Two very different cases of handball
in two entirely different situations and in two different games raised some queries last weekend.
One of these was in Reading’s game against Crystal Palace. James Harper, having given Reading the lead, then gave Palace the opportunity of equalizing by handling the ball in the Reading penalty area. The Law says of handball, ‘A direct free kick is awarded if a player handles the ball deliberately (except the goalkeeper in his own penalty area).'
Referees have a sort of shorthand in judging whether handball is intentional - was it ‘ball to hand or hand to ball’. The defence for James Harper was that it was a case of ball hitting hand and not the other way around. But this simple judgement is not enough. The referee also has to take into account why the ball hit the player’s hand. For instance, players seeing an opponent about to cross the ball, often spread themselves, raising their arms above their head. The object is to make a large an obstacle as possible. If the opponent kicks the ball and it hits the player’s hand, the referee will consider that, although the player didn’t move his hands towards the ball, the only reason for them being in that position, was to block the ball from the opponents kick.
So the referee also has to consider whether the player’s hands are in a natural place for them to be and this is where Harper’s handball comes in. On Sunday’s ITV’s Championship, the playbacks showed clearly that Harper’s hands were held out wide of his body when the opponent shot. We don’t run about naturally with our arms out wide, so why were Harper’s out there? The referee decided they were there as an obstacle. The referee must also take into consideration the distance the ball travels before it hits the hand or arm and the speed the ball is travelling. In Harper’s case, the referee must have thought that the kick was far enough away, that he could have moved his hand out of the way. Deliberate handball.
The other handball of the weekend was on Friday evening when Manchester United played Zenit St Petersburg in the European Super Cup. Manchester had pulled a goal back but still desperately needed a second goal to take the game into extra time. They attacked almost continuously but the goal wouldn’t
come. Then the ball was crossed into the Zenit goalmouth and United’s Paul Scholes, unable to reach it with his head, knocked it into the goal with his hand. Unfortunately for him and his team, the handball was spotted by the referee and not only was the goal disallowed but Scholes was shown his second yellow card of the match and was sent off. So why do some handballs receive yellow cards and others do not?
There are only three instances where a handball requires a caution and there is one where it is a mandatory sending off. A player is sent off, the Law says, ‘if he denies a goal or obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball’. The usual situation is a player preventing the ball crossing the goal-line with his hands or arm.
The first of the cautionable handball offences is when a player tries to stop the ball but fails and it still goes into the goal. He can’t be sent off because he hasn’t prevented the goal being scored. A player is also cautioned if he handles the ball to break up a likely attack. The third reason is why Scholes was shown the yellow card - trying to score a goal with the hand. These three cautionable offences won’t be found written in the Laws of the Game but they are considered to be
cheating. In other words they are covered by that ‘catch-all’ clause – unsporting behaviour.
Dick Sawdon Smith
Back
To Contents
© R Sawdon Smith 2008