Handball rule in football: offences, goals and penalties
A ball hitting a hand or arm is not automatically handball. Ask whether the contact was deliberate, whether the arm made the body unnaturally bigger, and whether the player scored directly or immediately after their own contact. These are different tests. A penalty also depends on where the offence happened.
What counts as handball in football?
Handball is a rule about particular hand or arm contacts, not a penalty for every touch. An offence is a breach of the rule; a restart is how play begins again after a stoppage. Establish the offence before deciding whether the restart should be a free kick or a penalty.
For this rule, the arm's upper boundary runs level with the bottom of the armpit. Contact entirely on the shoulder above that boundary is outside the handball area. A shirt sleeve is not the measuring line: sleeves differ, and the important point is where the ball actually touched the body.
This guide concerns outfield players and a ball already in play. Goalkeeper restrictions and handling after a player's own restart have additional rules. The examples also exclude an unrelated foul or offside offence, so those cannot silently change the answer.
Why can similar arm contacts receive different decisions?
Deliberate contact means intentionally touching the ball with the hand or arm. Moving the arm towards the ball is one example given in the Law. Deliberately jumping, turning or sliding is not, by itself, the same as deliberately handling the ball.
Unnaturally bigger concerns both the space the arm adds to the body and why it is there. The position is penalised when it enlarges the body and is neither a consequence of, nor justifiable by, the player's movement in that situation. An arm away from the torso is not a complete decision on its own.
Justified movement in the comparison means that this assessment has been supplied as a fact: the arm position fits the particular body movement. It does not mean that every player who says they were balancing, jumping or falling is exempt. The movement and contact still need to be assessed together.
Accidental only tells you that the touch was not deliberate. An accidental contact can still involve an unjustifiably enlarged body, or fall under the separate restriction on a player scoring after their own hand or arm touch. That is why two people saying 'it was accidental' may still be discussing different cases.
Compare the fact that changes the decision
Choose a fictional case and read the supplied facts before its conclusion. In the goal examples, A and B are two different attackers on the same team. The comparison separates the contact, the scoring sequence and what happens next; the paired example shows which fact matters.
Which fact changes the handball decision?
These are fictional cases involving outfield players and a live ball. The stated movement and sequence are evidence supplied for the example; they are not findings made from a photograph.
The upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Contact entirely above that boundary is shoulder contact in these examples.
Accidental contact: justified movement
- A defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area.
- The arm position is explicitly a consequence of, or justifiable by, this particular body movement. It does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. No goal is scored. The ball stays in play and the referee continues play.
Stated sequence
- The defender makes the stated body movement.
- The ball accidentally touches the forearm in the justified position.
- The ball stays in play; the referee continues play and no goal is scored.
No handball in this case
The supplied accidental contact and justified arm position do not establish a handball offence. Play continues with no handball restart.
- Goal consequence
- No goal is scored in this example.
- Restart
- No handball restart; the ball remains in play and play continues.
- Where
- No restart location: play has not been stopped for handball.
What decides this case?
The position is known to be justifiable for this specific movement and not to make the body unnaturally bigger. Calling a movement a jump or a balancing action would not establish those facts by itself.
Facts kept the same: The same defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area. No goal is scored, and there is no other offence.
| This case: Accidental contact: justified movement | Compare with: Accidental contact: body made bigger |
|---|---|
| Arm position in this movementA consequence of, or justifiable by, the particular movement; no unnatural enlargement. | Arm position in this movementMakes the body unnaturally bigger and is neither a consequence of nor justifiable by the particular movement. |
| ConsequenceNo handball in this case | ConsequenceHandball: penalty |
Accidental contact is common to both cases. The explicitly different relationship between the arm position and the body movement changes the handball decision.
A still picture does not establish intention or whether an arm position is justifiable for a particular body movement. Jumping or balancing is not a blanket exemption. These cases do not decide disciplinary sanctions; a handball offence does not automatically mean a card.
Compare all nine handball cases
Deliberate movement to the ball
- A defender is outside both penalty areas.
