the ball coming off the arm of an attacking player it's a foul. Intent is irrelevant here
@@logtron I think the intent matters? So even though the arm moving forward made little to no difference, it showed James tried to prevent a goal using his arms, by natural reflect or otherwise.
More situation specific. Which is more in the ref's opinion. Which means less consistent decisions from ref to ref. Which means loads of moaning about inconsistent reffing. Which means the law makers tweak the law to be easier to apply and more consistent. Which leads to pundits crying out for more common sense. So the laws are tweaked to be more situation specific. Which leads to more inconsistency. Which leads to pundits crying out for more consistency. You see where this is going?
The truth is that nobody really knows what is and what isn’t handball, no matter how clear the rules are, ref’s could be shown the same clip one week and give it as handball and then not give it the next week
I still remember someone made a shot or a long pass against United and the ball was about to clap Pogba's face. He protected his face only instinctively (seriously, else would anyone let a shot hit his face just like that!?) and United conceded a penalty. FFS!
Handball penalty rules need to be revised. I see lots of penalties awarded where there was no unfair advantage for the defending team and sometimes the ball isn't even deflected. We're obviously born with arms so we have to accept that they're attached to our shoulders
The number of penalties given in a season is not a statistic that tells you there is something wrong with the rules or officiating. Tired of people making this silly argument. Football is rife with cheating, constant grabbing, barging, pulling that shouldn't be acceptable in the slightest, and isn't part of the rules, yet is just accepted constantly. The game would be beautiful if it were played and officiated fairly. That said the handball rule did definitely need the update that it's seen, it amazes me it didn't acknowledge that a 'natural' position for the arms could be different depending on the circumstance of play. The lawmakers of the game are just so slow and out of touch it's unreal.
Right so the way that me and my mates do handball at five-a-side because it makes the most bloody sense. I don't understand why this common-sense approach was so hard to reach. Were the old guidelines really so strict that refs couldn't be "situation-specific?
Absolutely all hands inside the area should be foul: If intentional => Penalty, yellow card. (Red card, if it stops a shot on goal) If not intentional => Indirect kick inside the area ("falta indirecta" in spanish, I don't know exactly how they call it in english), and of course, not card of any color. The referee should decide if it was intentional or not.
That would be stupid, people can cut off their hands, and if an attacker shots them against the arm when their arm is against their own body, how would that be a free kick? Any foul should be at least some degree of either negligence or intent. Your way of making a handball rule would subvert that. Sounds like a bigger mess than what we've had last season.
@@Jonathanizer I respectfully disagree. The problem with the fouls caused by touching the ball with the hand inside the area, is that the difference between an intentional hand and an involuntary hand it's enormous. From penalty and red card, to absolutely nothing. That makes the referee's decision extremly hard, controversial, and prone to be accused of being partial and/or injust. Even if we consider that the referee is trying to be as fair as posible, the diference in the consequences is extremly high. But if you, beforehand, know that touching the ball with the hand or arm it's going to be a foul, the decision will be less polemic. I don't know much about basketball, but as far as I know, every touch of the ball with your feet it's foul. The fact that in fútbol it is not the same with hands, is what makes players "play" with this loophole... ("No, I didn't want to touch the ball on purpose, it was involuntary") In my opinion, every hand should be foul (indirect kick), and only the clearly intentional for the referee should be penalty.
@@migteleco Well, you bring up a good point, with a situation being either nothing or a huge deal, as in no foul or foul with card and penalty. Maybe one could introduce a lighter version of punishment like an indirect freekick. However i still think, this should not apply to hand balls that are clearly unintentional and could not be prevented by the defender other than by not having hands. Making every hand ball a foul, no matter what the context of it happening, is imho wrong. As i said, no negligence or intent should mean no foul. Also it's very different from basketball. Even if i would accept your premise, that football should look to a much less popular sport for their application of rules, which i highly doubt is a good way of doing things, then it's still not comparable. A foul in basketball is far less impactful. In a game like football, that has on average 2-3 goals, punishing an unintentional handball with a good scoring opportunity (penalty or indirect free kick) is very different than giving possession or even a free throw to a team in basket ball. There is much more scoring in basketball, and such differences will have far less impact on the outcome of the game, compared to football.
Thanks for this. Hope it works. Will the refs be able to review possible handballs or do they have to make a spot decision and stand by it? It did seem, during the last regime that attackers were aiming for arms and gaining penalties without their being deserved
The problem isn't the "handball", but that the punishment is way too harsh. The problem is: You can't "Not react", if a handball blocks a shot or a pass. But as a referee, you always ask yourself: Is this enough for a penalty. The easy solution everyone ignores: Indirect free kicks. Except, of course, if you save a goal like Luiz Suarez did against Ghana in 2010. The referees could make consistent decisions, which is the most important thing Players and Coaches could adapt to and prepare for these situations. Fans get this exciting new element, which normally only happens once every couple years. And they don't have to argue about different interpretations of the Hand Rule anymore. But Football is too complacent to introduce new ideas like "consistently awarding indirect free kicks in the penalty zone", so we will never see it.
@@javidproductions9353 yeah, but you don't need to. Just look up the Bundesliga Final from... boah, when was it... 2001. And yes, that would be the situations we talk about. Easier to defend, then a penalty, still so dangerous, that you dont want to risk it.
Penalties are making the sport of football displeasing to watch, I think everyone agrees on that. We want to see in-play action, team play, combinations and individual class to result in a goal. The Penalty rules altogether have to be revised. As the video shows, only 6/20 pens were due to handball offenses, still too high if that number drops. I see 3 steps to achieve a more watchable and fluent game. 1) the new handball rules are a good start. In my opinion, the rules should be a little more clear and immediately recognizable… Not so much open to interpretation 2) only award a penalty in the box if the player is facing the opponent's goal side!! If the movement was towards the goal line, it's a pen. Otherwise, an indirect free kick! (short distance standards are more exciting than pens!) 3) punish diving/simulation more severely and consistently. VAR has to be in constant communication with the ref anyway. Double check quickly and hand out yellows whenever you can, even for little stuff as being hit in the elbow and grabbing your face. Football players have been more and more acting like little spoiled kids on the pitch, and it's making games unwatchable... even when giants clash.
