Ball deflects off of a player's arm that's not in an unnatural position, falls to a teammate's feet, teammate takes a few touches and scores a goal.

Goal disallowed because the play was set up by an accidental deflection off of an arm.

To what extent do you like or dislike this rule change?

Also, what are the limitations for this? If the player who gained possession off the arm would've passed to another teammate who scored does the goal stand?

If that's the new standard then make it clear. I never heard of such a change to policy.

They announced it in the summer but I agree it wasn't publicized as much as it could've been. It seems like clubs maybe need to make more of an effort to ensure that their players know the details of new directives and new rules. Like a 3 day workshop or something. I don't think it will lessen the occurrences of violations of the new rules but at least the players don't feel so betrayed by them.

And FWIW, I think VAR makes this rule about 10x more horrible. Rules are being made without understanding just how it will play out in a VAR world.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

If that's the new standard then make it clear. I never heard of such a change to policy.

---

It was pretty clear if you read the changes in the law.

I Am Mine said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

If that's the new standard then make it clear. I never heard of such a change to policy.

---

It was pretty clear if you read the changes in the law.

---

Except that's not what the Law says. It says you cannot gain possession and score or create a scoring opportunity after hitting your own hand. It doesn't say a ball cannot deflect off of player A to player B who then scores.

However this scenario is what is being taught. If it hits an offensive player and creates a scoring opportunity we are supposed to call it. If it hits a defender we wait and see.

It doesn't bother me. It's a bit like hockey and the kicking rule.

mathguy86 said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

If that's the new standard then make it clear. I never heard of such a change to policy.

---

It was pretty clear if you read the changes in the law.

---

Except that's not what the Law says. It says you cannot gain possession and score or create a scoring opportunity after hitting your own hand. It doesn't say a ball cannot deflect off of player A to player B who then scores.

However this scenario is what is being taught. If it hits an offensive player and creates a scoring opportunity we are supposed to call it. If it hits a defender we wait and see.

---

It's in the laws....
http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/793/103202_200519_LotG_201920_EN_SinglePage.pdf
Page 104

Quote:

---

deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
scores in the opponents' goal creates a goal-scoring opportunity
scores in the opponents' goal directly fr

---

"Their hand"

mathguy86 said:

---

"Their hand/arm"

---

....and creates goal scoring opportunity. Doesn't say that it has to be them.

And didn't mean a thumbs down.

The phrase is "gains possession after it hits their hand and scores or creates a scoring opportunity". It deflected off of Laporte. He didn't gain possession. Jesus did.

mathguy86 said:

---

The phrase is "gains possession after it hits their hand and scores or creates a scoring opportunity". It deflected off of Laporte. He didn't gain possession. Jesus did.

---

Someone did gain possession.

But yes, I can see where the confusion is and this wasn't really thought out well or written well.

Reading it I can how it can be interpreted both ways. Both side have an argument.

I spent 8 hours earlier this month in a clinic with 4 national emeritus referees and a FIFA AR dissecting these law changes with a fine toothed comb, watching clip after clip after clip. Trust me when I say that what the Law says. And I will say again the instruction was to call it anyway.

mathguy86 said:

---

I spent 8 hours earlier this month in a clinic with 4 national emeritus referees and a FIFA AR dissecting these law changes with a fine toothed comb, watching clip after clip after clip. Trust me when I say that what the Law says. And I will say again the instruction was to call it anyway.

---

So are you saying that they told you to call it the way they did on VAR?

We were instructed to give the defender the benefit of the doubt on a deflection. And not to the offensive team. Because soccer expects you not to score with your hand.

What happened here with VAR? Who knows. I've seen clips where VAR annulled a goal for a deflection at midfield that led to a goal. Is that a goal scoring opportunity?

I will day that handling is the single most understood part of the laws. For parents, coaches, players. And even Referees.

None of this matters. Henry used his hand to stop the ball from going out, France score and Ireland didn't get to go to South Africa 2010

So you were told the opposite of what they called using VAR.

So either you interpreted the law correctly or they did?

Who is it?

Last try and then I'm out of here.

Deflections of balls hitting hands happen. The whole set of changes in the Law were an attempt to clarify when/who to punish.

The first part is all about the ball hitting a player's hand and that player creating a goal or goal scoring opportunity for themselves, even an accidental touch by a player that results in that player scoring. Its the Neymar goal. That did not happen here as Jesus scored and he didnt handle the ball.

The second part clarifies general handling when making a body unnatural bigger or if arms are a shoulder height. The ball hit Laporte. Did he make himself bigger or have his arm above a shoulder? No, he was grappling and the ball happened to hit his arm.

The third part says its generally not handling when the ball deflects from your head or foot or from someone else who played it and it happens to hit your arm. Thats what happened here. Thats not supposed to be handling (generally). If it happened at midfield its not getting called.

The unwritten part is that soccer does not want balls to hit hands and end up in the net. Unfortunately they didnt write the law to cover this. So the instruction given was a deflection that hits a defender gets more leeway and is generally not handling. A ball that hits an offensive arm as a deflection when the player is in a scoring area (which IMHO is what happened here) should be called with a tighter eye. Thats what happened here with VAR. A ball hit an offensive arm and led to a goal. So VAR annulled the goal. Oliver didnt. He didnt even go look at it. It was a factual deal. Oliver isn't calling that live. He just lets the play go on and then VAR can fix it later if needed.