- The defender deliberately moves their forearm towards the live ball and contacts it. The deliberate action is supplied as a fact, not inferred from an arm position.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. The referee stops play for the stated handball offence; no advantage is applied.
Stated sequence
- The defender moves the forearm to the ball.
- Forearm contact occurs outside both penalty areas.
- The referee stops play; no advantage is applied. No goal is scored.
Handball: direct free kick
The stated deliberate movement towards the ball is a handball offence. The opponents receive a direct free kick at the contact point.
- Goal consequence
- No goal is scored in this example.
- Restart
- Direct free kick to the opponents; play is stopped and no advantage is applied.
- Where
- At the forearm contact point, outside both penalty areas.
What decides this case?
Deliberately moving the arm towards the ball establishes this offence. The location outside both penalty areas gives the direct-free-kick restart.
Facts kept the same: Both examples involve a defender, live-ball forearm contact, no goal and no other offence. This comparison changes two supplied facts, not just one.
| This case: Deliberate movement to the ball | Compare with: Accidental contact: justified movement |
|---|---|
| Action and arm positionDeliberate forearm movement towards the ball; no arm-position inference is needed. | Action and arm positionAccidental contact with a position explicitly justifiable for the movement; no unnatural enlargement. |
| Contact locationOutside both penalty areas. | Contact locationInside the defender’s own penalty area. |
| ConsequenceHandball: direct free kick | ConsequenceNo handball in this case |
Deliberate action changes the offence decision. Location determines the restart if there is an offence; being inside a penalty area does not itself make an accidental touch unlawful.
Accidental contact: justified movement
- A defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area.
- The arm position is explicitly a consequence of, or justifiable by, this particular body movement. It does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. No goal is scored. The ball stays in play and the referee continues play.
Stated sequence
- The defender makes the stated body movement.
- The ball accidentally touches the forearm in the justified position.
- The ball stays in play; the referee continues play and no goal is scored.
No handball in this case
The supplied accidental contact and justified arm position do not establish a handball offence. Play continues with no handball restart.
- Goal consequence
- No goal is scored in this example.
- Restart
- No handball restart; the ball remains in play and play continues.
- Where
- No restart location: play has not been stopped for handball.
What decides this case?
The position is known to be justifiable for this specific movement and not to make the body unnaturally bigger. Calling a movement a jump or a balancing action would not establish those facts by itself.
Facts kept the same: The same defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area. No goal is scored, and there is no other offence.
| This case: Accidental contact: justified movement | Compare with: Accidental contact: body made bigger |
|---|---|
| Arm position in this movementA consequence of, or justifiable by, the particular movement; no unnatural enlargement. | Arm position in this movementMakes the body unnaturally bigger and is neither a consequence of nor justifiable by the particular movement. |
| ConsequenceNo handball in this case | ConsequenceHandball: penalty |
Accidental contact is common to both cases. The explicitly different relationship between the arm position and the body movement changes the handball decision.
Accidental contact: body made bigger
- A defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area.
- The arm expands the body. Its position is explicitly neither a consequence of, nor justifiable by, this specific body movement, making the body unnaturally bigger.
- The ball reaches the forearm without the added thigh ricochet used in the deflection comparison.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. The referee stops play for the stated handball offence; no advantage is applied.
Stated sequence
- The ball reaches the defender’s forearm.
- The accidental touch occurs with the stated unjustified enlargement, inside the defender’s own penalty area.
- The referee stops play; no advantage is applied. No goal is scored.
Handball: penalty
The explicitly unjustified arm position makes the body unnaturally bigger. This handball offence inside the defender’s own penalty area gives the opponents a penalty.
- Goal consequence
- No goal is scored in this example.
- Restart
- Penalty to the opponents; play is stopped and no advantage is applied.
- Where
- From the penalty mark in the defender’s own penalty area.
What decides this case?
The unnatural enlargement and the lack of justification for this specific body movement are stated facts. Accidental contact alone does not settle the decision.
