Dale Johnson Profile picture
Sep 28, 2020 23 tweets 8 min read Read on X
Ok, for the VAR thread this week I am going to fully explain the interpretation of defensive handball, as imposed this season.

DISCLAIMER: It doesn't mean I don't think some of these decisions are crackers, but this IS how referees AT ALL LEVELS have been told to apply the law.
I fully understand the frustration of highly experienced and respected former refs.

But the fact here is the application FIFA/the IFAB demands is not as it may seem in the written Laws of the Game.

Here's why. It comes down solely to the definition of "unnaturally bigger".
We all in our own minds, understandably, consider a "natural" arm position to have a direct correlation to how a player may be moving: jumping, running etc.

However, the handball law, as altered by IFAB boss David Elleray, does not take this into account whatsoever.
It's all about the silhouette, the area of the body.

If the arms are not within the silhouette, no matter what movement you are making, they are considered to be making the body "unnaturally bigger".

Your natural shape does not have your arms away from the body.
Elleray said: “If arms are extended beyond that silhouette, then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or ball.

“Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it’s their natural silhouette.”
And let's be absolutely clear on this. There is ZERO relevance to a deliberate act in this offence. No matter what you may read elsewhere.

The red section is the most important part of the handball law and is absolutely the first point of call when making a decision. Image
Of course, deliberate handball remains an offence and it appears in the written law.

But deliberate handball is NOT the factor in these decisions.

That line purely covers off a deliberate act remaining an offence if the arm is within the "silhouette".
UEFA refs' chief Roberto Rosetti said: "When the arm is totally out of the body above the shoulder, it should be penalised."

This is an absolute cornerstone, and the reason why the Eric Dier handball decision was always going to be given. Image
To be clear, there is nothing in the interpretation about a player not being able to see the ball, and certainly no suggestion that would be a factor if the arm is above the shoulder.

Remember Gerard Pique at the World Cup (where the law was first used)? Penalty awarded here. Image
So, back to Elleray's previous comment of the "natural silhouette". What does this mean?

It means the arm must be close to the body, in a similar position to being stood up straight.

If the ball hits your arms in front of the body this isn't an offence. Your body isn't bigger.
The best way to think of it is this. Would the ball have continued on its path if it hadn't hit the player's arm?

If yes, it is likely going to be handball.

If no, then the ball would have hit the body. And that means the body is not being made unnaturally bigger.
This is from the detailed Laws update for 2019-20, clearly setting out how handball is now a factual decision and that players who "take a risk" can be penalised.

As clearly explained by the IFAB, the focus has been shifted. Is the arm creating a bigger barrier? Image
So, let's look at the six handball penalties awarded in the Premier League this season. (Deflections are irrelevant)

Koch - arm way out from the body
Lindelof - arm out from the body
Doherty - arm way out from the body ImageImageImage
The other penalties awarded in the PL for handball:

Maupay - arm above the shoulder
Ward - arm out from the body
Dier - arm above the shoulder

I'd say of the six the Ward penalty was the closest. As explained, Maupay/Dier now considered an automatic offence. ImageImageImage
Let's compare that to decisions that have not been given.

In each of these examples over the weekend, the ball hits the arm tucked into or in front of the body. Therefore, it would not be considered handball as the body is not made bigger. ImageImageImageImage
So how far out from the body can the arm be and still be legal?

This is a difficult one to put across, as there is some leeway in that the arms do not have to be pinned to the body.

But it's not huge and it's not even the width of a football.
It is actually a fairly simple law in practice, because it is now based on arm position and there is no place for the referee to "apply common sense".

The law is now so arbitrary that almost any time the ball hits the arm it could be interpreted as handball.
One thing is for certain, we are going to be hearing players appealing for penalties almost every time the ball hits an opponent.

And defenders will defend with arms behind their backs, as MOTD pointed out. Image
And just a further reminder that the Premier League is NOT applying the law differently to elsewhere (it was...).

As seen by the handball penalty stats across Europe this last two seasons. Image
That's enough for defensive handball now, I'm sure we will back on this topic soon enough.

But just like attacking handball and armpit offside decisions (remember those?) this law isn't going to change. It is as intended and wanted by those in power at FIFA/The IFAB.
Couple of additional points. Firstly, the Man United penalty given after the final whistle.

This is perfectly within protocol (and was a stonewall pen). It would be crazy for a missed penalty offence to happen just before the ref blew the whistle and it not be reviewable. Image
And the tweak to the attacking handball law, meaning the Havertz handball before Chelsea equalised at WBA was not an offence.

