In your opinion, handball or not?

[Klimowicz]

I didn't read the match thread and only became aware that there were people adamant that there was no handball at full time in the BBC studio... but I thought it was a clear movement of the hand down towards the ball. I think I might be in the minority, which is baffling.

I guess hand moving towards the ball is negated by the distance between the ball and the hand, as Lineker read out in the rules. Maybe that was enough for it to be no pen in most people's eyes?

[Coulthard's Jaw]

I think he instinctively moves his hand towards the ball, so its deliberate and therefore a penalty. 

It's a decision consistent with how the refs have operated in this world cup, have there been any handballs in the box that weren't given?

[GunmaN1905]

I don't think he handed it on purpose, but it's a penalty by current criteria.

Although I think it's a bad criteria.
If the ball was going for the goal, it wouldn't even be discussed, but like this he had no chance to react and it was an easy clearance for defense if the ball doesn't hit him.

Bigger issue is that the first goal was scored from a blatant dive.

 

Worst thing is that I'll have to listen about a robbery by Argentinian monster for the next 20 years.
Nothing I hate more than people that only watch football during big tournaments.

[CMOZZA]

The first time I saw it I said no way. Then watching it back on the replay I said yeah I’d probably give that having seen a replay.

Pretty much exactly what the ref did  

[daylight]

It was a penalty, no idea why all the drama about it.

I watched the game at my father in laws, and his brother kept going on about it was never a penalty, it got to the stage I stopped talking to him.

His hand moved to the ball, yes he was close but he did move his hand to the ball, at any rate, if he didn't stop the ball with his hand it could have created a chance for France.
I absolutely hate Shearer with these sort of things, he will bitch and whine when a penalty is given but later in the season he will bitch and whine that the defender has moved his hand or raised his hand in the box and thus given the ref something to think about and it has to be a pen.

Honestly listen to him this coming season and how he changes his views.

[Nordan]

It's a sad day for football when that's a penalty, it's a no from me.

[MIR17]

I didn't think it was originally and when I saw the far away replays in real time it doesn't look like it, but when they do the slow motion and close up you can see his hand clearly move towards the dip of the ball and not just his arm naturally coming down from the downward momentum of a jump.

It's intuition/muscle memory rather than conscious thought, but it's still a deliberate action.

So yeah, great decision for me - I wouldn't have said so originally but the VAR review confirmed it should have been for me.

[Cyp]

My answer is  : yes, he had a pretty bad reflex and his hand went to the ball...

don't think he did on purpose (consciously), but it's not like he couldn't have prevented it or it isn't his responsability, and it's still a penalty (i'm probably not objective though, being French...)

Edit : i still think that it's a shame that these kind of action have the same effect that clear intentional foul like the tackle that gave a penalty to Croatia against Danemark...

[sebsy]

Yeah, a penalty for me. Don't think it was deliberate as such, but felt his hand moved unnaturally towards the ball, almost like a reflex thing.

[VamPook]

Only could catch that on multiple replays unfortunately

[yann]

The ref say it's a penalty, so it's a penalty.

[James_W]

I didn't realise it was contentious until the pundits were talking at full time, I thought his hand went down towards the ball and thus it's a penalty. I didn't realise however that the ball came off the French head in front of him which changed the flight of the ball slightly, I can see why people would say no. I voted yes, but for me, even after looking at it many times, I don't have a definitive answer as to whether it was the right call or not. It's a tough job. 

[Hodgy]

I'm still not sure, there's genuine arguments for both sides, in real time I'd say no way but slow mo replays make me say yes, however after watching the slow mos and then watching it in real time again it's such a tough call, I've no idea 

 

[ArsenalFan7]

The amount of flack this decision received confused me. Having seen him literally palm the ball, it seemed like common sense to me that it was a penalty.

Feels awfully similar to the faux outrage about the Griezmann penalty vs. Australia, doubt it’d have been such a hot topic had it been Croatia benefitting but I could be wrong.

Think the funniest part was that the referee somehow managed to interpret it originally as a goal kick. He clearly didn’t see anything at first to not even realise it came off Perisic, the wonders of VAR.

[adhikapp]

I doubt anyone would deliberately handle the ball in the box unless your Suarez vs Ghana 2010, but that was a penalty no doubt. The more I've seen the replays, the more I'm convinced it was an obvious handball. Harsh, but I would've given it if I was the ref.

[dafuge]

I'm still not convinced either way, it looked like he could have been moving his arm down in anticipation of a bigger contact from the French header.

[kpain16]

It was a handball and was a pen. But I'm not sure Perišić could have done much about it as the French player in front of him was obviously the key for the reaction. Rules say a pen, common sense says players should play with their hands tied behind their back then as stuff like this happens unintentionally and can leave a bad mark on, for example, WC final. 