For the 3rd rule, that also means that fouls should be awarded more often due to the simple fact that many do not flop around and as a result just don't get fouls called.
@@chillaxboi2109 i dont think so actually. if its a clear foul, you fall! otherwise you can stop and get the foul or continue fighting with the advantage rule
@@LukaCekovic Neves stopped - didn't get the foul. Pogba did not get send off for an over the top of the ball tackle while over-reaching and United scored directly from that. All these decisions are saying to players is that if you do not fall you will not get the foul - encouraging diving as a by product. If Pogba was an inch to the right he could have broken Neves's leg instead it scraped him and slid on his shin guard.
Rule 2 would be opening the Pandora's box in trying to interpret it correctly. When you say goal side do you mean the line between the sticks only? And if someone is facing it diagonally do you have to bring the VAR lines out to check? And what happens if someone is not facing it but is attempting a back-heel/overhead kick? I've seen players score with the back of their heads while facing away from goal, so what happens if they're fouled within the 6-yard box? What happens if a player is brought down in a wrestling match but not facing the goal? Does your face count as facing the goal when the rest of your body is pointing away from it or vice versa?
Anddd this was recommended right after Man Utd lost on penalties against Middlesbrough after a questionable handball call, love the algorithm sometimes
Is it just me, or does 2:43 not make sense? “It is an offence if a player immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental.” That makes no grammatical sense. What does that mean? If a player does *what* immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm? Am I missing something? I had thought that perhaps it meant that it would be an offence if they scored a goal immediately after it touched their hand/arm immediately after, referencing the previous rule, but it can't mean that as it would then contradict the rule that states it wouldn't be an offence, as seen at 2:49? Or does it mean that it is an offence if a player *handles the ball* (again) immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm? So it is like the double accidental handball that makes it an offence? Please tell me if I've missed something, obvious or otherwise!
@@fr0ge13 Aha, thanks, that makes a little bit more sense. But even so, that is still a contradiction to what the fourth bullet point in that graphic is saying, so I'm still confused.
@@DiehardSatsuma so what you said about the double hand ball being an offense should be correct, and the fouth bullet point says it is NOT an offense if the ATTACKING team has an accidental handball leading to a goal or big chance, so the goal would still be allowed or a free kick wouldn't be given. hope this clears up your question
VAR can never be perfect, at the end of the day most decision on a football pitch are subjective. I can guarantee that even after 50 years fans would still be arguing over VAR decisions. VAR or no VAR football will always be controversial, it is just the nature of this sport. Moreover, this controversies are what makes football interesting (obviously if not your team is on the losing side).
@@soludsnak yea but now they’d call handball if it wasn’t close enough to the body even tho it wouldn’t affect the ball trajectory at all. I’d only call handball when arms/hands are chest level or higher, or deliberately blocking a shot with the hand
Will never forget how a Sheffield player tripped Moura and kicked the ball to the back of his arm as he was on the ground, which bounced off to kane that scored. But VAR ruled it out and not even a foul was given. Spurs got robbed so much
I mean, Llorente sent Man City out of UCL a few years ago by scoring a goal with his hand so... 🤷🏼 I think most teams have suffered from poorly written rules. I found the offside rule last season unbelievable by times. Someone's hand was beyond the defender so it's offisde? 🤔
Moura extended his arm in front of him as he was falling forward and his hand touched the ball as the Sheffield player kicked it, so the goal was correctly disallowed - I just looked at it. Accidental or not, doesn't matter. A foul should have been given, but that's not a clear and obvious error, and it does not guarantee a goal, so Spurs were hardly rubbed. If I was a Spurs fan though I'd probably feel aggrieved too, but with the law - not VAR or the referee.
The handball law was introduced to prevent players picking the ball up and carrying it. There are two choices. Either a handball decison is based on opinion or based on fact. Opinion: the laws will be tweaked, footage analysed and debated indefinately. Fact: any contact (regardless of intent) will be punished.
@@robert2690 Under current handball laws, no. However, if the plan is to have no incorrect decisions for handball, change the law and take opinion out of it. Wouldn't be my choice though.
@@rgonzalo511 No. I'm not sure you've understood what I've written. What I mean is that there is an alternative to the continuing changes, debate and inconsistancies with the current handball law. Wouldn't be my choice though.
But but but When are we going to understand that everything in slow motion looks deliberate, intentional When are we going to see the replay in actual footage and not in slow or still images like in the case of reece james against Liverpool
What got James sent off was the reaction after it his his arm, if James kept his arms by his sides instead of the reaction after with his arm then it shouldn't have been a penalty or a red card. (How I read the rules anyway).
@@nijjijjion204 I think it was always going to be a penalty. If his arm didn't block the ball, it would have gone in the back of the net. I do agree that the sending off was a really harsh decision, though. It ruined that game.
@@aiden3648 Even if the arm is in a natural position will it always be a penalty if it stops a goal? (As well it being a rebounding from another body part) That part of the rules I don't understand.
Very good video. I think the handball issue is less of a problem than it is made out to be as it is more about judgement than a black or white decision. Therefore 2 or 3 times a season there is going to be a controversial decision and people need to accept that.
Three things in life are guaranteed, death, taxes and arguments over whether it was handball or not
One might add : whether it was offside or not ?
What do you say?
@@timothygarycarolus1018 He was never offside!
Ok but that wont change the fact you can now get a 30 day free trail for the atletic for free
Amazon doesnt pay tax
@@karigrandii neither Microsoft
"It is an offence if a player: immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental"
For a video that's meant to clear up confusion and ambiguities, your graphic at 2:48 only adds to the confusion. The 3rd line on the left page should be a subclause to the 2nd line.
oh, it's a subclause! I was so confused by that.
Correct, but then it contradicts totally the right side where it says that is no longer an offene (scoring from a accidental handball of yor teammate/ yourself) lol. No clarity here at all.
i still don't understand 😕
@@Apfelstrudl The difference being "deliberate" and "accidental". And it's up to the ref to decide which one defines a given handball incident
The rise of TIFO is the best thing to happen to football in the last 5 years
prefer umaxit myself
Nope. Best thing to happen is the addition of VAR or goal line technology.
