Falling and handling
 

Varsity girls' game this week.

Defender one-timed a ball that was slowly working its way out of the penalty area. As she gave chase, she tripped herself, and instinctively put out her hands up and out to break the fall. One of those hands came right down on top of the ball, one yard inside the penalty area.

This was an easy call, although unfortunate, as no-one was even around her. Hand in an unnatural position to ball , handling, PK.

The next day, I'm describing the play to a veteran official. He said that really doesn't meet the spirit of handling, and he may have gone with a dangerous play (which I can't imagine, as no-one is around her).

Your thoughts?

I've got nothing. Get up and continue the play.

The foul is deliberate handling of the ball. Ask yourself if she fell in order to handle the ball or did she happen to fall on the ball. "Unnatural position" is an aid for us to determine whether the player is deliberately using her hands or not. It's not an automatic.

In any case, the natural position of the arms on a falling player is in front in a bracing position.

Also, instinctual movement of the arms within the frame of the body, that is in front of a part of the body it's legal to play the ball with, should not be considered deliberate handling.

I agree that in no case could it be dangerous play.

Here's the problem: We don't always use the aid that way.

Imagine a player has his arms outstretched or over his head, and the ball accidently blasts into them. We view that as handling, even though it was clearly ball-to-hand/arm. Since that player "made himself bigger" through the unnatural position, the fact that the ball/arm contact wasn't deliberate is irrelevant. There are many times we whistle handling when deliberate contact isn't the case.

With that, I can agree. Perhaps my definition of natural position is too narrow. I see natural position, simply put, as arms/hands at one's side. I haven't found any documentation that states otherwise. If you know of any, I'd love to see it.

What is the player doing when she stretches her arms over her head? She's trying to take away a passing/shooting lane. That's deliberate play with the arms and if she makes contact it's handling.

What was the player doing when she fell? She was trying to not hit face first into the ground. That's not deliberate and isn't handling.

There's no documentation that I know of. It's all in the opinion of the referee. We are, however, specifically reminded that the natural position of women's arms is significantly different than men's due to the different center of gravity and we should expect them to naturally play with their arms higher, particularly when jumping.

I think the rule of thumb is to think of what a player would be doing if she was not trying to handle the ball.

Also, remember the study that said if we never called handling we'd be right 78% of the time.

Bainsey I am dissapointed in you !!!!!!!
 

Yo brother -

You are always right on it on the hoops forum, As a fellow bb ref who works soccer in the fall as well, think of it this way.

We don't call a kick in bball umless there is intent. I treat a handball the same way. No intent no whistle.

You could argue according to the definition, that any hand ball is worthy of a card (yellow) because the player did it on purpose to stop an advantage......

Wondering what the "soccer guys" think.. I am a basketball zebra masquerading as a soocer official in the fall........

Always? Okay, that's your first mistake... ;)

With this, I disagree. Not all of our handling calls have to do with clear intent.

Eastshire's point is well taken. If someone is deliberately trying to cut off a passing/shooting lane, and there's ball-to-arm, that's a foul. However, as we all know, players could have a number of reasons why they stretch their arms up or out. They may not be deliberately trying to cut off such lanes, but intentions are typically irrelevant, as the arm really shouldn't have been out there in the first place. It's still a foul, though it may not be a deliberate act, because it's more about the advantage.

Now, the basketball kicking violation indeed falls in the same realm. A number of times, we've seen a basketball defender jump straight up in the air, and take a pass on the knee. Tweet! Was he deliberately trying to kick the ball? No, if anything, he was trying to block the ball-handler's view, but in the same realm, he made himself bigger with the lower part of his body, and the ball-to-leg contact is typically whistled a violation. (Mind you, I've never heard any basketball officiating trainer use the phrase "make himself bigger." That's always been a soccer thing.) Again, it's about the advantage.

Back to my play, there was no advantage about falling on the ball, which is why I now don't feel right about whistling it. I just believed I had to, though something was telling me it wasn't right. Perhaps I knew, deep down, it wasn't the right call.

Another great discussion.

In these cases, I'll yell out "INCIDENTAL" because that's what it is and let play continue. I don't yell out "UNINTENTIONAL" because it is intentional to hit the ball with the arm since it happens to be between the player and the field.

The foul is "deliberate handling." The description in the OP isn't deliberate. No foul.

I agree with the above post. No foul as described.