It had to drop directly to Mason Mount. However, it fell to a WBA defender who made a failed clearance. This is no longer handball against the attacker. Image
If you want all the latest VAR stats for the season, you will find them in here. espn.co.uk/football/engli…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dale Johnson

Dale Johnson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DaleJohnsonESPN

Jun 19
Why don't leagues have a chip in the ball for semi-automated VAR offside?

🖥️ Tech by Kinexon
⚽️ Centre-mounted chip in ball developed & patented by Adidas
❌ No league uses Adidas

Adidas would need to share/licence, or other ball companies find an alternative to house chip. Image
Who are the ball manufacturers for the different leagues?

Premier League (Nike this season, Puma from 2025-26)
LaLiga (Puma)
Bundesliga (Derbystar)
Serie A (Puma)
Ligue 1 (Kipsta)

Kinexon has worked with Adidas, Derbystar and Puma so far.
It's not easy to overcome, as Kinexon went through 1000s of prototypes until it achieved a ball that was actually FIFA-approved, in weight and the counterweight and the balance, and that provided good results.

So it's not as simple as saying "put a chip in the ball".
Read 7 tweets
May 22
So, Atalanta win the Europa League.

That presents a host of questions about:

🔷 How many places in Champions League for Serie A
🔷 What happens to place in UCL for the UEL titleholders
🔷 What happens to seeding for the 2024-25 UCL, 👀 Barcelona

Pull up a chair a moment.
1. How many places will Serie A get in the Champions League?

We know Italy will have 5 teams in the UCL next season as they have one of the 2 extra places for league performance.

Atalanta are 5th. If they finish 5th, and 5th only, Italy will have 6 teams in the UCL.
AS Roma are guaranteed to finish in 6th, so they are left waiting on Atalanta's final position.

If Atalanta finish 5th, AS Roma will be in the UCL.

If Atalanta finish 3rd or 4th, AS Roma will be in the UEL.

Atalanta sit two points outside the top 4 with a game in hand.
Read 11 tweets
Apr 16
Sick of keepers holding the ball for 30-40 seconds to waste time or slow down play?

The [unenforced] law says a keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Any longer and it's an indirect FK to the opposition.

We now have details of The IFAB trial to change it.

Thread. 👇 Image
As well as wasting time, a goalkeeper holding the ball for too long is considered an unfair tactic because the opposing team has no possibility to regain possession.

That's because a goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A keeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds should be punishable by an indirect free kick.

However, we have got to the stage where this is rarely enforced by referees, which in recent years has been exploited tactically.

So, why not enforced the law as it stands today?
Read 12 tweets
Nov 30, 2023
Mauro Icardi's offside in Galatasaray vs. Manchester United gives us a good illustration of how semi-automated technology will be more accurate and reliable - yet may lead to more goals being disallowed.

This was ruled out on the field, but stay with me.
There's a common misconception that handball starts at the bottom of the sleeve.

This isn't the case.

It's the arm point level with the armpit - if you had it by your side - around the whole arm.

Basically, the area of the arm which can't increase body size if you move it. Image
The starting point for offside (and handball) is therefore an imaginary line on the arm.

With the old tech, the point on the attacker and defender is plotted manually by the VAR and operator.

This obviously has to cause inconsistencies, and it's why there's a tolerance level.
Read 10 tweets
Sep 30, 2023
Ok, here's the nuts and bolts.

This is what happened with the Luis Diaz "goal" which Liverpool had disallowed vs. Tottenham.

There will be a deeper dive in the Monday VAR thread, but in simple terms the VAR took the wrong onfield decision - it led to the goal being disallowed.
So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."

It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".

In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.
So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.

The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.

The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.
Read 5 tweets
Sep 6, 2023
So the dust has settled on the first VAR audio show of the year with Howard Webb.

Time for a little old-school VAR thread to go through it.

I'll include the video clips.
We got 2 of the 3 big errors in the Premier League this season - the penalty not given against Andre Onana vs. Wolves + the offside goal Man City scored against Fulham.

It didn't include Alexis Mac Allister's red card, which has been the main point of complaint in my comments.
It would have been better to include that Mac Allister red, especially as it was overturned on appeal.

But then if you include Mac Allister, you drop something else (Zaroury?). And you absolutely have to include the examples of good process to show where VAR works.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(