Until they started branding with the garbage athletic
Yeah no, if they were more unbiased maybe so, but not until they learn to focus more.on international football
😭😭😭
If this was tifo irl we would be hearing how the handball law is like when you want a bacon sandwich but the sandwich shop says no hats and the definition of a hat is a detachable head covering so you can't come in because you're wearing a wig and don't want anyone to know you're bald
But what is the hat's xG?
read the whole thing in JJs voice
This comment is genius
that is brilliantly correct
are u joe undercover?
Joe Devine: “ANALOGY!”
The rule, as open-ended and vague as it may seem, makes sense. What has to change is the way in which referees are trained to interpet rules and situations that amount to a reasonably fair decision.
The technology has advanced so much that it requires for institution to cope with the same pace by which it has transformed, and at the crux of it is the knowledge, acumen, and competence of the referees that use, interpret, and apply these laws and tools.
It as after all, still a human game.
Yeah the way referees (I used to be one) interepret these rules can be LARGELY different for each person. There are too many loop holes in the rule and as a referee I hated having to kinda guess on my own interpretation instead of it being a "clear cut" explanation of what is and isn't hand ball
The graphic at 2:48 has some important errors.
- items 2 and 3 on the left should both be sub-bullets of "Scores in the opponents' goal:"
-in item 3 on the left "or a team-mate's" should be removed or crossed out.
2:32
HANDLING THE BALL
It is an offence if a player: - immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental. (not a great sentence from the FA but ok i get it)
No longer an offence: accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence.
these are totally contradictory statements and neither explain how its possible that Reece James got sent off. Also the natural position thing is wasted on refs who never played the game.
I agree except with your last sentence. Professional refs in general are also amateur players or have been for a long time.
It's not contradictory, I think you are just misunderstanding it.
The first sentence there is primarily referring to a defending team whereas the second is referring to the attacking one.
Reece James' arm blocked the ball from going inside of the net, denying a goal-scoring opportunity - not creating one - and his arm movement after that seemed to push the ball away was reasonably interpreted as intentional, which is why he was sent off. Harsh punishment that ruined the game, but that ball was going in the back of the net if his arm didn't block it.
If Reece James had accidentally handled the ball and it fell to Lukaku who then scored, the goal would still stand.
So the second statement wouldn't explain why Reece James was sent off because it holds no relevancy to his situation.
I couldn't believe when they changed the rules in 2019 so that it meant you could kick a ball at a player's arm from 3 inches away and a penalty would be given no matter what. It was chaos, pedantic and made zero sense.
Tip for not giving away penalties and also winning them: Don’t be Arsenal
I feel like if common sense was applied to the Reece James handball against Liverpool, it would’ve been a penalty and no card. His arm was not in an unnatural position, not moving towards the ball (only looked like that because of the momentum of his body when moving to the side), and it hit his leg first before bouncing into arm. Completely accidental, and yes it’s still stopped a certain Liverpool goal so I think it should be a penalty as to not punish Liverpool, but it’s mental to me to punish a player by ruling them out of the rest of the match as well as getting them suspended for the next match. It’s crazy how you can get a suspension for something completely accidental and unavoidable.
@@Antonio-hb8rd If it's still being discussed and there's still arguments for and against, it's still pretty much disputable.
@@Antonio-hb8rd that’s a common reflex he was also panicked so it was completely natural not unnatural
It's only crazy if his arm was moving to the side with the momentum of his body; however, his arm was moving forward of his body and upwards to ensure the ball didn't slip by. It seemed harsh at first, but when you watch it again then you can clearly see that he definitely knew what he was doing as evidenced by the movement of his arm and his shoulder. The referee applied common sense by giving the penalty and sending him off.
It’s a red because a handball to stop the ball going into the goal is an automatic red card accidental or not if you stop a goal from going in with your hand it’s a red
@@brandonwilson5253 Did you watch the video or nah?
This still leaves a lot of ambiguity,confusion, and room for interpretation.
If you have objective rules for handball you take out any human interpretation of the event. That's almost where we were last year and almost everyone hated it. Handball is always a grey area and you can't legislate for every situation. The new rules seem much better than last year's.
It would be nice if they applied the rules evenly to clubs like Abu Dhabi FC as well as the likes of Burnley. But I won't hold my breath.
Have you watched the video at all? You’re asking for the 1.2 penalties per game rule back lol
That is... literally the point. For the implenention of any rule (including that of handball) to be situation-specific, there has to be some room for ambiguity and room for interpretation.
The laws cannot take into account the unquantifiable scenarios in a football pitch and therefore has to be open enough to apply to general situations but at the sane time, nuanced enough to provide some sense of standardization and consistency.
@@dansanchez7129 EXACTLY
Is this not what football fans were asking for after the rule change?? This ALLOWS the rule to go back to what it used to be before VAR, only that now you’ll have cameras to further deliberate on the decision rather than relying on a split second decision.
I still remember the lindelof handball vs crystal Palace, It was one of the most bizarre decisions I've seen.
I remember when we were little kids playing football at school and the town's square, when someone made a hard tackle or an obvious handball, we were like "Penalty!".
Think about implementing it, FIFA.
So, like basketball rules?
more context oriented rules are welcomed, maybe offside rules next? since they both designed NOT to be looked over microscope
What is the context in offside? It's a forward pass and the problem is that you need to draw the line somewhere. Now they've changed it so that the lines drawn from the striker and the defender should not overlap, but that just moves the microscope from the toe to the line.
I don't think there is no getting around the microscope on offsides as there isn't when checking if the ball crossed the goalline.
What I'm hoping is that this will be automated so that the linesmen get it into their ears if it was an offiside or not much quicker and won't have to wait for the play to go on like they do now.
@@srelma it could probably use a new definition like state that a attacking player cannot “surpass” a defending player… instead of just basing the rule on spatial position. It could also state that only players that are aiming for the ball can be offside. There’s many ways of making the game more dynamic without getting rid of the rule.
it would be good enough if a player were offside only when his feet are beyond the last defender. It would speed up var check quite a lot .. and it's absurd to see offsides called with players perfectly in line and the nose or forehead slightly offside.....
@@srelma it's simple: if the offside gives an advantage, it's offside, if they were just standing but someone's hand happened to be slightly closer to the goalpost, then then it's not offside. The rule used to be that, when in doubt, it's not offside. And obviously that interrupted the game much less.
