Hand Ball

I wrote this in response to a Bent Musket article regarding the Michael Parkhurst red card for handball / DOGSO in the May 30, 2015 match in Orlando, FL. I wrote a similar email to PRO referees.

This is the best reasoned analysis in favor of the call. I do agree that the choices are: red card and PK, or no call.

I’m going to post my analysis here, if that’s OK! I think the differences in interpretation show that it was a very difficult call to make, and arguments can be made on both sides. In legal terms, in some instances, the appeals court cannot overturn a trial court absent an "abuse of discretion" of the trial judge. Here, Petrescu is the trial judge. I don’t think he abused his discretion, and it can be argued that his call was correct. However, I still disagree and here is why:

I’m going to cite to the 2014-2015 Laws of the Game directly. Law 12 (Pg. 39, emphasis added) states that a player will be sent off if he commits this offense: "denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberatelyhandling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)."

The word "deliberately" is the operative word. "Deliberate" is defined by Google as "done consciously and intentionally."

The Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees for Law 12 (Pg. 119, emphasis added) says that the "referee must take the following into consideration."

"• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)"

This element is in favor of Parkhurst. There is no definitive motion of the hand toward the ball. Parkhurst’s hand is almost lodged into his rib cage. The only movement that Parkhurst makes toward the ball is after the ball has already stuck him. Watching the replay closely, Parkhurst moves away from the ball when Kaka strikes the ball into him. He made no play whatever toward the ball. This is ball to hand.

"• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)"

This element is even more clearly in favor of Parkhurst. Kaka is perhaps 2-3 yards away from Parkhurst when he strikes the ball. Although one may argue that it is expected for Kaka to take a shot, there is no time to respond. This is an unexpected ball.

"• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement"

As already discussed, Parkhurst’s arm was out of the way and not in an unnatural, flailing position, so this factor does not even come into play.

"• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement."

Not relevant.

"• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement"

Not relevant.

Pro Referees have additional criteria.

"4. Whether the player uses his hands or arms to make himself bigger" http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week—-2014—-wk32.php (October 21, 2014)

Parkhurst’s arms were not outside his body. Without conceding that the ball struck Parkhurst’s hand, if Parkhurst’s arms were wide and he made his body bigger, this would have more clearly NOT been a handball because the ball would have struck him in the chest (and it may have struck him in the chest anyway, the evidence is inconclusive). Thus, Parkhurst actually made himself smaller and was penalized for it. The only option he had was to dive out of the way, which was impossible due to the proximity and strength of Kaka’s strike.

"5. The consequences of the handball offense." (Added in the June 3, 2015 article http://www.proreferees.com/news-play-of-the-week-2015-week-13.php)

This criterion already presupposes that a handball offense took place, and adds nothing, other than whether a yellow or red card is shown.

Of note, there is not one definitive replay that actually shows that the ball touched Parkhurst’s hands. There was a screenshot in the Sun broadcast that appears to be shoulder/pec.

In conclusion, the main two elements for me that show that this is not a deliberate handball are (1) timing and (2) positioning. Kaka was 2-3 yards away, and Parkhurst made himself smaller. In the nanoseconds it took for the ball to reach Parkhurst, there was nothing he could have done to prevent the ball from hitting him. He wouldn’t even have had time to jump out of the way. It was a righteous change, and the consequence of the call is that it changed the outcome of the game.