| Absolutely ridiculous decision. 21:53 - Mar 6 with 10091 views | Superblue95 |
I don’t particularly like PSG and I actually don’t mind United at all but what a f*cking joke that is to give that penalty |  |
| |  |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:47 - Mar 7 with 3355 views | Superblue95 |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:40 - Mar 7 by ITFC_Forever |
It's not an opinion - it's a fact.
For a handball to be given, it doesn't need to be goal-bound.
That's the point I'm correcting you on. Whether it was intentional or not, who knows... but that's another point entirely. |
Yep and if you read the thread you’ll see I accepted a shot does not have to be goal bound in order for a penalty to be given.
However, what you’ve chosen to ignore so I’ll point out again is that frequently there are moments in games when a ball strikes an arm and a handball is not given as the referee doesn’t deem it to be deliberate or interfering with play. It’s not an opinion - it’s a fact.
Therefore as there are inconsistencies like this in the game surely some common sense has to come into play regarding the situation? | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:55 - Mar 7 with 3337 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:47 - Mar 7 by Superblue95 |
Yep and if you read the thread you’ll see I accepted a shot does not have to be goal bound in order for a penalty to be given.
However, what you’ve chosen to ignore so I’ll point out again is that frequently there are moments in games when a ball strikes an arm and a handball is not given as the referee doesn’t deem it to be deliberate or interfering with play. It’s not an opinion - it’s a fact.
Therefore as there are inconsistencies like this in the game surely some common sense has to come into play regarding the situation? |
No you haven't - you said common sense should prevail as to where the ball is heading and "
Surely some allowance has to be made for the fact the ball was sailing over the bar though?"
Both points (as well as your original one) are wrong. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:55 - Mar 7 with 3337 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:10 - Mar 7 by Superblue95 |
Perhaps not in the official ruling but surely using common sense it should be relevant? It was a desperate, speculative effort that was going to sail into the stand. Defender panicked and thought he better try and block it so jumps in the way, ball brushes off elbow and goes out for a corner. He didn’t block it with his arm deliberately so surely he should only then be penalised if it prevents a goal or a goal scoring opportunity, which it didn’t.
Only my opinion of course but that’s how I think the handball rule should be applied otherwise it’s incredibly harsh |
If you want to start applying different rules to the existing laws of the game then crack on. But whether the shot was going in or not is completely irrelevant under the actual laws of the game. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:56 - Mar 7 with 3336 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:11 - Mar 7 by ITFC_Forever |
Not a single word of that makes sense. A handball is a foul, no matter where on the pitch it is.
If it happens to be in your own penalty box, then it's a penalty. End of story. |
It’s not though, at least not as per the laws of the game, which state that only a deliberate act of handling the ball is a foul. So unless you’re in the camp that think it was deliberate (which I struggle to see myself given it looked a fairly standard jump and turn in front of a shot), then it isn’t a foul
Secondly, the VAR protocol states that it should only be used to overturn a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’, which again reinforces that the decision should not have been overturned as it clearly doesn’t tick either of the above |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:58 - Mar 7 with 3330 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:55 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
If you want to start applying different rules to the existing laws of the game then crack on. But whether the shot was going in or not is completely irrelevant under the actual laws of the game. |
Referees already do apply different laws though - strictly speaking handballs should only be given if deliberate but in reality actual deliberate handballs are extremely rare | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:59 - Mar 7 with 3323 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 08:47 - Mar 7 by BiGDonnie |
He knew exactly what he was doing IMO. Turn your back and keep your arm high so you can plead innocence if it does hit your arm/hand. Definite penalty. |
How was his arm high? It was level with his body - ie. where an arm exists | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:00 - Mar 7 with 3323 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:56 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
It’s not though, at least not as per the laws of the game, which state that only a deliberate act of handling the ball is a foul. So unless you’re in the camp that think it was deliberate (which I struggle to see myself given it looked a fairly standard jump and turn in front of a shot), then it isn’t a foul
Secondly, the VAR protocol states that it should only be used to overturn a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’, which again reinforces that the decision should not have been overturned as it clearly doesn’t tick either of the above |
I don't think what you've said has any relevance to his post. He was addressing the issue of whether the shot was on target or not. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:03 - Mar 7 with 3313 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:58 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Referees already do apply different laws though - strictly speaking handballs should only be given if deliberate but in reality actual deliberate handballs are extremely rare |
But where the shot is going is entirely irrelevant. And there is guidance as to what constitutes whether a handball is deliberate or not. None of that guidance says that you need to consider whether the ball is travelling towards the goal or not. Next season ANY contact with the hand of an attacking player that leads to a goal will be considered handball but that's a separate issue. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:04 - Mar 7 with 3311 views | Leaky |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 22:17 - Mar 6 by Superblue95 |
Surely some allowance has to be made for the fact the ball was sailing over the bar though? United were lucky to get a corner due to the defender getting in the way of it, never mind giving them the bleeding penalty.
