The Third Yellow: Law 18 vs. Tim Ford's No Call

A curious no-call might have followed general handball interpretation guidelines but failed to follow the greatest rule of them all.

Photo Courtesy of J. Alexander Dolan

Welcome back to the column everyone! I feel like it’s been a while since we’ve gotten to do one of these and we have a good one for you today.

In the 79th minute of Saturday’s game, Revolution substitute Nacho Gil chests the ball inside the area and then the ball is rudely met by St. Louis’ Kyle Hiebert’s fist. The Video Assistant Referee flagged the play, but center referee Tim Ford did not award a penalty after review a few minute later at the next stoppage.

There have been many changes to the handball law and other specific interpretations and guidance in recent years and what I believe to be the most recent interpretation was applied here. Referees are supposed to give significant deference to 50/50 challenges inside the area where the ball comes off a player and hits an arm inadvertently. This was rightly done to decrease the number of penalties being given under previous stricter interpretations and largely the game is better for it.

But what Tim Ford determined on review, erroneously in my opinion, is that this was a 50/50 challenge and that the ball was judged to be a deflection off Nacho. Both factors of this decision should have led the Revs being given their first penalty of the year.

First, we need to take into consideration Hiebert’s position and whether he made a legitimate attempt at the ball or a 50/50 challenge. I do not believe he did as he’s very late and Nacho has significant time and position to play the ball with his chest. Whether or not Nacho established clear possession will never be known because of the handball.

Hiebert’s half-hearted attempt to jump/lean into Nacho isn’t worthy of a foul but also shouldn’t be enough to establish a 50/50 challenge that would afford him the protection he is ultimately given.

Second, and the more important factor, is the idea that this ball took an “unexpected deflection” as Ford told the pool reporter after the game. A deflection in soccer generally arises from two distinct plays - an attempted block by a defender that changes the ball’s direction from its original intent or a 50/50 ball that is deliberately played but in no clear direction or possession.

Nacho Gil’s deliberate play on this ball with his chest is a clear attempt to either win possession or knock the ball down/pass it to Giacomo Vrioni - who is nearby. This should not be a deflection under any accepted definition or logic.

Moreso, the protection afforded to defenders under the current interpretation is to take into account the weird things that occur when a ball very suddenly changes direction into their space. Hiebert’s positioning on this play, with his arm/fist in front of Nacho, should not be considered a natural playing position as it is encroaching on an opponent’s ability to play or pass the ball. Coming to the dual conclusion that Hiebert made a legitimate 50/50 challenge on this play and was in a natural position while handling a ball that was in front of his opponent defies common sense to an extreme level.

A defender should not be given deference in this situation because the ball has been deliberately played by the attacker and the ball has not struck a defender in their own space. The interpretation and guidance that Tim Ford used here are far much more objective 50/50 situations in which a ball clearly and unintentionally strikes a defender in a natural playing position while attempting to play or challenge for a ball in the air and a defender has little chance to change their momentum.

This isn’t even a ball-to-hand situation, which was one of the old guidelines. This is about as clear of a handball as exists under the laws.

Hiebert’s moving his arm/fist in front of an opponent who has clear position and time to make a deliberate action on the ball is in itself, a clear and deliberate action that should have not only resulted in a penalty but also a yellow card. Heibert clearly should have been judged to have broken up a pass or opponent’s possession with a deliberate handball under Law 12. Not intentional. That’s not what that means, but a specific action that in this case should rise to the severity of a caution under the laws.

Obviously, Caleb Porter is in for some hefty fines for his comments after the game as the Revs were not only upset with the lack of penalty but also Luca Langoni’s being penalized for subbing off too slowly. The Revolution claim he was coming off due to injury and that it took Langoni 14 seconds to come off which resulted in holding off Nacho Gil’s entry for a minute. During this time, St. Louis equalized. If Langoni was coming off due to injury, he should have stayed down and waited for a trainer as any injury sub should be given time to safely exit the field to prevent further injury.

If Langoni’s situation was communicated to the referee crew appropriately, a trainer should have been allowed to enter the field of play and assist Langoni off the field without the worry of the ten-second rule to deter time-wasting. The Revs should learn from this situation and the league/referees should be allowing trainers onto the field even while a substituted player is walking off under his own power.

Okay, back to the handball.

Overall, Tim Ford failed to remember Law 18, which is absolutely at the back of the IFAB lawbook, I double-checked. Knowing the current interpretations and guidance surrounding specific plays and situations is just as important as knowing when a play falls outside those guidelines. This is not a failure of the interpretations provided but one of common sense.

Hiebert effectively dispossessing Nacho with his fist should as far as I know be whistled for a handball based on every interpretation and version of the law for as long as I have been playing soccer, which is multiple decades. There should be no disqualifying factor for effectively punching a ball away from in front of an opponent while you are standing behind them. Your arm is not in a natural playing position while it is outside of your general space, let alone encroaching on your opponent’s entitled area to play the ball.

As always, if you ask however many people at a bar if this is a handball, 95% of them will be arguing with that one guy who will point to some literal technical aspect of the law. I generally disagree with these technicalities as a matter of principle, and especially for this play, as the laws should always be governed in the end, by common sense.

It will be interesting to see how PRO analyzes this one, if they do, in their weekly review video/article series. Hopefully, they can add a little more clarity/depth to what I have above.