Anonymous wrote:Today during a U12 game, the ball hit a players hand. Ref said it was accidental so not hand ball.
Last week, exact same thing happened to my son - but he was called on it.
So... which is it?

Ah, the "Handling" question.

The reality is, IFAB changed the interpretation on us Refs, and it's been a bit of a mess. We used to look at multiple factors when determining if you can waive off a handball, but I'd have to know more about both situations. If the handling was clearly accidental, and it had no impact on attacking play, and it occurred in the midfield [not in either attacking third], and if the handling had no impact on the player's ability to control the ball, I'm probably not going to call it.

The short version is, part of our job is to keep the game moving. If the offense has no impact on the game, it's going to be ignored.

And you aren't alone on this confusion; the changes by IFAB on handling are making everyone a little nuts. Probably the craziest example was in the 2019 Champion's league final. Liverpool's Sadio Mane notices that Tottenham's Moussa Sissoko had his arm out to point to his fellow defenders where to go. Mane saw the outstretched arm, and basically chipped the ball into his arm. the Ref correctly made the call that it was handling, and Liverpool scored off the PK in under 2 minutes. Now, was Sissoko trying to handle the ball? No! he wasn't even really looking at the ball, and even tried to pull his arm out of the way but wasn't fast enough. Was Mane wrong to do it? I'd say no, he knew the rules and played to the full advantage. Did it feel super lame? yeah. Bottom line was that the arm was outstretched away from the body, it was inside the 18 yrd box, and contact with the arm changed the direction and control of the ball.

Anonymous wrote:Today during a U12 game, the ball hit a players hand. Ref said it was accidental so not hand ball.
Last week, exact same thing happened to my son - but he was called on it.
So... which is it?

You don't say which league your son plays in but NCSL made some changes to the laws of the game for 2019-2020 that impact handballs. I assume this only applies to NCSL but I'm not a ref so I can't say for sure.

Handball

Handling has been completely rewritten, presumably to be easier to implement. It starts with several principles:
1) deliberate handballs are always called;
2) some accidental handballs should be called;
3) players who intentionally put themselves at risk of playing the ball with their hand/arm should generally be penalized; and
4) players who could not reasonably avoid the ball hitting their hand/arm should not be penalized.

The new laws create three explicit categories: situations that are 1) always an offense, 2) usually an offense, and 3) usually not an offense.

Always an offense
The player deliberately touches the ball with his hand/arm, including by moving his hand/arm toward the ball.
The ball hits the hand/arm and goes directly into the goal.
The ball hits the hand/arm and the player gains control and either a) scores or b) creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

Usually an offense
Two situations are defined when the ball may accidentally touch a player’s hand/arm, but you would say that the player took an unreasonable risk and would usually find an offense.
The ball hits a player’s hand/arm when the player has “made their body unnaturally bigger” with that hand/arm.
The ball hits a player’s hand/arm when the player has raised their hand/arm above the player’s shoulder level.
Thus, when a ball hits the hand/arm of a player that makes the player’s body unnaturally bigger or is above the player’s shoulder, a foul is usually called, even if the opponent plays the ball into the player’s hand from a close distance.

Usually not an offense
There are four situations that are not usually offenses, even though the ball has hit a player’s hand/arm.
When a player plays the ball and it hits his own hand/arm.
When a player plays the ball and it hits another close-by player’s hand/arm.
When the ball hits a player’s hand/arm, but that player has their hand close to their body and not making their body unnaturally bigger.
When a player falls to the ground and has their hand/arm between their body and the ground to brace their fall, but not if their have their hand extended out in any other way.
Finally, a goaltender who handles the ball inside his own penalty area when not permitted to do so will never receive a caution or send off for it, even if they deny a goal-scoring opportunity or promising attack.

Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wv1E1v-fBC920t8ZsmTBq1huaXiYhlfim-ghgK5ftac/edit

Today during a U12 game, the ball hit a players hand. Ref said it was accidental so not hand ball.
Last week, exact same thing happened to my son - but he was called on it.
So... which is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the poster wasn’t being racist bc no particular race was mentioned. They were merely being xenophobic.

Even using the word xenophobic is racist. Words with more than four syllables are racist constructs designed to make people of color feel inferior.

Im confused

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many refs seem to be overweight elderly men. Why is this?

Don't worry. Covid will fix this.

You are both horrible.

Agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many refs seem to be overweight elderly men. Why is this?

Don't worry. Covid will fix this.

You are both horrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the poster wasn’t being racist bc no particular race was mentioned. They were merely being xenophobic.

Even using the word xenophobic is racist. Words with more than four syllables are racist constructs designed to make people of color feel inferior.

Actually people from India who are people of color could easily spell that word. They are much smarter than you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with boys playing on girls teams? DD's U15 team (NCSL) played against a team recently that had two boys playing on it. One of the parents on DD's team asked some of the parents from the other team if they were boys and was told "there's no rule that says they can't play on a girls team" (or something to that effect). Are there rules that govern this kind of thing? And if so, are they uniform across all of youth soccer or do they vary by league?

Don't be transphobic. They were very likely not boys at all - just girls with chromosomes they can't identify with. Your calling them boys is just needlessly cruel.

What a moron you are.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with boys playing on girls teams? DD's U15 team (NCSL) played against a team recently that had two boys playing on it. One of the parents on DD's team asked some of the parents from the other team if they were boys and was told "there's no rule that says they can't play on a girls team" (or something to that effect). Are there rules that govern this kind of thing? And if so, are they uniform across all of youth soccer or do they vary by league?

Is this travel or rec?

The only situation in which I'd think this is OK would be if someone had a developmental issue. Same reason you might see a 12-year-old in a U-11 rec league.

Girls, of course, play on boys teams all the time.

This was travel. And these two kids certainly didn't appear to have any developmental issues. By every stretch of the imagination, just normal U15-aged boys.

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with boys playing on girls teams? DD's U15 team (NCSL) played against a team recently that had two boys playing on it. One of the parents on DD's team asked some of the parents from the other team if they were boys and was told "there's no rule that says they can't play on a girls team" (or something to that effect). Are there rules that govern this kind of thing? And if so, are they uniform across all of youth soccer or do they vary by league?

Is this travel or rec?

The only situation in which I'd think this is OK would be if someone had a developmental issue. Same reason you might see a 12-year-old in a U-11 rec league.

Girls, of course, play on boys teams all the time.

What sort of developmental issue?

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the poster wasn’t being racist bc no particular race was mentioned. They were merely being xenophobic.

Even using the word xenophobic is racist. Words with more than four syllables are racist constructs designed to make people of color feel inferior.

Yeah the poster wasn’t being racist bc no particular race was mentioned. They were merely being xenophobic.

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with boys playing on girls teams? DD's U15 team (NCSL) played against a team recently that had two boys playing on it. One of the parents on DD's team asked some of the parents from the other team if they were boys and was told "there's no rule that says they can't play on a girls team" (or something to that effect). Are there rules that govern this kind of thing? And if so, are they uniform across all of youth soccer or do they vary by league?

Where they any good?

Anonymous wrote:What's the deal with boys playing on girls teams? DD's U15 team (NCSL) played against a team recently that had two boys playing on it. One of the parents on DD's team asked some of the parents from the other team if they were boys and was told "there's no rule that says they can't play on a girls team" (or something to that effect). Are there rules that govern this kind of thing? And if so, are they uniform across all of youth soccer or do they vary by league?

Don't be transphobic. They were very likely not boys at all - just girls with chromosomes they can't identify with. Your calling them boys is just needlessly cruel.

Anonymous wrote:How is this racist if your not identifying a race?

Your white fagility is showing. Of course it's racist.