I dont get the benefit of VAR to see if it eventually ends in the net. So the instruction is if you see it deflect off a defender let it go and if you see it hit/deflect off an offensive hand (even by accident) just blow it, so that it doesnt end up in the net later. And all of that is 100% dependent of the level and skill set of the players.

If you were the VAR official in that game, goal or no goal?

With VAR (meaning a pro game), no goal. And I personally do not like that answer as nothing that Laporte did had any impact on the play. You will never see this goal annuled without VAR.

mathguy86 said:

---

With VAR (meaning a pro game), no goal. And I personally do not like that answer as nothing that Laporte did had any impact on the play. You will never see this goal annuled without VAR.

---

I'm a little confused about your answers. You disagreed with me when I said this was not a goal according to the law.

If this is not a goal according to the laws, why would it be a no goal with VAR?

No part of the Law really applies to say no goal but the video sees a ball hit a hand and soccer doesn't want that goal. The people writing the law didn't think it through. Here or in PKs. Or in the fast restart on a GK. They really made some bad unintended errors. The PK and goal kick had to be addressed with supplements.

mathguy86 said:

---

No part of the Law really applies to say no goal but the video sees a ball hit a hand and soccer doesn't want that goal. The people writing the law didn't think it through. Here or in PKs. Or in the fast restart on a GK. They really made some bad unintended errors. The PK and goal kick had to be addressed with supplements.

---

What was the supplement on the goal kick?

That you cannot be stupid and flip a goal kick to the head of your team mate, who heads it to the GK's hands Someone in a pro game tried this. The punishment is trickery so yellow to the player and an indirect kick for the other team basically 6 yds out. The punishment was never meant for that infraction on a goal kick. Idiots in IFAB never contemplated it. They had to say "don't punish, just do over". The Law says it's live when kicked and moved. Clearly not.

mathguy86 said:

---

That you cannot be stupid and flip a goal kick to the head of your team mate, who heads it to the GK's hands Someone in a pro game tried this. The punishment is trickery so yellow to the player and an indirect kick for the other team basically 6 yds out. The punishment was never meant for that infraction on a goal kick. Idiots in IFAB never contemplated it. They had to say "don't punish, just do over". The Law says it's live when kicked and moved. Clearly not.

---

That's hilarious. I thought about that in the youth game but have a kid on all 4s heading it back.

But is it trickery? They're following the laws.

I'm not sure I follow you. Is it a yellow card or is it a tie kick? And why for both?

It's trickery because you are circumventing the expectation of what a goal kick is by cleverly turning a goal kick into a goal throw. If a goal kick was meant to be thrown the Law would have said that.

The trickery gets a yellow for Unsporting Behavior and the restart is an indirect kick for the other team at the point of the handling by the goal keeper.

All because the nice folks at IFAB didn't think it through.

mathguy86 said:

---

It's trickery because you are circumventing the expectation of what a goal kick is by cleverly turning a goal kick into a goal throw. If a goal kick was meant to be thrown the Law would have said that.

The trickery gets a yellow for Unsporting Behavior and the restart is an indirect kick for the other team at the point of the handling by the goal keeper.

All because the nice folks at IFAB didn't think it through.

---

When you say flip do you mean throw? I interpreted it to mean a kick.

So is it trickery to kick to a teammate 3 yards away who heads it back?

The goal keeper took a goal kick and "kicked" (basically lifted) it very softly 6 feet up in the air to their teammate standing 3 feet away who promptly headed back to the goal keeper who threw it 60 yds to a streaking winger while the other team stood there expecting a goal kick. The pro refs let it go because they weren't expecting it.

They took the Law change for a goal kick to be a fast restart and turned it into a throw. That was not the intent of the Law change. A week later IFAB came out and said "don't do this" and that the refs should treat it as a ball not put play correctly and a retake.

Thanks Mike Dean I wasn't aware.

So this creates a precedent where offensive players need to hold their hands behind their backs when in the box. That's kind of dumb.

mathguy86 said:

---

The goal keeper took a goal kick and "kicked" (basically lifted) it very softly 6 feet up in the air to their teammate standing 3 feet away who promptly headed back to the goal keeper who threw it 60 yds to a streaking winger while the other team stood there expecting a goal kick. The pro refs let it go because they weren't expecting it.

They took the Law change for a goal kick to be a fast restart and turned it into a throw. That was not the intent of the Law change. A week later IFAB came out and said "don't do this" and that the refs should treat it as a ball not put play correctly and a retake.

---

I agree with your earlier statement and if I'd seen it in play I would have given a yellow for trickery. Guess that's not the correct call.

I think it's more a case that the punishment of an IFK 6 yds out doesn't fit the crime. I expect they will rewrite the Law for next year.

I can't wait until I don't call handling on deflection off of a defensive player in the box, and a coach (who did not read the updates) starts screaming about 'handball, HANDBALL!!!" and then I turn around later in the game and disallow a goal for his team when his attacking player scores off a ball that deflects off his team mates hand/arm.....because you KNOW that's going to happen at some point.

agracer said:

---

I can't wait until I don't call handling on deflection off of a defensive player in the box, and a coach (who did not read the updates) starts screaming about 'handball, HANDBALL!!!" and then I turn around later in the game and disallow a goal for his team when his attacking player scores off a ball that deflects off his team mates hand/arm.....because you KNOW that's going to happen at some point.

---

Just have the law printed on a laminated card and pass to the coach and fans/parents.

In the "are you kidding me file", new rules were implemented for ALL age groups starting this fall for both rec and club teams.

State HS wil, NOT be implementing the new rules/clarifications this fall...because, you know its too confusing...or something....