Facts kept the same: The same defender has accidental forearm contact inside their own penalty area. No goal is scored, and there is no other offence.
| This case: Accidental contact: body made bigger | Compare with: Accidental contact: justified movement |
|---|---|
| Arm position in this movementMakes the body unnaturally bigger and is neither a consequence of nor justifiable by the particular movement. | Arm position in this movementA consequence of, or justifiable by, the particular movement; no unnatural enlargement. |
| ConsequenceHandball: penalty | ConsequenceNo handball in this case |
The contact is accidental in both examples. A penalty follows here because the handball criterion is established and the contact is inside the defender’s own penalty area.
Goal directly from the shoulder
- Attacker A is inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
- The ball contacts only A’s shoulder, entirely above the boundary in line with the bottom of the armpit.
- For this contact-point comparison, the arm position is justifiable for this movement, does not make the body unnaturally bigger, and there is no deliberate arm movement towards the ball, as in the direct forearm-goal case.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. There is no touch beyond the stated sequence. The goal is allowed and no advantage is applied to alter the restart.
Stated sequence
- The ball touches A’s shoulder entirely above the bottom-of-armpit boundary.
- The ball goes directly from that shoulder contact into the opponents’ goal, with no other touch.
No handball: goal allowed
Contact entirely above the arm boundary is shoulder contact in this example. With the stated absence of another offence, the goal is allowed.
- Goal consequence
- Goal allowed: the ball enters the opponents’ goal directly from A’s shoulder.
- Restart
- Kick-off to the team that conceded the goal; no advantage is applied to alter this restart.
- Where
- From the centre mark after the awarded goal.
What decides this case?
The contact is entirely above the bottom-of-armpit boundary. It is not contact with the hand or arm.
Facts kept the same: A makes the same body movement inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area. The arm position is justifiable for that movement, does not make the body unnaturally bigger, and there is no deliberate arm movement towards the ball. The ball goes straight from that contact into the opponents’ goal, with no other touch or offence.
| This case: Goal directly from the shoulder | Compare with: Goal directly from an accidental arm touch |
|---|---|
| Contact pointOnly the shoulder, entirely above the bottom-of-armpit boundary. | Contact pointThe forearm, below the arm boundary. |
| ConsequenceNo handball: goal allowed | ConsequenceHandball: goal disallowed |
Only the contact point changes this direct-goal comparison. A direct goal from an attacker’s hand or arm is disallowed even when the contact is accidental.
Goal directly from an accidental arm touch
- Attacker A is inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
- The ball accidentally touches A’s forearm. There is no deliberate arm movement, and the arm position is otherwise justifiable without unnatural enlargement.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. The referee stops play for the stated handball offence; no advantage is applied. The referee disallows the goal. There is no other touch before the ball enters the opponents’ goal.
Stated sequence
- The ball accidentally touches A’s forearm.
- It goes directly from A’s forearm into the opponents’ goal.
- The referee disallows the goal and stops play; no advantage is applied.
Handball: goal disallowed
A cannot score directly into the opponents’ goal from their own hand or arm, even accidentally. The goal is disallowed and the defending team receives a direct free kick.
- Goal consequence
- Goal disallowed: the ball goes directly into the opponents’ goal from A’s own forearm.
- Restart
- Direct free kick to the defending team; the referee disallows the goal and stops play, with no advantage applied.
- Where
- At A’s forearm contact point, inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
What decides this case?
The ball enters the opponents’ goal directly from the attacker’s own arm. The otherwise accidental, justified contact does not allow that direct goal.
Facts kept the same: A makes the same body movement inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area. The arm position is justifiable for that movement, does not make the body unnaturally bigger, and there is no deliberate arm movement towards the ball. The ball goes straight from that contact into the opponents’ goal, with no other touch or offence.
| This case: Goal directly from an accidental arm touch | Compare with: Goal directly from the shoulder |
|---|---|
| Contact pointThe forearm, below the arm boundary. | Contact pointOnly the shoulder, entirely above the bottom-of-armpit boundary. |
| ConsequenceHandball: goal disallowed | ConsequenceNo handball: goal allowed |
Only the contact point changes. The special direct-goal handball rule applies to the hand or arm, not to contact entirely above the boundary at the shoulder.