There is a clear difference between Perišić's handball and someone deliberately punching the ball or such.

 

[Razzler]

Is it ever actually deliberate?

I thought this whole notion of deliberate and intent is long gone, is someone slips in the box and brings a guy down then intent is removed and it's still a foul? Handball I have always gone with the 'ball to hand' and 'hand to ball' thing. I tend to take into account how far the ball has come too.

He kind of moved his hand a bit towards the ball, I know he didn't have a lot of time to react but my instinct was handball when I saw the replay. Either way, I don't think it's as scandalous as it's been made out. I am sure if it was reversed and plucky Croatia had got the handball then this examining of micro movements maybe wouldn't be happening.

I think if it was England and we didn't get that pen I'd be fuming and if it was against us I think deep down I'd feel that 'he didn't have time to react' would be me making excuses for it

[m_fenton]

57 minutes ago, Razzler said:

I thought this whole notion of deliberate and intent is long gone

Quote

HANDLING THE BALL

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

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

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

Mainly, I just want to see someone throw a shinguard at the ball for some reason 

[Barry Cartman]

I think it was handball, but there isn't clear evidence to overturn the decision with VAR which is the problem with the decision 

If they're going to use VAR incorrectly to give France a penalty, they should have also used it for the dive that lead to the 1st goal as well 

[bestbrother]

[enigmatic]

I think it's an area where FIFA could and should clear up the wording of the relevant law to clarify if they regard reflexes as deliberate (though I think they'll end up agreeing the referee's interpretation) especially now we've got VAR to allow ref's to make split second interpretations. Especially since there are already unwritten interpretations which all top refs follow regarding what is and isn't a natural position.

I don't think there's any premeditated intent to block the ball with his arm, the initial movements are all natural, the arm isn't tensed like a keeper, there isn't a certain goal to be denied and he doesn't bring the ball under control, but his hand does [continue to] move down towards the ball when he could have [instinctively] moved it away instead.

[westy8chimp]

The handball is kind of 50/50 ... I don't think it is... when you watch in slow mo it's easy to start seeing things that aren't there. Anyone with good camera can go and jump to head a ball in their garden tonight... your body goes through all kinds of strange motions. I think Perisic would be better GK than Pickford if his reactions are that good that he could block the header from a yard away. His arms were already in motion (no one jumps like a statue) the ball deflects quickly at close range and hits his arm. Yeah in slow mo you can paint a different narrative and everyone has a right to their interpretation.

The sickening thing is that the ref took minutes of replays.. to the point he was walking away, then turned back for one last look. There is absolutely no way he was 100% convinced it was a pen. If any doubt then it isn't a penalty. That's why it was pretty disgusting decision ... especially given that it was a world cup final. There wasn't enough to be gained for the defender either ... maybe it's the easy decision...but not giving the pen was, for me, on balance... the better call.

[Andrew_]

Did the ref ever explain why he went back to look at the screen again?

[westy8chimp]

3 minutes ago, Andrew_ said:

Did the ref ever explain why he went back to look at the screen again?

To me it reeked... but I can only imagine someone from the VAR van sent a message via ear piece that there was one more camera angle. Whatever the case, when he's seen it 5 or 6 times and still wasn't sure... should he have been able to overturn the decision? Both the handball rule and the VAR rules seemed to go out of the window.

[m_fenton]

14 minutes ago, Andrew_ said:

Did the ref ever explain why he went back to look at the screen again?

Maybe he was 100%, but they told him there was another angle as he was walking off. He watches it, is still 100%, and gives it.

I don't mind it on here or down the pub, but far too many pundits try to invent their own definite narrative around events like that, where in reality there could be any number of reasons why he looked again.

[Andrew_]

Well then that brings up more issues surely if they didn't show him all the angles to begin with.

[Mr Wallin]

The movement of the hand/arm (up and then down) is normal movement for jumping and he couldn't really expect that the ball would come trough at all or at that angle. And those all count in favour for the defender. But right at the end there is a small adjustment and stiffening of the wrist/hand before the contact. 

So yes the defender didn't intentionally stick out an arm and block the ball like Suarez 8 years ago but he did make use of the happy coincidence that the ball came at the hand to direct it away. And that is still 100% a foul and a penalty. Possibly the most 100 % PK of the tournament.

[Nordan]

4 minutes ago, Mr Wallin said:

Possibly the most 100 % PK of the tournament.

Carlos Sanchez against Japan was like 172% then.

[westy8chimp]

7 minutes ago, Mr Wallin said:

Possibly the most 100 % PK of the tournament.

Except... the ref didn't give it first time and took a few minutes of replays to overturn it. The pundits all said no pen... in here the poll is 26 vs 25 with two plebs...

It's the most 50% pen of the tournament  

and one of the 26 is @Barry Cartman and given the state of his WC 2018 posts,... we can probably assume he's trolling

[sebsy]

3 hours ago, Razzler said:

Is it ever actually deliberate?