I think this season has seen an improvement in how they rule on offsides with a thicker VAR line and no longer measuring from the armpit.
Personally, I think offside should be called on the basis of a players positioning of their feet. Giving calls because a player is leaning slightly offside should not be punished, it should be considered smart offensive play.
It's putting the rules back the other way. Players will take advantage by using particular movements to be able to handle the ball legally.
As much as the handball rule needed changing at least it didn't allow refs to let some players off and overly punish others for the same offence.
I wish they would be clearer with the rules. VAR as much hate as it got has improved refereeing but it highlighted where the rules are lacking. Clear simple and concise and this move unfortunately is taking them the other direction. Not that I have the solution.
For good or bad football has always been that way and it probably should continue to be, because it seems impossible to fit all the different situations into a very concise and rigid rulebook. At least for such things such as what constitutes natural position of the arm and what body-to-body contact is actually a valid reason for a player to go down.
My personal prediction is that without new technology advances in that particular rules would not happen. With the rise of AI I could actually see AI assisted refereeing being a real thing and that could eventually lead to more technology-based solution to that problem.
Well my guess is a better school for referees. They are the main issue. It's not human error, it's a lack of strict rulebook and strict people to enforce the rules. A handball is a handball, unless the arm is tight around the body and it's not on purpose. Is that so hard with VAR? Referees are plain bad, there are no guys like Colina anymore
@@theportugueselegend Define "not on purpose". I care not about Reece James or Chelsea but his handball did NOT look like a handball in their match against Liverpool. To me it didn't feel like it was on purpose. But other analysts easily demonstrated why I could be incorrect.
@@chillaxboi2109 it's exactly the "on purpose" part that is impossible to apply because as you said you can't be sure whether it was or was not.
The severity of the offence should be based on its impact on the game (scoring a goal with an arm or denying one for instance). Much less room for interpretation. I think it's very harsh on an attacking team to have a goal denied by an arm intentional or not.
I have very little faith that these new rules will improve the consistency and quality of decisions.
@@chillaxboi2109 See, to me, the Reece James red was absolutely justified (I also have no horse in this race as an Atletico and Milan fan). The ball may have bounced off his leg up to his arm, but watching the replay he also used his arm to push the ball forward out of the goal. If it had just hit his arm it would have still gone in, but his arm's forward motion was what kept it out. He could easily say it was unintentional (who knows, maybe it was) but I could easily see how that forward push could make it worthy of a red from the ref perspective.
Edit- I also agree with the previous comment that the impact on the game should be taken into account, and I believe that's exactly what happened here. If that handball happened anywhere else other than the goal line, it would not have been a red. Because it blocked a clear and obvious goal, it was. Simple as that. If it had happened ten yards out it probably still would have been a penalty but likely no card would have been given.
Its a good thing that the rules have been made adjustable to situations, but it won't help much when the referee's lack common sense 💀
The refereeing has been pretty bad accross the board for a few years now, and the authorities not taking any action against them won't help.
Anybody else here after Reece James's straight red for an unintentional handball?
Reece James was sent off for denial of a goal with his hand
It has to be said : Most penaltys I have seen given recently made me think "Understandable" at worst.
Positive evolution when the neutral spectator or even fan admits there is no scandal.
Yeah I think it's been a while since I've seen a handball penalty that was actually controversial, not just fans of one team saying it was and the other team saying it wasn't. I can't think of any recently. I can think of non-handball penalties such as Sterling in the Euros, but not handballs. Things are going in the right direction for sure.
These comments aged badly
(Man Utd vs Middlesbrough, FA Cup 4th Round)
@@thedrinkinggamemaker9749 yeah it was just luck that the first weeks were refereed the right way
Catastrophe from start to finish, until now
I'm less optimistic. Fans and pundits have been angry about inconsistent refereeing decisions for what feels like my entire life. Changing the rules of the game to give them more discretion will only exacerbate this. Refs are human and it's well established that they can be swayed by factors like home fans, media scrutiny, and previous decisions. However, I feel that this is going to put them under the spotlight even more and no good will come of it.
100% agree. It sounds like a good idea to qualify a rule a million ways but in reality it just makes a rule impossible to enforce consistently.
We were punished by the previous rule in the FA cup final against Leicester and suffer from the new rule against Liverpool. When will the rules favor Chelsea
when will the rules favor chelsea? when you play with the rules, not againts it!
Dude rules are not made for specific clubs, take your blue glasses off maybe.
The last bullet point on the left contradicts the "no longer an offence" bullet point.... Or is it me!?
Aye I actually think they might've formatted that wrong by mistake.
I view this the exact opposite way. The more ambiguity in the way the law is written, the less consistently it will be enforced. That's the hard part of writing laws.
Handball rules in the box shouldn't be based on intentionality because that is very hard to determine and thus will be a coin flip and never enforced consistently. Instead, it should depend on the severity of consequences. Like stopping a goal. Even if it is an accident, why punish the opposing team? It makes no sense to deny a team a goal from open play because of a flailing arm (unless it's the keeper's arm).
When you're the last defender and you mess up your tackle, you get a red. Doesn't need to be intentional. But otherwise you punish the attacking team.
The more complicated the handball rule, the more controversy you can expect. That's been the only consistent aspect of this constantly in flux handball rule.
So how would you write it? Your saying it needs to be concise but that near impossible to do.
@@rgonzalo511 Remove intentionality and silhouette from all the existing rules basically. They're simply impossible to interpret and thus legally meaningless. Red card only when the handball denied a goal.
Graphic at 2:48 is wrong.
The left side should read:
It is an offence if a player:
-deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
(Addition)
-touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player's body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised; or
(restructured)
-scores in the opponents' goal
-directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
-immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.
Hmm. Also for the Vietnamese fan too. Saudi Arabia have a questionable hand ball call today in Vietnam-Saudi match
Money rules, my guy
Saudis have umm resources. The Vietnamese currently lack that. My sympathies.
I don't know which team Anthony Taylor is biased towards, but he did everything to hold Chelsea back. After all, that was the only way Liverpool would have scraped a point
He's always hated chelsea
Arsenal won the 2019 fa cup only bcuz of him
Hahaha, kid deliberately pulled a Suarez on a goal line, what you did expect to receive?