A touches accidentally, then A scores
- Attacker A has accidental forearm contact inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
- There is no deliberate arm movement. The arm position is otherwise justifiable for the movement and does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
- A is also the player who immediately kicks the ball into the opponents’ goal. No other player touches the ball between A’s arm contact and A’s kick.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. The referee stops play for the stated handball offence; no advantage is applied. The referee disallows the goal. The kick follows the arm contact immediately; no timing threshold is invented.
Stated sequence
- The ball accidentally touches A’s forearm.
- The same player, A, immediately kicks the ball into the opponents’ goal without any other player touching it.
- The referee disallows the goal and stops play; no advantage is applied.
Handball: goal disallowed
A scores immediately after the ball touches A’s own arm, even though that touch was accidental. The goal is disallowed and the defending team receives a direct free kick.
- Goal consequence
- Goal disallowed: A scores immediately after A’s own accidental forearm contact.
- Restart
- Direct free kick to the defending team; the referee disallows the goal and stops play, with no advantage applied.
- Where
- At A’s forearm contact point, inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
What decides this case?
A is both the player with the accidental arm contact and the player who immediately scores. The known same-player sequence is decisive.
Facts kept the same: A has an accidental forearm touch inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area. That arm position is otherwise justifiable, does not make the body unnaturally bigger, and there is no other offence.
| This case: A touches accidentally, then A scores | Compare with: A touches accidentally, then teammate B scores |
|---|---|
| Who immediately kicks into goal?A, the same player whose forearm touched the ball. | Who immediately kicks into goal?B, a different teammate of A. |
| ConsequenceHandball: goal disallowed | ConsequenceNo handball from A’s touch: goal allowed |
The scorer’s identity changes this comparison. The rule about scoring immediately after one’s own accidental hand or arm contact does not automatically extend to a different teammate’s otherwise lawful contact.
A touches accidentally, then teammate B scores
- Attacker A has accidental forearm contact inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area.
- There is no deliberate arm movement. The arm position is otherwise justifiable for the movement and does not make the body unnaturally bigger.
- A different teammate, B, immediately kicks the ball into the opponents’ goal. The only touches in the stated sequence are A’s arm contact and B’s kick.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. There is no touch beyond the stated sequence. The goal is allowed and no advantage is applied to alter the restart.
Stated sequence
- The ball accidentally touches A’s forearm in the otherwise lawful position.
- A different player, teammate B, immediately kicks the ball into the opponents’ goal.
- With no other offence, the goal is allowed.
No handball from A’s touch: goal allowed
B is a different teammate. A’s otherwise lawful accidental arm contact does not become a handball offence simply because B immediately scores; the goal is allowed.
- Goal consequence
- Goal allowed: teammate B scores after A’s otherwise lawful accidental forearm contact.
- Restart
- Kick-off to the team that conceded the goal; no advantage is applied to alter this restart.
- Where
- From the centre mark after the awarded goal.
What decides this case?
The scorer is B, not A. A’s contact is explicitly neither deliberate nor an unjustified enlargement; a different teammate scoring does not excuse an independently unlawful handball.
Facts kept the same: A has an accidental forearm touch inside the opponents’ penalty area but outside the goal area. That arm position is otherwise justifiable, does not make the body unnaturally bigger, and there is no other offence.
| This case: A touches accidentally, then teammate B scores | Compare with: A touches accidentally, then A scores |
|---|---|
| Who immediately kicks into goal?B, a different teammate of A. | Who immediately kicks into goal?A, the same player whose forearm touched the ball. |
| ConsequenceNo handball from A’s touch: goal allowed | ConsequenceHandball: goal disallowed |
The different scorer changes the immediate-goal rule. It does not create an exemption for a deliberate handball or for an arm position that makes the body unnaturally bigger.
Thigh ricochet, same unjustified arm position
- A defender is inside their own penalty area. The live ball first ricochets from that defender’s own thigh, then accidentally touches their forearm.
