Hand by Body: Why the Referee Was Right on the Tchouaméni Non-Penalty

A contentious handball shout against Aurélien Tchouaméni was waved away with the referee’s on‑field rationale: “hand by body,” no free kick, no penalty. While many online voices demanded a spot-kick, the Laws of the Game support the judgment when the arm remains close to the torso and does not unnaturally increase the body’s silhouette. VAR, bound by a clear-and-obvious threshold, rightly stayed out. I break down the incident through IFAB Law 12, context of proximity and speed, and why broadcast angles can mislead. The conclusion is simple: this was textbook non-offense, and the officials got it right.

The incident occurred during a high-intensity Real Madrid match, with the ball striking Aurélien Tchouaméni’s arm as he kept his shape defending the area. The referee communicated on-field that Tchouaméni did not “make his body bigger,” emphasizing the arm’s proximity to the torso. Touchline reports relayed that explanation shortly after play restarted, noting no foul—neither a free kick nor a penalty—would be awarded. The decision drew immediate debate as replays circulated, but the original rationale hinged on Law 12: arm position, silhouette, and proximity.

🚨 NO FREEKICK OR PENALTY! Referee says Tchouameni did not make his body bigger. Hand by body.

@MadridXtra

Impact Analysis

I’m going to say what many won’t: this was a correct, disciplined application of Law 12. The key test for handball is whether the arm makes the body unnaturally bigger or is in an expected position for the player’s movement. In the footage, Tchouaméni’s arm is tight to his frame—compact, not splayed, not away to increase surface area. That alone passes the silhouette test. The second factor is proximity and reaction time. The ball arrives at short distance with minimal time for evasion, which weighs strongly against penalizing accidental contact when the arm remains close to the torso.

Critics point to the modern interpretation that “any arm contact” is suspect. That is a misread. IFAB’s guidance is explicit: contact is not enough; it must be either deliberate, or create an unnaturally bigger barrier, or be positioned in a way not justifiable by the player’s action (e.g., arms raised above shoulder level). None of those apply here. Also relevant: if there is any deflection or limited reaction window, the threshold for offense rises—again favoring no call.

VAR’s non-intervention is precisely what elite officiating expects. The on-field referee had a clear view, gave a specific rationale, and there was no clear-and-obvious error. Slow-motion clips—which exaggerate time and intent—cannot override a correct live read. In short, arm by body, normal silhouette, proximity too tight: no offense, no penalty, no free kick. That’s the law, not a loophole.

Reaction

Social chatter split along familiar lines. A loud contingent framed it as a “stonewall penalty,” arguing that any arm‑to‑ball contact inside the area should be punished; several even claimed that “even Madrid fans” were conceding it. Another wave leaned into conspiracy quips about institutional favoritism, suggesting powerful figures influence calls—standard heat-of-the-moment rhetoric whenever Real Madrid is involved. On the other side, a pragmatic set of fans echoed the referee’s phrasing, noting Tchouaméni stayed compact with no “bigger body” silhouette and that play should simply continue.

Plenty asked a fair question: what actually is the handball rule now? That confusion fuels outrage. Some mocked the logic as semantics, but others rightly highlighted the distinction between contact and offense—one is factual, the other legal. A few comments drifted well off-topic with political or crude remarks that add noise, not clarity. The most constructive reactions demanded consistent application and better broadcast explanations of Law 12 nuances, especially silhouette, proximity, and reaction time. In aggregate, sentiment leaned skeptical of the decision, but the most informed voices emphasized that “arm by body” is exactly what the law protects: unavoidable, non‑unnatural contact.

Social reactions

Ref calls no handball cuz body wasnt bigger. Tchouameni staying compact, no bloat detected. Thats some tight logic! 💩

Shitting.com (@shittingdotcom)

Amazing Not many people understand football!

Damian🦅 (@Damianfx_)

And these Madrid fans are crying for refs 😂😂😂😂😂 shittttt

maani 🇪🇸🇦🇷 (@Barcelona_hub_)

Prediction

Expect a week of panel shows slicing the same two angles while talking past Law 12. Pundits will declare it a “modern handball” to align with public frustration, but the Competition’s refereeing body will quietly back the on-field call, perhaps issuing a brief technical explainer on silhouette and proximity. VAR training clips will likely use this case as a template: referee states a clear rationale; replays do not contradict; check complete.

For teams facing Real Madrid, the narrative of “they get the calls” will persist, but it won’t move officials: hand by body remains protected under guidance. We may see a renewed push for broadcast packages that show live-speed replays first and freeze-frames last—reducing the slow‑motion bias that invents intent. If anything, future handball protocols will stress arm-tracking and distance metrics, giving audiences clearer context.

Bottom line: the next similar incident—any club, any league—will likely produce the same outcome when the arm is tight to the torso. Noise will spike, then subside, and the law will hold. The only real “change” on the horizon is better communication, not a different decision.

Latest today

• Achraf Hakimi suspected ankle syndesmosis blow: PSG brace for a long absence
• Hakimi’s grim-looking blow leaves PSG reeling after heavy Diaz challenge
• Hakimi reportedly injured after collision with Luis Díaz as fans fear the worst
• Trent Alexander-Arnold booed during warm-up at Anfield before Liverpool vs Real Madrid

Conclusion

Strip away the outrage and we’re left with a straightforward application of the law. Tchouaméni’s arm is close to his body, the silhouette is not unnaturally wider, and the proximity leaves negligible reaction time. That combination is exactly why IFAB carved out protection against punishing unavoidable contact. The referee stated the reasoning crisply on the pitch, and VAR respected process: no clear-and-obvious error, no intervention.

Critics will argue for a stricter, contact-based standard, but that would criminalize defending and contradict years of clarifications. Football asked for clarity after chaotic seasons of handball whiplash; this, in fact, is clarity. You can dislike the outcome emotionally and still accept that the framework is coherent and consistently teachable.

From an officiating perspective, this is a model decision: decisive live read, precise law reference, proportionate VAR involvement. And from a sporting perspective, it preserves flow and fairness. Not every touch is a crime; not every shout is a penalty. Here, the officials were right to say: play on.