Monday Morning Centre Back: Freeman's Goal Was Not a Handball...Technically
by Zach Woosley on Apr 18, 2011 12:01 PM CDT
in Monday Morning Centre Back
Email
Print
FIFA rules of the game state that is illegal if a player "handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)".
Further broken down, there are two types of situations in which the ball touches a players hand or arm, one of which is a foul, the other which is not. In the end, it's the referee's discretion as to what type of violation occur and if it punishable by a foul, card, free kick and/or penalty.
Ball To Hand (no foul)
- The hand/arm is stationary or moving away from the ball
- The hand is protecting the player's face/genitals (and in the case of women the chest area) in a reflex action.
- The ball was moving so fast that the player never had any time to react and avoid the ball.
- The player did not see the ball (the player was looking away from the ball, for example) so could not avoid it.
Handball (foul)
- The hand/arm is moving towards from the ball.
- The hand/arm is in an un-natural position (For example, above the head).
- The player could have moved his/her hand/arm but decided not to.
So where does Hunter Freeman's controversial goal from last night fit in to FIFA rules? Who the heck knows...but I think I have a good idea of what happened.
It's clear the ball deflected off Freeman's hand and in to the New England goal. However, his hand was in a natural position (based on the contact) and he made no apparent swinging motion or obvious attempt with his hand or arm to affect the path of the ball...and that's my evaluation at full speed.
Slow things down and I think I can prove that not only was it not a handball under the rules, it could have just as easily been a penalty to Houston.
Take a real close look at what was happening. By the time the ball contacted Freeman's hand, his head was being forced down by Matt Reis' arms and elbow. Thus, he could not have seen the ball coming down and wouldn't have been able to either intentionally make contact or remove his arm from the path of the ball. If anything, it could have been called a penalty on Reis since Freeman established the position, had the right to be there and was fouled by not only Reis but Kenny Mansally during the play.
Thus, it's a good goal. Sorry New England, but for once, the referee got it right.
Absolute worst case it's a ball to hand incident and therefore not a foul that should be whistled by the referee. Sure, it went in off his hand but he didn't pull a Diego Maradona and direct his hand to the ball. Freeman was being pushed down and the natural reaction is to put out your arms to attempt to keep your balance. It wasn't an intentional attempt to push the ball in the goal, it was caused by a foul from the Revolution players.
I'll freely admit that the only thing we'll be able to get everyone to agree on is that it was a near impossible split second decision for the referee...though I'm sure Revolution fans will feel differently.
It wasn't the prettiest of three point for the Dynamo, but after last season we deserve a few breaks.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The pics clearly show Freeman's head down before any contact with Reis' arm.
If Reis’ arm and elbow even touched his head at all. If there was a non-handball foul there, then it was Freeman on Reis for boxing him out and shoving him away. Also, I’d call it a handball as per reason 2 listed under “handball (foul).”
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation
A very, very interesting three-photo sequence there. Freeman’s head was clearly down since Reis was hitting him and there is no way he could have seen that ball as it struck his hand. The sequence leading up to it is also interesting in the video because once the ball deflected into the air, Freeman saw it first and established a position, as Stoehrst points out, blocking Reis away from where Freeman saw the ball was coming down. Once Freeman established that position, Reis could not get to the ball.
However, Stoehrst, I wonder why you would call it a handball for reason No. 2. Freeman’s hand is not above his head, nor in an unnatural position. What is it you’re seeing there?
I do not believe it was a handball (foul), however, there’s an interesting other question: Given Freeman quickly took up a position that blocked Reis from the downward path of the ball, is this impeding a keeper? What is the law there?
"We don't care who finishes second." -- Celtic's Peter Lowrie
big differnence between impeding the keeper and holding your position in an effort to win the ball.
Freeman has a right to the ball as well. He recognized the ball was going to stay in before everyone else. Got in a position to win the ball, and then simply held his ground. You could make a case that Reis and the other New England player fouled him, but I don’t really think that’s the case either. They were simply challenging for the ball just like Freeman was.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
You can’t challenge for the ball by going through an opposing player
--
"You live and learn. At any rate, you live." -Douglas Adams
Managing Editor of Dynamo Theory
Yo si le voy, le voy al naranja!
by Zach Woosley on Apr 18, 2011 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Which would be damning for Reis (not to mention Buona Coundoul from earlier in the season, eh?).