- The arm still makes the body unnaturally bigger. Its position is explicitly neither a consequence of nor justifiable by this specific body movement.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. The referee stops play for the stated handball offence; no advantage is applied.
Stated sequence
- The ball ricochets from the defender’s own thigh.
- It then touches the forearm with the same stated unjustified enlargement as the comparison case.
- The referee stops play; no advantage is applied. No goal is scored.
Handball: penalty
The thigh ricochet does not remove the explicitly established unnatural enlargement. This handball offence inside the defender’s own penalty area gives the opponents a penalty.
- Goal consequence
- No goal is scored in this example.
- Restart
- Penalty to the opponents; play is stopped and no advantage is applied.
- Where
- From the penalty mark in the defender’s own penalty area.
What decides this case?
The unjustified enlargement remains known after the added ricochet. A deflection alone does not prove either an exemption or an offence.
Facts kept the same: Both cases have accidental forearm contact inside the defender’s own penalty area, the same explicitly unjustified enlargement, no goal, and a referee stoppage with no advantage.
| This case: Thigh ricochet, same unjustified arm position | Compare with: Accidental contact: body made bigger |
|---|---|
| Immediately preceding touchThe defender’s own thigh causes a ricochet before the forearm contact. | Immediately preceding touchThe ball reaches the forearm without that added thigh ricochet. |
| ConsequenceHandball: penalty | ConsequenceHandball: penalty |
Adding this deflection does not change the established handball criterion or the penalty outcome. This does not mean every ricochet onto an arm is an offence; the movement and arm-position facts still matter.
The decisive evidence is missing
- Outfield players and a live ball are known. Arm contact is reported, but the exact contact point on the body is not established.
- The body movement, any deliberate arm movement, arm-position justification, scorer identity and sequence, and contact location are not established.
- No referee decision is given.
Assumptions for this example: This is a fictional example. All involved players are outfield players and the ball is live at contact. No other offence occurs, including offside or a separate scoring offence. A report of arm contact is not treated as proof of the exact contact point. No missing movement, location, scoring sequence or referee decision is filled in.
Stated sequence
- Contact is reported during live play.
- The exact contact, surrounding movement, location and any scoring sequence remain unestablished.
Not enough information
The supplied evidence cannot establish whether there is a handball offence, whether a goal should stand, or what restart applies. Those answers remain unknown.
- Goal consequence
- Unknown: a goal and the scorer’s identity and sequence have not been established.
- Restart
- Unknown: neither an offence decision nor a referee stoppage is established.
- Where
- Unknown: the contact location has not been established.
What is missing?
The missing contact point, movement, scoring sequence, location and referee decision prevent a bounded conclusion. This is an unknown-evidence case, not the justified-movement case.
Facts needed to compare a known case
- The exact contact point relative to the boundary in line with the bottom of the armpit.
- Whether the player deliberately moved the hand or arm towards the ball.
- The particular body movement, whether the position is a consequence of or justifiable by it, and whether the body is made unnaturally bigger.
- Whether a goal occurred, whether it came directly from the contact or immediately afterwards, and whether the scorer was the player with that contact or a different teammate.
- The contact location, including which penalty area and any goal-area position, plus the referee’s decision and whether play was stopped.
Establish the missing facts before choosing a known case. A photograph, a reported touch or a team sheet cannot supply the whole sequence or the player’s intention.
2026/27 Laws · reviewed
Start with justified movement, then compare the defender whose arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. Both are inside their own penalty area, but the assessment of the arm position changes. Next compare the two immediate finishes: the identity of the scorer changes even though the first contact is otherwise lawful.
Each example states the assumptions needed for its answer. All nine explanations are available as text. They can help you identify the missing question in a real discussion, but they cannot decide whether an actual arm position was justified from a drawing or a single still image.
Why is a scorer's accidental contact different?
A player cannot score in the opponents' goal directly from their own hand or arm, even accidentally. The direct-arm example therefore has no goal, although the contact was not deliberate and the arm position was otherwise justified.
