Should the lad Harper have gone for handball?

The hero of Reading's win over Watford was, by general consensus, Marcus Hahnermann their American goalkeeper, for his penalty save. 

The handball for which the penalty was given, was interesting in a number of ways. Although the Reading player actually knocked the ball into the goal with his hand or arm, the referee awarded a penalty rather than awarding a goal. The reason for this was
given by the Watford manager. Ray Lewingdon in the following Monday's Evening Post. The referee told him that he had already blown his whistle so he couldn't allow the goal to stand. Although obviously disappointed he accepted the referees explanation. 

As every referee knows, there are times when you can
be too quick on the whistle. Ray Lewingdon went on to say, 'technically the lad (James Harper, the Reading player, who handled the ball) should have gone but, he generously added, 'I shouldn't have liked to see that'. No such conciliatory comments at the game at Ipswich. Coventry felt the Ipswich goalkeeper, Paul Gerrard, should have been shown the red card for handling outside his penalty area. Apparently he went on to make several crucial saves which may have robbed Coventry of a point or even three. Not seeing the Ipswich game I can't comment on the decision. However, both these incidents clearly show that most people these days, think that a handball, especially around the penalty area, automatically warrants a sending off. It just isn't true.

This is made clear in Additional Instructions to Referees, which have been published in the back of the Laws of the Game for the first time this season. It says/Referees are reminded that deliberately handling the ball is normally punished only by a direct free kick, or penalty kick if inside the penalty area. A caution or dismissal is not normally required'. These instructions go on to give two situations when a referee should also reach for his yellow card. 

Firstly, when a player handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession. Although this can happen anywhere it is more likely to occur in the offenders own half, when by handling the ball he breaks up a possible attack.

The second cautionable situation is when a player attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball. Shades of Maradona of course. 

There is also a third handball which should result in a caution. This is when a player tries to save the ball going in the goal with his hands but fails in his attempt. 

Players in all these situations are cautioned, not for handling the ball but for Unsporting Behaviour, which is one of the seven cautionable offences. 

There is however a separate clause for handball as a sending off offence. 'A player is sent off and shown the red card,' the law says, 'if he denies the opponents a goal or an obvious goal scoring opportunity by handling the ball'. Did the goalkeeper do that in the Ipswich game? Goalkeepers outside their area are no different from any other player. They don't get a red card just for handling outside their own penalty area. It has to be only if they prevent a goal
or clear scoring opportunity by their action. Looking at the James Harper handball on Meridian television, it was clear it wasn't preventing a goal. The ball was actually being played back across the
goal and was not going in until he handled it. The question therefore is, did he prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity? If the ball would have reached another Watford player as I'm sure it was intended, then you would have to say 'yes'. However the referee who was very close, thought otherwise and James Harper remained on the pitch for the remainder of the game. I'm sure Reading were grateful for that.

 

Dick Sawdon Smith

 

© R Sawdon Smith 2002

Back To Contents