 

[Baptista_8]

Just think...when you've played football, could you really react to something that quick and make a conscious decision not to handball? It's very difficult. Anyway, hardly moved his arm, so no pen IMO.

[Baptista_8]

+ the ref going back to the screen after he'd once left it showed that he had no confidence in his decision. Shouldn't have been given.

[Mr Wallin]

@Razzler @m_fenton

"deliberate" is the word in the laws. And while that might read a lot like "intentional" in a dictionary that is NOT the way that the laws are meant to be interpreted. 

 

2 hours ago, m_fenton said:

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

You are working with some old laws there mate. Those two where broken out in the most recent changes of the laws and are now their own point (with an FK/PK restart).

[Nordan]

Felt like the ref didn't actually want to give it but maybe felt he had to.

[m_fenton]

Just now, Mr Wallin said:

@Razzler @m_fenton

"deliberate" is the word in the laws. And while that might read a lot like "intentional" in a dictionary that is NOT the way that the laws are meant to be interpreted. 

 

You are working with some old laws there mate. Those two where broken out in the most recent changes of the laws and are now their own point (with an FK/PK restart).

On the first point - they ought to use different words then if they don't like the words they've chosen. The law says "deliberate", so people are going to think it means "deliberate".

On the second point -  they're on the FA's website under the title "IFAB Laws of the Game 2018-19" so if anything they should be too new!

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

I realise after typing this it sounds a bit arsey. Can't be bothered to reword it, but I always appreciate your input on topics like this @Mr Wallin 

[FrazT]

Perfect example here of the difficulty that referees face.  Almost 50/50 split from the posters here, who have seen the incident multiple times from multiple camera angles and yet there is no agreement.  The bottom line is that is down to the opinion of the man in the middle, it is not a question of fact, so there is really no right or wrong- it was his opinion.  I could have accepted either decision, to be honest.

[Wigmore]

Not a penalty for me but the arguments for it being a penalty are also largely fair. Given the fact that it's a bit of a debate, it's not a "clear and obvious error" and VAR should never have been consulted.

[Federico]

I don't think it's a matter of opinion according to the rules we have today.

It's sad and I wanted so much Croatia to win the final, but that was an handball and that was a penalty. The purpose to hit deliberately the ball or not does no longer stand and technically I think Perisic should have been booked. I'm not sure about this honestly but I have seen many bookings for similar episodes recently.

The only instance we could debate about was IF the ball did hit the leg of Perisic and only after hit the hand. In that case a penalty shouldn't be awarded.

According to what I just said, the options of the survey are wrong as they imply the will to hit the ball with the hand, so I cannot submit my vote.

Also in my opinion, all the statements regarding VAR and obvious errors can't stand. A penalty given or not is always a clear and obvious error and must be reviewed.

[Razzler]

1 hour ago, FrazT said:

Perfect example here of the difficulty that referees face.  Almost 50/50 split from the posters here, who have seen the incident multiple times from multiple camera angles and yet there is no agreement.  The bottom line is that is down to the opinion of the man in the middle, it is not a question of fact, so there is really no right or wrong- it was his opinion.  I could have accepted either decision, to be honest.

Ultimately, he went and reviewed it. He gave himself the best opportunity possible to review it and then decided, that's kind of the point of VAR, isn't it? Some people may still not be happy with it but the ref went and viewed it again before he decided.

 

[Barry Cartman]

2 hours ago, westy8chimp said:

Except... the ref didn't give it first time and took a few minutes of replays to overturn it. The pundits all said no pen... in here the poll is 26 vs 25 with two plebs...

It's the most 50% pen of the tournament  

and one of the 26 is @Barry Cartman and given the state of his WC 2018 posts,... we can probably assume he's trolling

I actually said I thought it was handball but VAR should never have given it  

[Marc Albrighton]

His hand undoubtedly comes down towards the ball, i think given it happens so quickly its probably more of a reaction than anything but i cant see the outrage over it being given to be honest.

[Mr Wallin]

2 hours ago, m_fenton said:

On the first point - they ought to use different words then if they don't like the words they've chosen. The law says "deliberate", so people are going to think it means "deliberate".

Oh believe me, most referees agrees with that. But there have been enough instructions through the years that referees almost never have trouble with the deliberate/intentional distinction but fans, coaches and players do and that creates problems for referees so a better wording would be welcomed.

 

2 hours ago, m_fenton said:

On the second point -  they're on the FA's website under the title "IFAB Laws of the Game 2018-19" so if anything they should be too new!

Not my fault the FA is too backwards to update the text.   
But it's bit strange because the rest of the text is updated just fine.  