Just look at camera from sideline, not the main one. It was clear as a day.
He actually gave everything to Chelsea, let Chelsea players dive all around the pitch, the only decision that went against Chelsea only happened because of VAR, otherwise he'd have allowed Reece James to play goalie
@@bri1085 what match were you watching
I think the VAR is more solid with this Handball rule. Let's take Reece James example against Liverpool last week: He accidently touched the ball with his hands, but he blocked an obvious chance to score. In that situation, the referee should give him two options: Either they give him a red card and a penalty like what happened last week .. OR they will count it as a goal without sacrifying a player. That's my idea of better handball management.
Nope. That's a penalty and a yellow card because it's not on purpose. Easy and simple. If he blocks it out of desperation it's a red.
@@theportugueselegend accidental or not, it was a clear goal opportunity, and every foul on that instance is an instant red card.
I want a video about referee pre-judgement.
I.e. Why someone like Xhaka is more likely to get sent off than Kane for a less bad challenge.
wish tifo would link the background music, it's subtle but it's always good
need an updated video specifically for today's game (belgium vs slovakia)
Wait, isn't there a contradiction here?
It is an offence if a player:
- scores in the opponent's goal immediately after the ball has touched their or a teammates hand/arm, even if accidental.
No longer an offence:
- accidental handball that leads to a teammate scoring a goal or having a goal scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence.
So is it an offence or not? lol
I read that as ref discretion to allow play on instead of needing to dish out fouls and cards
@@losteeazn oh okay
Video made for chelsea & liverpool fans🤣🔫🔫
Haha. Liverpool were lucky
@@kukzzktara4925 its the complete opposite🤦♂️ his hands made him (twice btw) unnaturally bigger and in this situation it was off the line how is it not handball, so according to your logic suarez in the 2010 wc wasn't handball as well
🤣🤣🤣
@@aadas281 Yeah exactly I couldnt see any difference between the two. James clearly stopped it intentionally with his hand not like he was moving across, it hit his thigh and then his hand. Its a penalty but never a red
Violence so early in the morning?! 🤣😭
Couldn't we, after a handball by a defender in the penalty box, proceed with indirect free kick instead of a penalty kick? Would make the whole thing less severe.
I've thought about this aswell, why make this binary situation where you either give the team the mostsevere punishment in the game or nothing happens
The hand ball rule is a joke. They make it too specific, reduce the specification, mix the specification. Seems so backwards. Something with common sense and a clear guide to follow where the referee can make a structured decision is what's needed.
Give an example on how the rule should be written
I didn't notice these new rules in the Liverpool vs Chelsea game...
Reece James was given a penalty and a Red Card..!!!!
Denial of a goal scoring opportunity, plus his arm was in an unnatural position,
@@jacobweddell2438 I think you saw just the photo like the refree himself the ball came of his thigh and I was fine with a penalty but he didn't deserve a red card...even the the Anfield was booing that bizzare decision..!!
@@devilsdemon3902 It was a red card. I watched the game. He moved his arm to stop the ball. It was a difficult situation but that is a red by rule.
@@devilsdemon3902 accidental or not, its denying a clear goal opportunity
It’s easy if it touches your arm or hand it’s a hand ball and should be called that way. It doesn’t matter if it’s on purpose or by accident. That’s the rule plain and simple. If it happens in the box the other team get a penalty kick.
thats such a dumb expectation tho. there should be a focus on the game itself and not having to be worried that someone kicks the ball to your hand/arm and they get a penalty kick even if the shot was no where near being a goal
@@luiscamberos3404 I had a guy move to hit it with the hand but because he didn’t lift the arm it was not a penalty. The ball was gonna go in. We were robbed of that goal and the win. The game of soccer is trash this is the last season I’m going to coach over all the bs.
You also missed a few other parts, namely if the ball hits a different body of the player BEFORE hitting the hand, that would have not been handball but that part is taken out of this year's rules. Meaning there is actually less rules defending the player.
The penalty and red card conceded by Chelsea last week would have not been given under last year's rule because it hit a different body part before hitting the hand.
Also VAR should be shown in real time. Not in slow motion. Slowing it down changes your perception of the action.
Agreed in principle, with exceptions for things like findings of fact (e.g. did it touch his arm or not; did the defender actually make contact with the attacker's leg in the box or did he fall on his own, etc).
Hockey (the NHL and IIHF) has a better rule for goals where the puck doesn't come off a player's stick and used it for decades. If it's ruled unintentional (regardless of the player's body position or motion), it's a goal. If the player intentionally puts a body part or a skate in a position to redirect it, it's disallowed. Why can't soccer do that?
Great video as always Tifo ! Keep up the great work. I'd personally love to see a video explaining why players get a yellow card for taking their shirt off when celebrating... especially when they have an extra layer underneath. This follows on from when Sterling celebrated his goal against Hungary last night by paying tribute to someone close to him. Think it's wrong that player get punished for that.
Team mate does a hand ball... If you score immediately, it is a free kick. But if it "leads to a goal", that's not a free kick ?!?! Is this correct?
It's one thing when a penalty is given because the handball rules are too strict, but it's even more infuriating when a penalty is given because the ref didn't read the rulebook.
Case study: Atletico almost got robbed off 3 points when a penalty was given when the ball bounced off Llorente's chest uncontrollably onto his wrist in the first league match against Celta. A similar penalty was given against Atletico in the UCL game against Lokomotiv when it bounced off Herrera's chest.
This time, the rulebook clearly stated that a self-inflicted accidental handball does not constitute a penalty, yet the ref gave the penalty anyway.
Unnatural position/glowing red arms guy is almost certain to haunt me in my nightmares. Cheers, Tifo!
So it's an offence if a player scores "immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental" but no longer an offence for "accidental handball that leads to a teammate scoring" ... so which is it? 🤔
I still remember the champions league final spurs vs liverpool, when the ball struck sissoko’s armpit and was given a penalty. Totally ruined the rest of the game as liverpool parked the bus after the penalty.
This is the decision I always think about when it comes to the handball rule. I support neither Liverpool nor Tottenham but that decision infuriated me as a defender.