But how many times have we seen that a keeper IS allowed to go through an opposing player. That does need to be called far more often. I believe that keepers need some protection, but it clearly can and does go too far.
"We don't care who finishes second." -- Celtic's Peter Lowrie
oh the keeper gets the call 99.99% of the time
So the refs are obviously calling it that way for a reason. I just don’t like it.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
by papabear on Apr 18, 2011 9:28 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Over the head is just an example
His arms are akimbo in that shot, and like I already said, his head was down before Reis’ arm ever touched him, because he was using his rear and his hips to box Reis out. Freeman had his arms out to balance himself as he forced Reis out of the way (or kept him out of the way, depending on your perspective) and with arms out like that, you have to call it. It’s an unnatural position.
Founder and Editor of The Bent Musket on SBNation
by Steve Stoehr on Apr 18, 2011 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions
But as pointed out in Zach's post,
Freeman’s head is down at the time of impact with his arm. Therefore, one could argue fairly easily he did not know for sure where the ball would end up, and thus could not move his arm into the path of a falling ball.
-- "...I was sick, napping, and then woke up and came to the computer to read a note from the Gingered Angel of Doom..." Martek - Dynamo Theory Blog
it's up to the refs discretion whether or not the hand ball was intentional
Most of the time a ref isn’t going to allow a goal that came off the players arm IF he sees it. I would be interested in if the ref saw the hand. I’m betting he didn’t. Arguing the details of the rules is pointless because the ref has the discretion on the call.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
by papabear on Apr 18, 2011 9:33 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Technically you are probably right
…but I think in a situation where a handball results in a goal the ref is going to call it if he sees it. Intentional or not. I know it wouldn’t matter to me if I was on the other side of it. I think most New England fans would agree that this was a case where the soccer gods balanced things out. Whether they agree on the non-goal goal, or some of the other calls made it’s pretty obvious that the Dynamo were the more deserving of the two teams on the night. I would be upset about not coming out of it with a point too though.
I do disagree with the New England coach and fans claiming Freeman fouled Reis on the play even if I agree with them on the handball. Freeman has a right to the ball. He didn’t move anyone out of the way. He established his position under the ball and did nothing but hold his ground. He has every right to do that. There is nothing in the rulebook about an attacking player moving out of position for the ball so the defenders can get to it.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
There were calls made in the game?
Funny…I didn’t see any. Seemed like the ref swallowed his whistle for the majority of the game and called it pretty much fair down the middle, which for once I actually can’t complain too much about. It’s nice for the ref to let the game’s natural ebb and flow to take place, and it made a difference in the pace of action.
It also allowed Danny to show how damned tough he is physically and mentally. “I just got knocked the f’ out and I took a one minute breather and got back on the pitch once I was cleared.” — Fuzion paraphrasing what we assume Danny said to the ref when the ref asked him if he was cleared to come back in…
In all seriousness though, losing Danny, even to just a “bone bruise” is going to suck. Even for just 2-3 weeks. Danny is a freakin fireball in the wing position. He may not make many goals himself, but he is in the action and he causes problems for the defense (and I dare say helps draw some of the attention off Davis). With that said, Ashe looks more comfortable as a defender than he does as a winger pushing forward. Oh, and Freeman looks quality on the other side. I know he has his haters, but haters gonna hate.
All in all, it was a good outing for the Dynamo, and they showed they can manufacture possession and quality chances. Now, they just have to net those chances. Bring on Koke!!!
-- "...I was sick, napping, and then woke up and came to the computer to read a note from the Gingered Angel of Doom..." Martek - Dynamo Theory Blog
I hear your love for the Cruzer, but with Watson and Koke coming in, I really think we might just have seen the last of Cruz for awhile. I just don’t see him breaking the lineup, especially when Colin Clark gets fit
"We don't care who finishes second." -- Celtic's Peter Lowrie
It looked to me like Cruz said "something popped" when the trainers approached him on the field
I know they said bone bruise, but he was also supposed to get it “checked out” today. I’m hoping they don’t find anything, but I think there’s a real possibility that an MRI shows some additional damage.