I was cheering for United and wanted them to nick a winner but the manner in which it happened has irked me. Felt sorry for the defender too, he looked devastated |
A shot doesn't have to be on target to have a penalty awarded. The shot could have been going for a throw in if you handle the ball its a pen. Still thought it was soft though |  | | |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:06 - Mar 7 with 3306 views | Superblue95 |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:55 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
If you want to start applying different rules to the existing laws of the game then crack on. But whether the shot was going in or not is completely irrelevant under the actual laws of the game. |
I’m aware of that but referees don’t consistently stick to the actual laws of the game. If they did then these arguments wouldnt crop up
Referees don’t give a handball every time a ball hits a players arm and we all know it. Either the rules need to clearly state that it’s a foul every time a ball hits a players arm regardless of circumstances or some common sense has to come into consideration | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:07 - Mar 7 with 3301 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:06 - Mar 7 by Superblue95 |
I’m aware of that but referees don’t consistently stick to the actual laws of the game. If they did then these arguments wouldnt crop up
Referees don’t give a handball every time a ball hits a players arm and we all know it. Either the rules need to clearly state that it’s a foul every time a ball hits a players arm regardless of circumstances or some common sense has to come into consideration |
If only they had guidance on this. Oh wait, they do. And none of it has anything to do with the direction the ball is going in, and rightly so. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:26 - Mar 7 with 3264 views | TractorCam |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 08:47 - Mar 7 by BiGDonnie |
He knew exactly what he was doing IMO. Turn your back and keep your arm high so you can plead innocence if it does hit your arm/hand. Definite penalty. |
You're judging that off the super slow mo replay, watch it back from live feed and look at the time it takes from the shot to hit him and tell me he's planned that. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:29 - Mar 7 with 3260 views | OsborneOneNil |
Refs view - penalty
Footballers view - no penalty
That basically sums it up. No one who has played, or is playing football, would say that was a pen. |  | | |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:29 - Mar 7 with 3258 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:03 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
But where the shot is going is entirely irrelevant. And there is guidance as to what constitutes whether a handball is deliberate or not. None of that guidance says that you need to consider whether the ball is travelling towards the goal or not. Next season ANY contact with the hand of an attacking player that leads to a goal will be considered handball but that's a separate issue. |
The only guidance the laws give to consider are movement of the hand towards the ball and distance between the opponent and the ball. Neither of which would appear to suggest deliberate handball in last nights incident
Reality is decisions frequently get given outside of the laws, with referees applying their own interpretation and common sense. Whether an effort is goalbound is clearly one too. For example, a player rifling a ball directly at a defenders arm that is by his side, ten yards wide of goal in the corner of the box would almost certainly not be given, whereas the same thing with the defender on the line and thus preventing a goal almost certainly would be | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:30 - Mar 7 with 3251 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:29 - Mar 7 by OsborneOneNil |
Refs view - penalty
Footballers view - no penalty
That basically sums it up. No one who has played, or is playing football, would say that was a pen. |
Well, quite | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:33 - Mar 7 with 3238 views | BiGDonnie |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:59 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
How was his arm high? It was level with his body - ie. where an arm exists |
He stuck his arm out. Had he held it in, it wouldn't have hit him and gone out for a goal kick. As it was, it did so it's a penalty. IMO of course. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:35 - Mar 7 with 3227 views | BiGDonnie |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:26 - Mar 7 by TractorCam |
You're judging that off the super slow mo replay, watch it back from live feed and look at the time it takes from the shot to hit him and tell me he's planned that. |
He's stuck his arm out to make himself bigger. It's not rocket science.
