IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0341822.html

Penalty kick or not? Differences in the interpretation of handball incidents in professional association football

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Bauch
  • Daniel Leyhr
  • David Schmidt
  • Daniel Brinkmann
  • Oliver Höner

Abstract

Handball decisions in the penalty area remain one of the most controversial topics in professional association football, yet they are underexplored in sports science. The purpose of this research was to establish a foundation for understanding the controversy by examining its underlying causes. Two video-based studies quantified how key stakeholders interpret handball incidents and how closely these interpretations align with Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) guidelines. Study 1 involved referees active in German men’s professional football (n = 154) who judged 30 incidents. Study 2 repeated the procedure with professional coaches (n = 31) and players (n = 46) using 18 incidents. Outcomes were Accuracy (accordance with UEFA), Strictness (percentage of incidents deemed punishable), Consensus (within- and between-group agreement), and Reasoning (primary reason for a decision). Referees reached 84.0% Accuracy, which differed by role, performance level, and handball category. Strictness among referees was lower compared to UEFA (42.9% vs. 50%). Coaches and players demonstrated lower Accuracy (63.8% and 67.5%) and Strictness (36.0% and 33.9%) than referees, resulting in significant differences in Consensus across Stakeholder Groups in 11 out of 18 incidents. Reasoning also diverged as referees preferred Naturalness, whereas coaches and players emphasised Avoidability and Impact. These findings reveal systematic differences between governing body guidelines, referee decision-making, and practitioner expectations. The results can inform educational measures and discussions on potential revisions to the handball law. Clearer and more objective criteria, jointly agreed by key stakeholders, are required to improve the consistency and acceptance of handball decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Bauch & Daniel Leyhr & David Schmidt & Daniel Brinkmann & Oliver Höner, 2026. "Penalty kick or not? Differences in the interpretation of handball incidents in professional association football," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0341822
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341822
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0341822
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0341822&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0341822?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikael Jamil & Perry Littman & Marco Beato, 2020. "Investigating inter-league and inter-nation variations of key determinants for penalty success across European football," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 892-907, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silvan Vollmer & David Schoch & Ulrik Brandes, 2024. "Penalty shoot-outs are tough, but the alternating order is fair," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(12), pages 1-20, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0341822. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.