It didn't just strike Sissoko's armpit, Sadio Mane specifically aimed for his arm making no attempt to play or pass the ball
At the end its all depends on the referee decision. If the referee is knowledgeable and have a common sense than its okay. But PL referee is just.. *sigh
Basically you're saying that the handball that led to Ronaldos first goal against Ireland wasn't a handball?
Absolutely awful ref
He'll be handsomely rewarded by UEFA for that game.
Teams have lost cups because of the constant swapping and changing.
the law should be written and followed universally. Not given to a one person interpretation of it.. !! That's a huge mistake!! The law has to be clear and no ambiguity at all!! No chance of different outcomes if given to different people.. it would not be an applicable law!! It would be who's who guessing game! This a game killer !!! Creating confusion and chaos!! That's sad!!
What if a defender was doing the despicable 'dab' ?
Watching this after Vini's goal against Almeria. It's all clear now
Josh Cullen’s “handball” that lead to the Portugal equaliser 🤦🏻♂️
Do you know which version of the rule was in place when a penalty was given against Ivan Perišić for handball in the 2018 World Cup final? I can't remember when the first major change happened. Thanks.
Understandably, both players and managers should learn to adapt and use this as a means to make football more interesting all season long.
By kicking ball to hand!
There should be a rule book with a lot of visual examples showing if in this scenario was handball penalty or not. It would solve most of the problems
The issue wasn't unclear rules, the rules were clear but far too harsh.
Whenever I see “handball,” I can’t help but think about Maradona’s goal lol
It would be awesome to have your insight on Vini Jr's score with his shoulder for Real Madrid in his last game against Almeria. Was it correctly allowed?
Its a goal
The problem is there are bad referees with bad judgement which makes it unfair on certain teams.
Rules don’t apply to United players.
Any comment on Reece James' red card? From my naive view, the ball bounce from the thigh to the arm I suppose. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yes it hit his thigh first, then to the arm. But it was a clear obstruction of the goal, without Reece standing there it would 100% be a goal, so it was a red. Not to mention there was a slight motion from his arm that prevented the ball from going in
Look at the sideline cam, there was a deliberate handball.
I think this video is strengthen the argument that it's either a foul and a red, or not a foul at all. There's no in between
@@Bork_In_Volcanic It was most certainly not deliberate, that was just the instinctual motion anyone would make when the ball is coming at them. The only way James could have avoided a handball is to have cut off his arm. That's how stupid the rules have become. I agree it was a penalty but it most certainly was NOT a red card.
@@areebsiddiqui758 or if he did the sensible thing in the first place an tucked his hands behind his back. He's not jumping he didn't need his hands in that situation
Personally, despite the positive improvements, I still think the new handball rule is worse, not better, than the pre-2019 rules.
If a player completely accidentally handles the ball, then scores, that's disallowed. But if they instead square it to a team-mate for a tap-in, that's a goal. In what world does that make sense?
Furthermore the whole discourse of 'unnaturally bigger' makes no sense. Your arms are a part of your body, how can they make it 'unnaturally bigger'?
The original rule was, at least, simple. Deliberately handling the ball is a foul, anywhere on the pitch, regardless of what happens next. Inadvertently handling it (e.g. it ricochets into you while you're stretching to intercept a cross) is never a foul. Yes there's always going to be an element of subjectivity in whether it was deliberate, but that still makes so much more sense to me than disallowing goals such as Mac Allister's against Spurs at the weekend where the ball was literally fired into his arm from point-blank range.
This is all great. But if you're Anthony Taylor, you just look to see if the ball had touched his hand/arm and give a penalty, then send the naughty player off.
Is a penalty kick awarded for a handball on the line of the penalty box, or does the handball have to be clearly and fully INSIDE the penalty box?
Why not just stop giving penalty kicks for handballs in the box and make them free kicks or something?
Because that would make a Luis Suarez incident (world cup vs Ghana where he saves the ball with his hand) more likely to work out. And it would go against the spirit of football. A handball is a foul.
The only thing that made Reece James red card was the movement of the arm forward, and even then is a very soft penalty and card.
But I doubt the referee even saw that before making the decision.
But the ball had already hit is arm and deflected away from goal before he swung his arm forward. The ball went straight from leg to arm, and then he flicked his arm and missed
How was that anything less than stonewall? His arm being where it is is the only reason the goal doesn't happen. It's the most obvious penalty you'll see all season
@@bri1085 the question is, is his arm in natural position when the ball strikes his arm? Given he shifted suddenly to legally knee the ball first, I'd say yes. Its a close call because as soon as he moves his arm after, if he had made contact it would be handball, but he doesn't make any contact I could see (which could be unsportsmanlike conduct, but not a handball).
It's definitely not obvious, last year this explicitly wasn't a handball since they had the close deflection clause
@@logtron it's not last season anymore, hasn't been for 3 months. His hands is enlarging his silhouette to give him an advantage, like the ball coming off the arm of an attacking player it's a foul. Intent is irrelevant here
@@logtron I think the intent matters? So even though the arm moving forward made little to no difference, it showed James tried to prevent a goal using his arms, by natural reflect or otherwise.
More situation specific. Which is more in the ref's opinion. Which means less consistent decisions from ref to ref. Which means loads of moaning about inconsistent reffing. Which means the law makers tweak the law to be easier to apply and more consistent. Which leads to pundits crying out for more common sense. So the laws are tweaked to be more situation specific. Which leads to more inconsistency. Which leads to pundits crying out for more consistency. You see where this is going?
The truth is that nobody really knows what is and what isn’t handball, no matter how clear the rules are, ref’s could be shown the same clip one week and give it as handball and then not give it the next week
I still remember someone made a shot or a long pass against United and the ball was about to clap Pogba's face. He protected his face only instinctively (seriously, else would anyone let a shot hit his face just like that!?) and United conceded a penalty. FFS!
Handball penalty rules need to be revised. I see lots of penalties awarded where there was no unfair advantage for the defending team and sometimes the ball isn't even deflected. We're obviously born with arms so we have to accept that they're attached to our shoulders
The number of penalties given in a season is not a statistic that tells you there is something wrong with the rules or officiating. Tired of people making this silly argument. Football is rife with cheating, constant grabbing, barging, pulling that shouldn't be acceptable in the slightest, and isn't part of the rules, yet is just accepted constantly. The game would be beautiful if it were played and officiated fairly. That said the handball rule did definitely need the update that it's seen, it amazes me it didn't acknowledge that a 'natural' position for the arms could be different depending on the circumstance of play. The lawmakers of the game are just so slow and out of touch it's unreal.
