Football is not a stranger to controversy but there are certain things that do not remain a debate and bear the spark of a conflagration. A more recent game has seen a penalty given to Leeds United be an infamous example of such a flash point, and many are calling the ruling a scandal. This paper shall hence seek to filter through the mudde and present a clear analysis of the incident including the laws that apply to this incident as well as the different understanding of the laws that have led to the overheated debate. We shall enter into the complexity of Law 12, the subjectivity of what is an unnatural position, and the application of VAR, to come to a conclusion as to whether the penalty, in fact, was correct, as per the letter of the law.
I think that all the controversy around the Leeds penalty was an ideal illustration of the greatest weakness of the new rule on handball: subjectivity. Although certain quarters claim that the long arm used by James Tarkowski made him look unnaturally larger I think it was just a natural reflex action of a player who was trying to get the ball airborne. The ruling shows how hard enforce the strict law on such flexible, rapid game like football and it is a pity that one, quite disputable decision can have such a tremendous influence on the result of a game.
The Incident: A Moment of Controversy
It was the hottest match of the season and it was on a knife-edge as the Leeds United and the Burnley had a tough tussle to dominate the match. Next, in a decisive event, the ball struck the arm of a Burnley defender James Tarkowski, within the penalty box. The referee deliberated and then pointed to the spot. The ground exploded–the Leeds fans gonzoid, the Burnley fans and players incredulous and violent in protest. Such an isolated decision let to a wave of breakdown and discourse, crowding out post-match coverage and social feeds.
Unpacking the Laws: A Deep Dive into Law 12
To see the essence of the dispute, we will have to refer to the rulebook, namely, to Law 12 that deals with fouls and misconduct. In this law there is even the part that deals with handling the ball. According to the official text, there are a number of cases that amount to an offense of a handball:
Deliberate Handball: The Intentional Touch
- Purposely touching the ball with the hand or the arm.
- This means that it is deliberate and intentional and the player has touched the ball with his/her hand and arm.
Non-Deliberate Handball: When Intent Doesn’t Matter (Sometimes)
Even if the touch is not deliberate, a handball can still be penalized in the following situations:
- Where the hand/arm has rendered the body unnaturally enlarged.
- Here the interpretation is critical. An arm position considered to be unnatural does not have to be the result but should be the effect of the movement of the player to that particular situation. With his arm in this position, he exposes himself to a possibility of having the ball hit his hand/arm and having to suffer a penalty.
- In the event a player directs the ball into the goal of their opponents using hand/arm in the case that this was an accident.
- When a player obtains without interference the direct control/possession of a ball (after it has touched his or her hand/arm) and thereafter:
- Goal in the opponents net.
- Builds a scoring chance.
Considerations for the Referee
When a referee has to decide on a possible offense, he/she should take into account the following:
- It is the trip of the hand to the ball (not the ball to the hand).
- The range between the player and his/her opponent (the ball unexpectedly hitting the player).
- The Hand/arm as a supporting position.
- Body movement justifies position of the hand/arm by the player.
The Burning Question: Was Tarkowski’s Arm Position “Unnatural”?
This is the big talking point at the centre of the Leeds penalty controversy. Did Tarkowski’s arm angle make his body “out of the norm bigger”? Let’s look at the arguments:
Arguments for a Penalty:
- Arm out from the body: Replays kept showing Tarkowski’s arm extended throughout to some degree out from his body while contesting the ball. This visual impact can suggest to the conclusion that it was bigger barrier.
- Risk assessment: The case here is that by placing his arm there, Tarkowski took the risk that the ball might hit it and a penalty awarded.
Arguments Against a Penalty:
- Natural action on an air challenge: In jumping to head the ball, the players tend to seek their balance by using the arms and it serves as leverage as well. Those objecting to the ruling state that the natural motion of the arm of Tarkowski was an attempt to contend with the other player over a ball in the air.
- Insufficient intent: There was not too much to indicate that Tarkowski made a deliberate attempt to touch the ball. The would seem to have been incidental contact as he fought in the header.
- Proximity and response time: The movement of the ball might also have been covered a relatively short distance allowing minimal response time before Tarkowski could move his arm out of the way.
The Weight of Words: Analyzing Key Quotes
Memorable quotes that encompassed the various views on the matter have heightened the controversy behind the penalty particularly due to the number of memorable quotes made thereof.
“The guilt was written all over Tarkowski’s face”
This view, as viewed by the commentators and fans, would imply that Tarkowski accepted his situation of guilt as soon as the ball hit his arm. One would not want to ultimately base the offense of a handball based on the reaction of the player though because it is faulty in a number of ways:
- Subjectivity: It is very subjective and somewhat biased to interpret facial expression and body language.
- Emotional context: The red card can be touched by emotions of the player due to the subjective reasons like the frustration, unwillingness to agree with the arse, or even the belief that nobody can make an unjust decision working in this way, despite the fact of deliberate handling of the ball by the player.
- Concentrate on the rule: Although the referee may guide his decision by looking at what the game laws should do, he should not base his decision according to an interpretation of an emotional state of a player.