We could be seeing a lot more of Colin Clarke. I’m thinking Koke plays up top and Watson will be depth in the center, so assuming the injury is not anything more than a bruise I think Cruz still has an opportunity. He needs to learn to operate on something just short of wide open throttle and his delivery needs to be more consistent. You would hope his decision making would get better with minutes too.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
It was a big keeper blunder by Reis
I admit I had to rewatch it a few times, so the call could have gone either way but the ref did get it right as you point out here. Reis wasn’t fouled. It was just a huge error by Reis. That was his ball to win, he has every advantage as the keeper being able to use his hands to expand his vert by a few feet over attacking players.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Apr 18, 2011 4:51 PM CDT reply actions
A Tale ofTwo strikers
Do not know if Bruin is the real thing. A good striker has a nose for the goal. Bruin should have scored yesterday.
Oduro gets booed off the pitch while others play on. Wonder if Dom will bench him or trade him for not winning the match. Lets see our new forward has 37. 38 goals while oduro has 35.36 goals.
Somebody is might bit unhappy with the Koke signing,
Perhaps you should also take into consideration the position each played, and their style of play. Koke played CAM for the last 2 seasons with Aris, while his team has undergone a coaching carousel. Oduro played Forward for the last 2 seasons with the Dynamo, while his team has been coached by the same Dom for longer than that. Koke’s coaches have flexed their formation over the course of the seasons Koke was at Aris, whereas Oduro has always played in Dom’s ever-beloved 4-4-2.
Even as a CAM in the last 2 seasons, Koke still netted 10 goals total and 11 assists. Before you question why only 10 goals over his 41 appearances, let me remind you he only had 11 appearances in this past season. In the last 2 seasons Dominic Oduro played for the Dynamo, he netted 6 total goals over 44 appearances and a whopping 3 assists.
Yes, this is a bloody upgrade no matter how you want to slice it. I’ve been doing my research on Koke, and trust me, he’s a huge upgrade over Oduro, granted, anyone who can hit an open net is an upgrade over Oduro.
-- "...I was sick, napping, and then woke up and came to the computer to read a note from the Gingered Angel of Doom..." Martek - Dynamo Theory Blog
And since you brought in goal numbers...
Perhaps you can help me figure this one out. The role of a forward is to score, yes? But isn’t also to be creative enough to get your teammates goals, too? Why is it Oduro only had 3 total assists over 2 seasons? Why is it Koke whom you seem to loathe had 11 over the last 2 seasons? Do you REALLY want me to bring in career assists, because Koke stomps Oduro into the ground on that one.
Koke may not come in and hit the net everytime, but he also can do more on the ball than Oduro. He isn’t single faceted like Oduro. He can create, he can find open guys, he can let others score. THIS is why Koke is a better fit for the Dynamo.
-- "...I was sick, napping, and then woke up and came to the computer to read a note from the Gingered Angel of Doom..." Martek - Dynamo Theory Blog
oduro had a couple years worth of bad misses
Bruin has a couple of games. He’s also much more technically gifted than oduro ever was and has created for his teammates. Something oduro never really did. Bruin’s a rookie. He needs to finish better, especially with competition on the way, but he’s clearly shown enough to warrant some time to develop. Comparing him to Oduro is just asinine.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
by papabear on Apr 18, 2011 9:19 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Absolutely
Plus you’re talking about two different types of athletes. Sure, Bruin had chances at the net, but he’s also damned young and needs to develop. Oduro is no longer young, he can’t fit in that category. After all, it only took Bruin what 3 games to net one? Or was it 2? We won’t discuss how long it took Oduro…
-- "...I was sick, napping, and then woke up and came to the computer to read a note from the Gingered Angel of Doom..." Martek - Dynamo Theory Blog
Bruin and Oduro
Good pts brought up guys.
I like getting the new guys just not the way we treat some of our players.
Think some of us forgot how hard it is to get an assist on breakaways.
Do u break up the line up for the new guy?
What about Ching?
How many Forwards do we have now, how many do we really need?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
