ArticlePloS one2026
Penalty kick or not? Differences in the interpretation of handball incidents in professional association football.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.