Question Number: 23771

Other 8/14/2010

RE: Select Under 19

Erik of Arlington, TX USA asks...

We had a free kick 25 yards from goal. The referee positioned the wall just inside the penalty area. When the ball was struck the entire wall jumped in the air.

However, the ball's flight was lower than anticipated. It struck a player's lower arm which was down in front of him covering his groin area. We screamed for a penalty, but the referee did not call anything.

I ran over to the referee at the next stoppage and tried to ask him why he swallowed his whistle. I argued that since the player intentionally chose to jump up in the air, he put himself in the position to get hit by the ball. He had the time to make the decision to jump. He could have easily stayed down, and let the ball hit him at chest level.

If a player jumps in the wall, he either should be prepared to take the hit like a man, no matter how painful, or accept the consequences of a free kick or penalty kick.

The referee did not agree with my interpretation of handling. And, I did not agree with his interpretation of dissent.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Erik
As the player did not deliberately handle the ball in this situation the referee was correct not to award a penalty. For handling to be called as an infraction it must be deliberate and in this case the defender obviously misjudged the flight of the ball believing it was going high. The ball then hit the player on the hand which IMO was not deliberate. Neither did he make himself 'bigger' by his action. I can see the merit of awarding a DFK/penaly when a player jumps with his hands raised above his head.
Also running over to the referee to challenge a decision is dissent and that is a cautionable offence.

Answer provided by Referee Gene Nagy

Erik, I didn't see a question in your statement but obviously you wish us to comment on this incident. Football is just that: a game that is played by the feet as opposed to the hands. In this situation the player was not playing the ball with his hand but rather his intention was to protect his groin area. Every now and then players ask me about this situation, especially women who protect their chest area by crossing their arms over that area on a free kick. My response is the same to both sexes that if I deem that the ball hit their hands or arms while they were doing that it is not a hand ball. However if I see even the slightest movement of the hand or arm and therefore playing the ball, it becomes a hand ball.
In the incident you describe, what was the intent? Jumping or not the player and indeed all the players in the wall had the intent of protection. They were not making themselves bigger by waving their arms about and jumping. The hand never played the ball; it was the other way around.
I am Canadian and since you are from Texas you may be governed by a USSF directive issued on 2010 July 20:

'If the player jumps, this shall be considered a deliberate movement and, therefore, the consequences of the movement must be penalized as handling.'

To me this statement describes a slightly different meaning where a player makes himself bigger and even though he does not have time to actually play the ball, his hand does effect the trajectory of the ball. The intent in your example is clearly protection even though jumping is involved so it may not apply here. I cannot disagree with the referee's decision.
In football for over a century, male players have taken free kicks like men: they protected themselves and continue to do so. But you can go ahead and be macho about, perhaps close your eyes when the ball approaches your midriff because it will soon be closed soon after...
Oh, and while I am at it, why don't you take the referee's decision like a man? Does a private soldier question a commander? I mean do you really think that the referee is going to say: 'My goodness, thank you Erik for explaining that to me I will immediately call a penalty!' When is the last time that happened to you?