The same restriction applies when a player scores immediately after the ball has touched their own hand or arm. In the comparison, A has an accidental arm touch and immediately kicks the ball into the opponents' goal, with nobody else touching it. A's use of a foot for the finish does not remove the preceding contact.
Now change the finisher. A has the same otherwise lawful accidental contact, but team-mate B immediately kicks the ball in. B did not have the arm touch. The special restriction on the scorer's own contact does not disallow that goal. You must still check A's original contact: deliberate handling or an unnaturally bigger body would be an offence in its own right.
A clearly established shoulder contact is different again. The shoulder above the arm boundary can legitimately score a goal. If the ball actually touched the arm below that boundary, calling it a shoulder goal would not resolve the problem. If the contact point cannot be established, keep that fact unknown.
How does the Premier League explain handball?
For 2026/27, the Premier League says it will continue its 'less is more' approach to penalising handball. Its explanation also says that arm position must be considered in relation to the player's movement in that particular situation. Players are not expected to keep their arms permanently by their sides or behind their backs.
That emphasis does not remove the IFAB criteria or the scorer's own-contact restriction. It is a reason to examine the movement rather than treat any separation between arm and body as decisive.
The on-field handball decision and the decision to intervene through VAR are also separate questions. The Premier League's 2026/27 principles retain a high intervention threshold: the referee's call stands unless the VAR considers it a clear and obvious error on the available evidence. An unchanged decision is not a new handball rule.
Is the restart a free kick, a penalty or play on?
A punished outfield handball is a direct-free-kick offence. If the offence occurs inside that player's own penalty area, the opponents receive a penalty. Outside their own penalty area, the opponents receive a direct free kick. 'It happened in the box' is incomplete: an attacker's handball in the opponents' box does not give the attacking team a penalty.
The definite free-kick and penalty examples assume that the referee stops play for the stated offence and does not apply advantage. In the play-on example, there is no offence and the ball remains on the field, so play continues. Where a goal is valid, the conceding team takes the kick-off. Do not invent a handball restart simply because there was contact.
The disallowed-goal examples give the defending team a direct free kick. Their arm contacts are explicitly outside the goal area, so the ordinary offence location applies; free kicks within a defending team's goal area have a separate positioning provision. The free-kick guide explains that distinction.
Cards require their own assessment of the incident and are not automatically assigned by this comparison. Goalkeeper handling and a thrower's second touch also need their own rules, linked below. Once a penalty has been awarded, the rules for taking it are a separate question from why the original contact was an offence.
What evidence would change your view?
Locate the contact first. Was it the hand, the arm below the boundary, or entirely the shoulder above it? If the view does not establish that, do not substitute the sleeve line or the player's reaction.
Look at the body movement as a sequence. Was the contact deliberate? If not, did the arm enlarge the body in a way that was unjustified for that movement? A frozen arm angle cannot supply every part of those answers.
Check how the ball arrived. A ricochet may be relevant to the assessment, but it is not a blanket exemption. In the deflection example, the ball first hits the defender's thigh; the arm still meets the explicitly supplied unnaturally-bigger criterion, so the penalty conclusion remains.
If a goal followed, identify the player who had the arm contact and the player who scored. Establish the order of touches. If a restart is being discussed, establish the offender's side, the offence location, whether the ball was in play and whether play was stopped.
Keep the conclusion within the evidence. You may know that contact occurred without knowing whether it was an offence. You may identify an offence without yet having the location or referee's action needed to specify the restart.
Find the players and the recorded match
Use the club panel to open a club's recorded matches when that context is available. Choose the exact opponent and date, then read the result, listed players and available match details. A match link in the guide, when available, can take you directly to that fixture; Results is another route to a completed match.
Check the displayed lineup status before treating a name as a confirmed starter. Selection records can help identify who was involved, but a team sheet cannot establish where a ball touched an arm or why the arm was in that position.
Match XI shows recorded lineups, results and the match details available to us. It does not provide match footage or a complete handball or VAR incident log. A missing incident entry cannot prove that there was no contact, no review or no offence.