Ask a question and win Graham Poll's book that hits the spot!

Graham Poll knows a fair bit about World Cup controversy and has drawn on all of his experience in Geoff Hurst and the Hand of God, his book that examines the big refereeing issues in today's game by placing them in the context of some of the World Cup's best known controversies.

The first topic up for discussion in the book is synonymous with Geoff Hurst himself and the debate about whether that shot crossed the line. No goal-line technology back then of course, but FIFA's reluctance to embrace technology led Graham to observe the following in the opening chapter:

"I would like to think that now, more than forty years on, the officials would get it right if a similar incident occurred. All these years have passed, so much has been improved, yet it could happen again. It could happen in 2010. I find that frightening. And next time, it could be England on the wrong end of a wrong decision."

Talk about prophetic! So if you want to find out what other pearls of wisdom Graham has to offer in Geoff Hurst and the Hand of God, just email grahampoll@clubwebsite.co.uk with your refereeing query from a grassroots game. The best questions are answered by Graham here in The Clubhouse every month, whilst the Question of the Month wins a personal signed copy of his book. What's more, every question received gets put into a draw for a Club Website football!

So here's your pick of the bunch this month. No goal-line technology to be seen, but there is question about a handball on the goal-line, though not the one you're thinking of.  This question was received before Luis Suarez's Hand of God II and the subsequent debate about penalty goals which, not surprisingly, saw our Graham right in amongst it. Enjoy!

Question of the Month

Well done to Dave Woodall of Parrswood Celtic FC who emailed Graham his best question this month. A personal signed copy of Geoff Hurst and the Hand of God is on its way to you!

If a striker is not allowed to nick the ball from a keeper when he releases the ball from his hands because apparently the keeper still has the ball under control, why would it not be deemed as hand ball when the keeper is running to the edge of his area and releases the ball but doesnt kick it until he is outside of his box?

Surely if the ball is under his control, meaning no other players can interfere, he should have to remain in his area until the ball has been kicked?

Graham’s verdict: Once a keeper releases the ball he can be tackled / dispossessed. So once he rolls the ball out of his penalty area it can be nicked away from him.

If he throws it into the air from the edge of his area and the ball then flies outside the area before he kicks it then again a sharp centre forward could "steal" the ball from him.

The only time that a striker is penalised for nicking the ball away from the keeper is when the act occurs within the penalty area and the keeper is deemed to still be in control of the ball when releasing it to "fly-kick" it.

The best of the rest this month...

Six seconds to comply - Geoff Sharpe (via email)

The goalkeeper, according to the Laws of the Game, has six seconds before he has to release the ball but what is defined as under his control?

For example, if he intercepts a through ball and stops the ball with his foot, no attacker comes to him, then he dribbles the ball in his box before picking the ball up, when does the six second rule start?

Graham’s verdict: The keeper is deemed to have the ball under his control once he has played the ball with his hand(s) or arm(s) unless making a save when parrying he ball does not count until he collects the ball. He is also allowed to bounce the ball as this is not considered to be releasing the ball into play. So the 6 seconds starts once he has played the ball, or retains it, with his hands.

Making up the numbers - Sjoc57@aol.com (via email)

I refereed a game recently in The Pembrokeshire League, West Wales. As the team sheet was being completed, the home manager advised me that their number five would be arriving late as he was working, but would definitely be taking part. They included him on the team sheet (as a starter, as well as three substitutes) and the game started with the home team having only ten men on the field.

Fifteen minutes into the game, I was approached by the home manager,who advised that his number five had been delayed further, and requested he use one of his substitutes instead of him.

I advised that he was entitled to use a substitute, but only to replace a player that was on the field at the start of the match. He was annoyed that the substitute was not allowed to replace the number five, and that his team had to continue with ten men.

Was I right to refuse his request? Or should I have explained his options more clearly before the game started? The number five did turn up later and I allowed him to take part.

Graham’s verdict: I'm afraid that you were not correct. A named sub could have replaced the absent number 5 who could then take no part in the game.

Can I have 'one more'? - Andy Wood (via Facebook)

In one of our games there had been a number of passes and one of our players shouted "one more", meaning he wanted the ball passing the same way to him.

The ref pulled him up and warned him he had to put his name on it. In the second half the same player again shouted “one more” and the ref cautioned him.

Why is this a foul? He wasn't going for the ball and didn't have it, so shouldn't have to put his name on it - he was basically asking for the passage of play to be played on to him.

Graham’s verdict: Sounds a bit strange to me. The only explanation can be that the referee felt your player was guilty of unsporting behaviour - warned him on the first occasion and then cautioned him on the second.

Not everything is black & white - Alan "Big Al" Pleaden (via Facebook)

What is a referee to do if he turns up to the game and there is a colour clash between himself and one of the teams? One of our opponents this season played in a black kit and told the referee by phone five days before the game, but he still turned up in a black refereeing kit.

Graham’s verdict: Players are supposed to wear a kit that does not clash with other players or the match officials. However, some leagues approve black kits and if they do they usually instruct their referees to wear an alternative. It seems that there was a communication issue in your case.

"Handling" on the line - Roy Finnegan, Penn Colts FC (via email)

What was your opinion on Harry Kewell’s sending off for Australia against Ghana in World Cup Group D?

From hearing similar handballs discussed in the past, two of the terms I’ve heard used have been either “a deliberate movement of the hand/arm towards the ball” or for the hand to be placed in an “unnatural position” for an offence to have taken place.

It appeared to me that neither of these occurred during the Kewell incident, so I’d be most grateful if you could enlighten me on the issue. What sort of action should the referee have taken and under what grounds?

Hopefully then I’ll know what stance to take on the issue if the same thing happens in one of my games next season.

Graham’s verdict:I thought that the referee was correct to send Kewell off and award a penalty. The ball travelled a long way and Kewell knew exactly what he was doing. Had the shot come in from close to Kewell, with his arm by his side I would have played on. There are so many variables it is tough, so good luck next season.

Geoff Hurst and the Hand of God is published in hardback by Harper Collins and is available in all good book shops.

Graham Poll continues to write for The Daily Mail including his weekly Official Line which appears every Monday at The Mail online. He is a resident guest every week on Chappers' Premier League Podcast, sponsored by Championship Manager, and is also a regular pundit on talkSPORT and 5 Live. You can follow him on Twitter at @MAIL_GPoll.