 

2 hours ago, m_fenton said:

I realise after typing this it sounds a bit arsey. Can't be bothered to reword it, but I always appreciate your input on topics like this @Mr Wallin 

No problem at all.   

[Neil Brock]

Think handballs like that almost make a change to the rules needed. Only handballs where it's blocked a clear goalscoring opportunity or a shot on goal should result in a penalty. Anything else an indirect free kick. 

[gavo01]

Not a penalty in my eyes. Perisic too close to the french defender to have any chance of reacting to it. 

I thought the Croats were on top before that decision swayed the game some what. 

[westy8chimp]

10 minutes ago, Marc Albrighton said:

His hand undoubtedly comes down towards the ball, i think given it happens so quickly its probably more of a reaction than anything but i cant see the outrage over it being given to be honest.

Each player in line of the ball there (Matuidi, Perisic, Strinic?) have their arms out/flailing as the ball comes.

Like I said earlier, no on jumps like a statue. If the Croat just in front of Matuidi has got a flick and diverted it half a yard, it hits Matuidi's arm. Even in his current motion which is natural, you would then be reviewing the video saying definite handball by Matuidi as his arm moves in the direction of the ball. It's easy to slow mo it back retrospectively and say Perisic arm moves towards the ball... I just think as you jump your arms go up and down it was the natural path and the ball is deflected at him very quickly from very close.

In real time there is no way Perisic reacts that quickly. There is more movement after as he panics realising the ball hit his hand.

 

[enigmatic]

3 hours ago, m_fenton said:

Maybe he was 100%, but they told him there was another angle as he was walking off. He watches it, is still 100%, and gives it.

I don't mind it on here or down the pub, but far too many pundits try to invent their own definite narrative around events like that, where in reality there could be any number of reasons why he looked again.

This is another case for ref mikes, of course. For all we know, not only was he going back only because he'd been told there was another angle, but also all the VAR officials had originally told him that in their consensus view it was a clear handball but wanted him to make the final decision.

Frankly, even if he went back because he wanted one more look because he was a bit uncertain about making a very big call, I think it's nonsense to argue his original "decision" shouldn't have been overturned.

 If he didn't see anything in real  time, it was a clear error, not a "decision".

2 hours ago, Baptista_8 said:

Just think...when you've played football, could you really react to something that quick and make a conscious decision not to handball? It's very difficult. Anyway, hardly moved his arm, so no pen IMO.

Marc's GIF angle angle shows two things. One, that even elite footballers don't always have perfect timing and control, because Matuidi clearly intends to get a flick on it. And two, that they have sharp reflexive control over movements they've already started to make, because Perisic's hand which is moving fairly naturally towards the original trajectory of the ball seems to accelerates when it doesn't deviate 

Think he could have got his arm away from the ball's trajectory earlier if he'd really wanted to though, and even in this World Cup he'd have been unlikely to have been penalised if it deflected off Matuidi instead unless he'd raised it to a very strange position.

As a keeper, I'd be making a conscious decision to handle that, but I'd definitely expect above all to have my arm in position to be able to react to Matuidi not heading it as the ball came in. Then again, I'd also have my arm more unnaturally extended than Perisic's and flap like a wet seal with the other hand, so go figure

 

3 hours ago, Mr Wallin said:

Possibly the most 100 % PK of the tournament.

Wow, someone's taken over Westy's job of saying something deliberately outspoken  

[Mr Wallin]

4 hours ago, Barry Cartman said:

I think it was handball, but there isn't clear evidence to overturn the decision with VAR which is the problem with the decision 

If they're going to use VAR incorrectly to give France a penalty, they should have also used it for the dive that lead to the 1st goal as well 

No offence mate but you don't really know the rules for VAR do you???

The referee (Pitana) initially gave a goalkick (which would indicate he didn't see the contact by the Croat at all). The VAR had a look and though it was likely a foul (and penalty) and the difference between a goalkick and a penalty is a clear error and thus he sent it down to Pitana to have a look. Pitana then looked a several angles and decided to award the penalty. This is all just as the procedure is meant to work. 

The FK that was awarded to France ahead of the first goal was a simple foul outside the PA. That is not a situation that the VAR is allowed to send down (unless he thinks that the offence was actually worthy of a red card that the referee didn't call).

 

You might not like or agree with one or both calls but VAR followed its instructions fully there.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Assuming this is for the World Cup Final?

 

As a referee myself, yes I'd give that. Having said that; On the refereeing forums I hang out on, opinion is mostly split. There's a lot of discussion on the need to improve the wording of the handball offence and the fact that the offence is being punished inconsistently. 

[westy8chimp]

8 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Wow, someone's taken over Westy's job of saying something deliberately outspoken  

Hurts every time!

Wallin is 100% wrong this time but I agree with 51%+ of what he says on the forum. I'm about 80% inclined to believe he wasn't being deliberately provocative.