Every question in this scenario

The Handball investigation scenario asks 19 questions and can reach 19 decisions. A walk answers only the ones its own answers lead to. This is the whole set, for reference and for revision.

1. 1Was the contact on the shoulder rather than the arm?

   IFAB defines the upper boundary of the arm as the bottom of the armpit. The shoulder itself is not considered hand or arm.

   Answers: Yes · No

2. 2Did this player score directly from, or immediately after, the ball touching their arm?

   Intent is irrelevant here, and it covers the goalkeeper too. The scorer's own hand or arm is the only one that counts.

   Answers: Yes · No

3. 3Was the player the goalkeeper, inside their own penalty area?

   For that one player in that one place there is no handball offence to analyse at all, so it is settled first.

   Answers: Yes · No

4. 4Did the ball touch another part of the player's body first, before touching the arm?

   The ball striking the chest, knee or thigh first does not decide the outcome by itself.

   Answers: Yes · No

5. 5Did the player use the arm on the ball to cushion, push, redirect or control it?

   A player who cushions, pushes, redirects or controls the ball with the arm chose to make that touch. A ball continuing its own path off the arm is not a choice.

   Answers: Yes · No

6. 6Did the player have enough time to react and avoid using the arm to control the ball?

   If the deflection reached the arm too fast to do anything, there was no choice to make. If the player had a genuine moment and used the arm, the touch was deliberate.

   Answers: Yes · No

7. 7Was the arm's position a risk the player could have seen coming and avoided?

   Reaction time is not a test in the Laws. The test is whether the arm's position was a consequence of the player's own body movement in that situation.

   Answers: Yes · No

8. 8Did the player deliberately touch the ball with the hand or arm?

   Moving the hand or arm towards the ball is Law 12's own example. Using the arm to block, cushion or redirect a ball the player saw coming is the same choice.

   Answers: Yes · No

9. 9Was the ball struck from very close range with no time to react?

   Time is not a separate test in the law. At point-blank range the arm is where the player's movement had already put it, with no chance to move it.

   Answers: Yes · No

10. 10Was the arm's position a risk the player could have seen coming and avoided?

    If a cross was clearly coming, a shot was being lined up in front of them, or a wall was already set, the player had reason to move the arm.

    Answers: Yes · No

11. 11What was the player doing at the moment of contact?

    Pick the drawing that matches what you saw. The body's movement at that moment decides whether the arm's position was justifiable.

    Answers: Falling or losing balance · Jumping for a header · Standing or defending, not falling or jumping · Running · Standing in a defensive wall · Sliding or going to ground in a tackle · Holding an opponent, with the arm around them

12. 12Was the arm already extended before the player started falling?

    If the arm was extended before the fall began, the player took a risk. If the arm reached out as a reflex to break the fall, it may be justified.

    Answers: Yes · No

13. 13Was the arm raised above shoulder height?

    Arms raised to balance a jump are a consequence of the jump. Above shoulder height, Ruleside reads the jump as no longer accounting for the arm.

    Answers: Yes · No

14. 14Was the arm extended wide to the side, beyond what balance requires?

    A player can raise arms slightly for balance when jumping. But if the arm is extended out wide like a wing, it goes beyond what balance requires and becomes unnatural.

    Answers: Yes · No

15. 15Was the arm extended away from the body, with no movement to explain why?

    An arm kept close to the body is a natural position. An arm out with nothing going on to explain it is a risk the player chose.

    Answers: Yes · No

16. 16Was the arm swinging naturally as part of the running motion?

    Arms swing as part of a running stride, and an arm moving with the stride is a consequence of that movement. An arm held away from the body is not.

    Answers: Yes · No

17. 17Were the player's arms tucked in, covering the body rather than extended outward?

    Players in a wall commonly hold their arms in against the body. Ruleside reads that stance as justifying arms held in, not arms pushed out.

    Answers: Yes · No

18. 18Was the arm on the ground taking the player's weight?

    An arm planted to support a sliding player is body movement. An arm reaching out beyond what the slide needs is not.

    Answers: Yes · No

19. 19Was the arm out beyond what holding the opponent needed?

    An arm wrapped around an opponent is where the hold puts it. An arm high or wide of that is a position the hold does not explain.

    Answers: Yes · No

Every decision it can reach

Each one is where a walk ends, with the reasoning it prints. The clause behind a decision is cited on the decision itself, which you reach by walking to it.

1. No handball: shoulder contact

   Law 12 puts the upper boundary of the arm in line with the bottom of the armpit, so a touch above that line is not a touch with the arm and cannot be a handball offence.