Right so the way that me and my mates do handball at five-a-side because it makes the most bloody sense. I don't understand why this common-sense approach was so hard to reach. Were the old guidelines really so strict that refs couldn't be "situation-specific?
Absolutely all hands inside the area should be foul:
If intentional => Penalty, yellow card. (Red card, if it stops a shot on goal)
If not intentional => Indirect kick inside the area ("falta indirecta" in spanish, I don't know exactly how they call it in english), and of course, not card of any color.
The referee should decide if it was intentional or not.
That would be stupid, people can cut off their hands, and if an attacker shots them against the arm when their arm is against their own body, how would that be a free kick? Any foul should be at least some degree of either negligence or intent. Your way of making a handball rule would subvert that. Sounds like a bigger mess than what we've had last season.
@@Jonathanizer I respectfully disagree. The problem with the fouls caused by touching the ball with the hand inside the area, is that the difference between an intentional hand and an involuntary hand it's enormous. From penalty and red card, to absolutely nothing. That makes the referee's decision extremly hard, controversial, and prone to be accused of being partial and/or injust. Even if we consider that the referee is trying to be as fair as posible, the diference in the consequences is extremly high.
But if you, beforehand, know that touching the ball with the hand or arm it's going to be a foul, the decision will be less polemic. I don't know much about basketball, but as far as I know, every touch of the ball with your feet it's foul. The fact that in fútbol it is not the same with hands, is what makes players "play" with this loophole... ("No, I didn't want to touch the ball on purpose, it was involuntary")
In my opinion, every hand should be foul (indirect kick), and only the clearly intentional for the referee should be penalty.
@@migteleco Well, you bring up a good point, with a situation being either nothing or a huge deal, as in no foul or foul with card and penalty. Maybe one could introduce a lighter version of punishment like an indirect freekick. However i still think, this should not apply to hand balls that are clearly unintentional and could not be prevented by the defender other than by not having hands. Making every hand ball a foul, no matter what the context of it happening, is imho wrong. As i said, no negligence or intent should mean no foul.
Also it's very different from basketball. Even if i would accept your premise, that football should look to a much less popular sport for their application of rules, which i highly doubt is a good way of doing things, then it's still not comparable. A foul in basketball is far less impactful. In a game like football, that has on average 2-3 goals, punishing an unintentional handball with a good scoring opportunity (penalty or indirect free kick) is very different than giving possession or even a free throw to a team in basket ball. There is much more scoring in basketball, and such differences will have far less impact on the outcome of the game, compared to football.
How does the third statement on the left not contradict statement on the right side of graphic at 2:50?
Thanks for this. Hope it works. Will the refs be able to review possible handballs or do they have to make a spot decision and stand by it?
It did seem, during the last regime that attackers were aiming for arms and gaining penalties without their being deserved
The problem isn't the "handball", but that the punishment is way too harsh. The problem is: You can't "Not react", if a handball blocks a shot or a pass. But as a referee, you always ask yourself: Is this enough for a penalty. The easy solution everyone ignores: Indirect free kicks. Except, of course, if you save a goal like Luiz Suarez did against Ghana in 2010.
The referees could make consistent decisions, which is the most important thing
Players and Coaches could adapt to and prepare for these situations.
Fans get this exciting new element, which normally only happens once every couple years. And they don't have to argue about different interpretations of the Hand Rule anymore.
But Football is too complacent to introduce new ideas like "consistently awarding indirect free kicks in the penalty zone", so we will never see it.
"The easy solution everyone ignores: Indirect free kicks." In the penalty box? Football rarely moves the placement of a foul.
@@javidproductions9353 yeah, but you don't need to. Just look up the Bundesliga Final from... boah, when was it... 2001. And yes, that would be the situations we talk about. Easier to defend, then a penalty, still so dangerous, that you dont want to risk it.
Penalties are making the sport of football displeasing to watch, I think everyone agrees on that. We want to see in-play action, team play, combinations and individual class to result in a goal. The Penalty rules altogether have to be revised. As the video shows, only 6/20 pens were due to handball offenses, still too high if that number drops.
I see 3 steps to achieve a more watchable and fluent game.
1) the new handball rules are a good start. In my opinion, the rules should be a little more clear and immediately recognizable… Not so much open to interpretation
2) only award a penalty in the box if the player is facing the opponent's goal side!! If the movement was towards the goal line, it's a pen. Otherwise, an indirect free kick! (short distance standards are more exciting than pens!)
3) punish diving/simulation more severely and consistently. VAR has to be in constant communication with the ref anyway. Double check quickly and hand out yellows whenever you can, even for little stuff as being hit in the elbow and grabbing your face.
Football players have been more and more acting like little spoiled kids on the pitch, and it's making games unwatchable... even when giants clash.
For the 3rd rule, that also means that fouls should be awarded more often due to the simple fact that many do not flop around and as a result just don't get fouls called.
@@chillaxboi2109 i dont think so actually. if its a clear foul, you fall! otherwise you can stop and get the foul or continue fighting with the advantage rule
@@LukaCekovic But then you could be booked for simulation or exaggeration even, if the rules are harsher
@@LukaCekovic Neves stopped - didn't get the foul. Pogba did not get send off for an over the top of the ball tackle while over-reaching and United scored directly from that. All these decisions are saying to players is that if you do not fall you will not get the foul - encouraging diving as a by product. If Pogba was an inch to the right he could have broken Neves's leg instead it scraped him and slid on his shin guard.
Rule 2 would be opening the Pandora's box in trying to interpret it correctly. When you say goal side do you mean the line between the sticks only? And if someone is facing it diagonally do you have to bring the VAR lines out to check? And what happens if someone is not facing it but is attempting a back-heel/overhead kick? I've seen players score with the back of their heads while facing away from goal, so what happens if they're fouled within the 6-yard box? What happens if a player is brought down in a wrestling match but not facing the goal? Does your face count as facing the goal when the rest of your body is pointing away from it or vice versa?
