Ill kick off with that Cazorla penalty from last week and the one we (imo) didnt deserve to be given this week.
greengoonerie wrote:I appreciate that this may be a complete waste of time as Zedie has his own interpretation of Hand ball.
However, i pulled this from the Wikipedia site here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foul_(association_football)
It's to do with Hand Ball
Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area).
In determining whether or not a player deliberately handled the ball, the referee has several considerations:
Movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
Distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
Position of the hand ('natural' position versus 'unnatural' position) does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
Touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
Hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
NOWHERE does it say that protecting yourself is to be considered as grounds NOT to call a foul.
It was a penalty.
First off, I usually don't go by what Wikipedia says because it's open to abuse by any old random (not saying you would do this btw! But you get my drift, it's probs best to check what the refs handbook says about it).
Regardless, I'll answer it from my perspective.
Movement of hands towards ball (not ball to hand):
On my phone so copy pasting is a pain but for me, cazorla moved his hands to shield his face from a ball coming right at him from 2ft away or so. His hands weren't going towards the ball but to his face palms inward. In that situation, if it was hand to ball his hands would have been moving away from his face, towards the ball.
Therefore, my interpretation of the above is that it was a clear case of ball to hand. If you watch it again and can describe how this was a clear case of hand to ball, we can defo agree to disagree!
Distance of ball to hand (unexpected ball):
Debatable. Cazorla could reasonably expect the ball into his general direction, but could not reasonably expect it to becoming at him square in the face, especially given the time it took for the ball to travel from foot to face. Not sure on that one, but could be argued.
Natural position of the hand:
Can we agree that humans have a natural reflex to cover them themselves at the threat of imminent pain? If yes, then this point alone can be used to say its not a pen. If something is coming for your face, your going to flinch, your arms will do it out of instinct before you really have a chance o consciously register the danger and take action. If you don't believe me, tell a mate to aim a swing near your face when you for expect it and you'll get what I mean!
It's a natural reaction. If you don't think it's in anyway natural, again, we won't be able to agree and the dead horse would have been flogged as they say.
Essentially, if none of the above points were taken into consideration, any contact of ball to hand by an outfield player, seen by the ref, would be a foul and we both know that isn't the case.
I would defo agree that it doesn't spell out exactly every scenario that could lead to a handball foul or a handball not being given, but the rules you posted give enough guidance to be able to interpret different situations.