2. Goal disallowed: scored off the scorer's own hand or arm

   A player commits an offence if they score in the opponents' goal directly from their hand or arm, even if accidental and including the goalkeeper, or immediately after the ball has touched their hand or arm, even if accidental. Intent is irrelevant here, and a perfectly natural arm position is no defence. The goal is disallowed. This offence reaches the scorer's own hand or arm and no further: an accidental handball by a team-mate earlier in the move does not disallow the goal. The restart is a direct free kick to the defending team from where the handball happened, since a handball offence is a direct free kick offence however it is committed, and a free kick to the defending team inside its own goal area may be taken from anywhere in that area, which is where most of these goals are scored from. A card follows only where the player handled in an attempt to score, which is a caution whether or not the attempt succeeds. Where the touch was accidental the goal is still disallowed and there is no card.

3. No handball offence: the goalkeeper in their own penalty area

   There is no handball offence here whatever the arm did. The bullet that makes handball a direct free kick offence excepts the goalkeeper within their penalty area, so deliberate or not, natural or not, none of it applies. What still restricts them is a different rule with a different sanction: a goalkeeper who handles the ball inside their own penalty area when not permitted to, which is the back-pass and throw-in restriction, concedes an indirect free kick and no disciplinary sanction. If the offence was playing the ball a second time after a restart before it touched another player, and that stopped a promising attack or denied a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned for that. Outside their penalty area the goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling as any other player, and the scoring offence reaches them too.

4. Handball: deliberate touch after deflection

   Once the ball reached the arm, the player used the arm to control or redirect it rather than letting it continue off the body. The law's test is whether the player deliberately touched the ball with the hand or arm, and using the arm to manage the ball is such a touch. The earlier deflection is not itself an answer to that question. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card follows what the handball did, not how obvious it was. Deliberate handball that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is a sending-off wherever it happens, the one exception being a goalkeeper inside their own penalty area. Handling to interfere with or stop a promising attack is a caution, and so is handling in an attempt to score, whether or not the attempt succeeds. Deliberate handball that did none of those carries no card. One limb of the restart clause is worth naming because it is where these arguments happen: a penalty kick is awarded for a direct free kick offence committed inside the offender's own penalty area or off the field as part of play, so a defender standing behind his own goal line who handles a ball that has not yet crossed it concedes a penalty kick, and is sent off if that denied a goal, which handling on the line almost always does.

5. Handball: unnatural position

   Even though the contact was not deliberate, the player's arm was in an unnatural position that made their body bigger. IFAB says by having their arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their arm being hit by the ball. Intent is not required. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card is where a non-deliberate handball parts company with a deliberate one, and it turns on where it happened. Outside their own penalty area, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball is a sending-off. Inside it, where the referee awards a penalty kick for the same denial, the offender is cautioned instead. And stopping a promising attack is a caution everywhere except where a penalty kick is awarded for a non-deliberate handball, which that clause excepts in its own words, so the same act inside the area can produce a penalty and no card at all.

6. No handball: arm position justifiable

   The ball deflected off another part of the player's body and the arm was then involved, but with no time to react to it. The position of the hand or arm was a consequence of the player's body movement in that situation rather than something the player chose, and not every touch of the hand or arm is an offence. No offence.

7. Handball: deliberate

   The player deliberately moved their hand or arm toward the ball, which Law 12 gives as its example of deliberately touching the ball with the hand or arm. The goalkeeper inside their own penalty area is the only player the offence does not reach, and that was settled before this question. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card follows what the handball did, not how obvious it was. Deliberate handball that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity is a sending-off wherever it happens, the one exception being a goalkeeper inside their own penalty area. Handling to interfere with or stop a promising attack is a caution, and so is handling in an attempt to score, whether or not the attempt succeeds. Deliberate handball that did none of those carries no card. One limb of the restart clause is worth naming because it is where these arguments happen: a penalty kick is awarded for a direct free kick offence committed inside the offender's own penalty area or off the field as part of play, so a defender standing behind his own goal line who handles a ball that has not yet crossed it concedes a penalty kick, and is sent off if that denied a goal, which handling on the line almost always does.

8. No handball: arm position not chosen

   The ball was struck from such close range that the arm's position at contact was simply where the player's own movement had left it. On the law's test, the position of the hand or arm was a consequence of the player's body movement for that specific situation, and not every touch of the hand or arm is an offence. This reasoning does not rescue an arm that was already extended beyond what the player's movement justified before the ball was struck.

9. Handball: arm extended before fall

   The arm was already extended before the player began to fall, so the fall does not account for where it was. On the body-movement test the position was not a consequence of the movement, and the player carried the risk of the ball striking it. Whether the extension truly preceded the fall is a judgement on footage, and slowed replay flatters the case for saying it did. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card is where a non-deliberate handball parts company with a deliberate one, and it turns on where it happened. Outside their own penalty area, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball is a sending-off. Inside it, where the referee awards a penalty kick for the same denial, the offender is cautioned instead. And stopping a promising attack is a caution everywhere except where a penalty kick is awarded for a non-deliberate handball, which that clause excepts in its own words, so the same act inside the area can produce a penalty and no card at all.