Anddd this was recommended right after Man Utd lost on penalties against Middlesbrough after a questionable handball call, love the algorithm sometimes
Is it just me, or does 2:43 not make sense?
“It is an offence if a player immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm, even if accidental.”
That makes no grammatical sense. What does that mean? If a player does *what* immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm? Am I missing something? I had thought that perhaps it meant that it would be an offence if they scored a goal immediately after it touched their hand/arm immediately after, referencing the previous rule, but it can't mean that as it would then contradict the rule that states it wouldn't be an offence, as seen at 2:49?
Or does it mean that it is an offence if a player *handles the ball* (again) immediately after the ball has touched their or a team-mates hand/arm? So it is like the double accidental handball that makes it an offence?
Please tell me if I've missed something, obvious or otherwise!
the third is point is meant to be a sub-clause, so the bullet point shouldn't be there
@@fr0ge13 Aha, thanks, that makes a little bit more sense. But even so, that is still a contradiction to what the fourth bullet point in that graphic is saying, so I'm still confused.
@@DiehardSatsuma so what you said about the double hand ball being an offense should be correct, and the fouth bullet point says it is NOT an offense if the ATTACKING team has an accidental handball leading to a goal or big chance, so the goal would still be allowed or a free kick wouldn't be given. hope this clears up your question
3:33 into the video i realised these will probably be changed again after 6 months
That means if the ref doesn't like you.. or your team.. his discretion will be against you!!
It's simple, just make the ball to not hit the hand. So, every footballer must amputated their arms in order to play safely
That'll make throw in harder.
If only var was as good as tifo football at its job😂
😹
Epic🤣🤣
I only watch tifo cause of his amazing voice!
VAR can never be perfect, at the end of the day most decision on a football pitch are subjective. I can guarantee that even after 50 years fans would still be arguing over VAR decisions. VAR or no VAR football will always be controversial, it is just the nature of this sport. Moreover, this controversies are what makes football interesting (obviously if not your team is on the losing side).
I wonder where does Milltao handball vs. Sevilla fit.
He was mid-air, unnatural. But was it unnaturally unnatural, or naturally unnatural?
The third change is the most important one, if a player is protecting their nuts (if they have) that shouldn’t be a handball
I think they recognized that wasn't handball before though. Players always did this in the walls off free kicks.
@@soludsnak yea but now they’d call handball if it wasn’t close enough to the body even tho it wouldn’t affect the ball trajectory at all. I’d only call handball when arms/hands are chest level or higher, or deliberately blocking a shot with the hand
Can you do a video on Newcastle's entertainers please? Would love to see it
Someone please explain me the third instance when handling the ball is considered an offence.
Will never forget how a Sheffield player tripped Moura and kicked the ball to the back of his arm as he was on the ground, which bounced off to kane that scored. But VAR ruled it out and not even a foul was given. Spurs got robbed so much
I mean, Llorente sent Man City out of UCL a few years ago by scoring a goal with his hand so... 🤷🏼
I think most teams have suffered from poorly written rules. I found the offside rule last season unbelievable by times. Someone's hand was beyond the defender so it's offisde? 🤔
Moura extended his arm in front of him as he was falling forward and his hand touched the ball as the Sheffield player kicked it, so the goal was correctly disallowed - I just looked at it. Accidental or not, doesn't matter. A foul should have been given, but that's not a clear and obvious error, and it does not guarantee a goal, so Spurs were hardly rubbed. If I was a Spurs fan though I'd probably feel aggrieved too, but with the law - not VAR or the referee.
@@telquel7843 honestly, I just want the rule where offside is determined by the placement of your foot and the defenders foot
The handball law was introduced to prevent players picking the ball up and carrying it.
There are two choices. Either a handball decison is based on opinion or based on fact.
Opinion: the laws will be tweaked, footage analysed and debated indefinately.
Fact: any contact (regardless of intent) will be punished.
If an attacker kicks the ball and it hits your hand and you have no time to react, do you think that’s fair?
So you should be punished as a defender for somebody kicking the ball into your hands. You really haven't thought this one out have you.
@@robert2690 Under current handball laws, no. However, if the plan is to have no incorrect decisions for handball, change the law and take opinion out of it. Wouldn't be my choice though.
@@rgonzalo511 No. I'm not sure you've understood what I've written. What I mean is that there is an alternative to the continuing changes, debate and inconsistancies with the current handball law. Wouldn't be my choice though.
So a player can handle the ball(accidentally) and then score a goal But an accidental handball after a deflection is a pen? What the fuuu
Yeah it makes no sense.
But but but
When are we going to understand that everything in slow motion looks deliberate, intentional
When are we going to see the replay in actual footage and not in slow or still images like in the case of reece james against Liverpool
This is why I love the Serie A .Any handball is a penalty.Hence more goals deliberate or not
when everyone understands that denying a clear goal opportunity is always a red card
@@chivas9dan accidential or not
I wish this was true. Reece James sending off in the Chelsea Liverpool game says otherwise
And I'm a neutral for that match
What got James sent off was the reaction after it his his arm, if James kept his arms by his sides instead of the reaction after with his arm then it shouldn't have been a penalty or a red card. (How I read the rules anyway).
@@nijjijjion204 I think it was always going to be a penalty. If his arm didn't block the ball, it would have gone in the back of the net. I do agree that the sending off was a really harsh decision, though. It ruined that game.
@@aiden3648 Even if the arm is in a natural position will it always be a penalty if it stops a goal? (As well it being a rebounding from another body part)
That part of the rules I don't understand.
Can't this channel make proper captions for their video? It doesn't take that long
Very good video. I think the handball issue is less of a problem than it is made out to be as it is more about judgement than a black or white decision. Therefore 2 or 3 times a season there is going to be a controversial decision and people need to accept that.
only channel i have notifications for
Very informative, very informative.
What about reece james handball?
I'm sending this video link to Reese James. I think it might clear up some issues he has.
.....Not
Did they change the rule again?
Dont do penalty for handball, just do it same way like they have back pass to the goalkeeper
Now i understand how hard it is to write "if he didnt do that intentionally" in a legislation
And they should stop letting anthony taylor from making a decision with a freeze frame to look at
Ah, the annual what is the handball rule video