“Unless you cut the boy’s hand off, I don’t know where he goes”
Relative to the subjective nature of handball rule, the frustration is summarized by this dramatic quote by a commentator. It actually has a point when a player is jumping or falling, regarding natural movement of arms. When the body is in the air, one can stick his/her arms to stay steady. The law attempts to anticipate this by stipulating what would constitute an unnatural position but what may be unnatural and what may be natural can be left in a gray area as far as the movement of your arm is concerned. Those contesting the ruling said that Tarkowski arm was in a normal position of his height jumping to attempt header, and thus he had no time to move.
The VAR Factor: A Tool for Clarity or More Confusion?
Video Assistant Referee (VAR) The VAR system was introduced to assist the officials to prevent such evident mistakes as wrong penalty decisions. Nevertheless, the Leeds penalty case shows that VAR is not the universal cure and be sometimes present another level of confusion and discussion.
- VAR intervention: The VAR is probably the one who went through the case of the handball of Tarkowski.
- Subjective interpretation endures: there is also a subjective element to whether the position of Tarkowski when the ball hit that part of his arm was an unnatural position or not, and it is subjective to the person on the field; the VAR would not have considered the original call to be a clear and obvious error to overturn that call.
- Issues with inconsistency: This angle of concern has been raised by many fans and pundits on the perceived inconsistency in the application of VAR to various handball incidents in different leagues and different competitions.
Echoes of the Past: A Pattern of Handball Headaches
It is not the first time in history that there has been controversy over Leeds penalty. The refereeing of handball issues is an old issue in football. Many historical moments have led to the same amounts of fury and debate that this situation has, and it reaffirms the fact that it does not seem possible to have a common rule related to handball and enforce that rule in each case. These archaic scandals support the necessity of continuing the discussion and possible explanations to the rules of the game.
The Managerial Divide: Bielsa’s Perspective vs. Dyche’s Disappointment
The difference in the response of the two manager, Marcelo Bielsa of Leeds and Sean Dyche of Burnley, further poured fuel to the debate.
- Bielsa position: although Bielsa does not often harshly criticise refereeing decisions, his post-match remarks could have suggested that he thought the penalty to be justified, perhaps in reference to the image of Tarkowski with a raised arm.
- Sean Dyche, the manager of Burnley, is certainly an outspoken person, so hence considering that he was highly disappointed and told the official he was wrong in awarding a penalty, where he might have added that it was accidental contact and that it was as natural as the position of arm of Tarkowski.
Such contrasting perspectives show the underlying difference with regard to the interpretation of the law and fairness of the ruling.
The Court of Public Opinion: Social Media and Fan Reaction
With the digital era, the influence of controversial decisions has only increased and social media platforms have become fields upon which the factions argue about the decisions. The Leeds penalty was not the exception as it produced a gush of views:
- Leeds fans: Majority of them felt the decision made by the referee was correct and they experienced it as a defining moment of the match which they had won.
- The Burnley fans: Infuriated by the ruling on the fact that it was not in the best interest of their club and had lost them important points.
- Neutral fans: Divided in their opinion, many paying attention to ambiguousness of the rule of the handball and inconsistencies in applying it.
The Quest for Consistency: A Never-Ending Challenge?
The question as to whether there is any chance of ensuring absolute unanimity in the application of the intricate rule of handball arises in the wake of the current controversies that arise every now and then.
- Inherent subjectivity: Even the definition of words such as deliberate and unnatural position itself invite subjectivity and it is impossible to remove it completely.
- Speed of play: The game is so fast that referees are sometimes faced with decisions having to make them in a few seconds under intense high pressure.
- Inconsistent judgments: Even in a case of the training and indications, different referees may pass a slightly varying judgment to incidents.
As much as it is important thus far to strive towards a higher degree of clarity and consistency, there is little reason to think that handball controversies can possibly ever be eliminated as part of the football narrative given the nuances and complexities of the very game itself.
Final Verdict: A Matter of Interpretation, Not a ‘Scandal’
The fact that Leeds United was penalized against burnley was not merely a ruling in one game, but instead it turned into a microcosm of the current problem of interpreting and implementing the hand ball rule in the soccer game. It became the topic of intense discussion, creating awareness of the subjectivity of the laws of the games and the frustrations on the perceived inconsistencies, even in the age of VAR. As Leeds rejoiced by its victory, this incident in dealing with penalty is a reminder that the flawless system of having a game completely fairly officiated game is still very illusive. After all, it is all to say whether or not the penalty was right in which case is still a precise detail that whether or not the penalty was right remains to opinion, but the issues of discussion though the penalty caused, have certainly sparked off some more light regarding the complexities and sides to one of the most unpopular rules in football.
My Opinion
The plentitude of the punishments given by the Leeds versus Burnley game was a massive topic of discussion and my thoughts on this are that it embodies the frustrating subjectivity of the handball rule. On the one hand, you can understand why the referee awarded it- Tarkowskis arm was out and that is usually what it takes on the new principles to award a penalty. However, as a game lover, I think it is a cruel choice that punishes a player over a natural action and movement that is nearly instinctive. The fact that it varies so greatly between different matches and different refs is actually a problem, and, this case simply placed that problem back under a spotlight. Well, it seems to me that the way the law is interpreted now gives too much to the subjectivity, in the sense that it does not provide enough to the common sense.