10. Likely no handball: arm out to break the fall

    The arm went out as the player fell. Going to ground is body movement, and an arm put out in the course of it can be a consequence of that movement rather than a position the player chose. On this reading the arm's position is justifiable and there is no offence. The judgement is close: an arm extended further or earlier than the fall accounts for is a different case, and this is one of the most argued calls in the game.

11. Handball: arm above shoulder in jump

    The arm went above shoulder height as the player jumped. Ruleside reads a jump as accounting for arms used to balance and not for an arm raised above the shoulder, so on that reading the position is not justifiable by the body movement and the offence stands. Shoulder height is a working line rather than one the Laws draw, and the edition works through no jumping example. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card is where a non-deliberate handball parts company with a deliberate one, and it turns on where it happened. Outside their own penalty area, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball is a sending-off. Inside it, where the referee awards a penalty kick for the same denial, the offender is cautioned instead. And stopping a promising attack is a caution everywhere except where a penalty kick is awarded for a non-deliberate handball, which that clause excepts in its own words, so the same act inside the area can produce a penalty and no card at all.

12. No handball: arms for balance

    The arms were where jumping puts them, used for balance rather than raised or pushed out to occupy space. On the body-movement test the position is a consequence of the jump, so there is no offence. A player cannot be expected to jump with their arms pinned to their sides. Closer to the line this is a judgement rather than a fixed threshold.

13. No handball: arm in a natural resting position

    The player was standing or in a defensive position with the arm kept close to the body. There was no movement like falling, jumping, or running to justify an extended arm, and none was needed, the arm was already in a natural position. This is not handball.

14. No handball: natural running motion

    The arm was swinging as part of the stride. Running is body movement and an arm moving with it is a consequence of that movement, so there is no offence. Players cannot freeze their arms while running.

15. Handball: arm held unnaturally while running

    The arm was held away from the body or fixed rather than moving with the stride, so the running does not account for where it was. On the body-movement test the position is not justifiable and the offence stands. Where an arm is caught mid-swing the reading is genuinely close. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card is where a non-deliberate handball parts company with a deliberate one, and it turns on where it happened. Outside their own penalty area, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball is a sending-off. Inside it, where the referee awards a penalty kick for the same denial, the offender is cautioned instead. And stopping a promising attack is a caution everywhere except where a penalty kick is awarded for a non-deliberate handball, which that clause excepts in its own words, so the same act inside the area can produce a penalty and no card at all.

16. No handball: arms tucked in wall

    The arms were tucked in against the body rather than extended outward. Ruleside reads a wall stance as justifying arms held in to protect the body, so the position is a consequence of that movement and there is no offence. The Laws set no standard for wall arms, so this is a reading of the body-movement test rather than a rule to quote.

17. Handball: arms raised in wall

    The arms were raised or extended outward rather than held in against the body. On Ruleside's reading a wall stance justifies protecting the body and not occupying more of it, so the position is not justifiable and the offence stands. This is one of the most argued categories in the game and the edition works through no wall example. The restart: a handball offence is a direct free kick however it is committed, and a penalty kick where the offence occurred inside their own penalty area. The card is where a non-deliberate handball parts company with a deliberate one, and it turns on where it happened. Outside their own penalty area, denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a non-deliberate handball is a sending-off. Inside it, where the referee awards a penalty kick for the same denial, the offender is cautioned instead. And stopping a promising attack is a caution everywhere except where a penalty kick is awarded for a non-deliberate handball, which that clause excepts in its own words, so the same act inside the area can produce a penalty and no card at all.

18. Likely no handball: the arm was holding the player up

    A player going to ground in a tackle puts an arm down to take his weight, and that is body movement in the plainest sense: the arm is where the slide put it rather than where the player chose to put it. On the law's test the position of the hand or arm is a consequence of the player's body movement for that specific situation, and not every touch of the hand or arm is an offence. The judgement is close and the Laws work through no sliding example, so this is Ruleside's reading of a boundary the text states without drawing: an arm reaching out past what the slide needs, or planted early and left there, is a different case and is the other answer to the question above.

19. No handball, and the holding is the offence

    An arm wrapped around an opponent is where the player's own movement has put it, so the ball striking it has not made the body unnaturally bigger and there is no handball offence. The hold itself is what to penalise: holding an opponent is a direct free kick offence, and the glossary reads it as contact with an opponent's body or equipment that impedes their movement. Nothing turns on whether the ball then hit the arm.