Defender jumps with arm out, in the box. Ball hits arm. Penalty. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:11 - Mar 7 with 3177 views | MrTown |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 09:47 - Mar 7 by Superblue95 |
Yep and if you read the thread you’ll see I accepted a shot does not have to be goal bound in order for a penalty to be given.
However, what you’ve chosen to ignore so I’ll point out again is that frequently there are moments in games when a ball strikes an arm and a handball is not given as the referee doesn’t deem it to be deliberate or interfering with play. It’s not an opinion - it’s a fact.
Therefore as there are inconsistencies like this in the game surely some common sense has to come into play regarding the situation? |
Whether it wasn’t or was a penalty is something I have no credibility to say, I’m no qualified referee by any stretch of the imagination. But the referee last night watched it back on a slo-no replay and gave it, the VAR team instructed him to do so, so they obviously thought it was and the on field referee should look at it again. And then former Premier League Peter Walton said after the game it was also a penalty.
The best thing that stood out for me from what Walton said was; the moment you turn your back on the football is the moment you relinquish your ability to be in control of whether the ball will it your arm or not based on the fact you no longer can see the ball.
If you turn back on the football and then ball hits your arm I think 9/10 it will be given upon review. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:19 - Mar 7 with 3163 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:11 - Mar 7 by MrTown |
Whether it wasn’t or was a penalty is something I have no credibility to say, I’m no qualified referee by any stretch of the imagination. But the referee last night watched it back on a slo-no replay and gave it, the VAR team instructed him to do so, so they obviously thought it was and the on field referee should look at it again. And then former Premier League Peter Walton said after the game it was also a penalty.
The best thing that stood out for me from what Walton said was; the moment you turn your back on the football is the moment you relinquish your ability to be in control of whether the ball will it your arm or not based on the fact you no longer can see the ball.
If you turn back on the football and then ball hits your arm I think 9/10 it will be given upon review. |
I take your point about being a qualified referee, however I can’t see how that explanation makes sense when put against the laws of the game
The laws clearly state that only deliberate handballs should be given - so if turning your back means you can’t control whether the ball hits your arm, then by default it cannot be deliberate | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:22 - Mar 7 with 3156 views | MrTown |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:19 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
I take your point about being a qualified referee, however I can’t see how that explanation makes sense when put against the laws of the game
The laws clearly state that only deliberate handballs should be given - so if turning your back means you can’t control whether the ball hits your arm, then by default it cannot be deliberate |
Quite the opposite, if you turning your back, Peter Walton said that you are then reliquinshing the ability to be in control of your arm. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:29 - Mar 7 with 3144 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:22 - Mar 7 by MrTown |
Quite the opposite, if you turning your back, Peter Walton said that you are then reliquinshing the ability to be in control of your arm. |
Well exactly, so how can you deliberately handle it if you’re not in control of your arm? | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:51 - Mar 7 with 3113 views | BiGDonnie |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 11:29 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Well exactly, so how can you deliberately handle it if you’re not in control of your arm? |
Does that not raise the point that you should be in charge of your arms? | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:01 - Mar 7 with 3102 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 10:29 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
The only guidance the laws give to consider are movement of the hand towards the ball and distance between the opponent and the ball. Neither of which would appear to suggest deliberate handball in last nights incident
Reality is decisions frequently get given outside of the laws, with referees applying their own interpretation and common sense. Whether an effort is goalbound is clearly one too. For example, a player rifling a ball directly at a defenders arm that is by his side, ten yards wide of goal in the corner of the box would almost certainly not be given, whereas the same thing with the defender on the line and thus preventing a goal almost certainly would be |
There is also some guidance around positioning of the arm, which is being further tightened up next year. I'm not commenting on whether or not it was a penalty, I'm saying where the shot is going isn't a relevant consideration. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:05 - Mar 7 with 3094 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:01 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
There is also some guidance around positioning of the arm, which is being further tightened up next year. I'm not commenting on whether or not it was a penalty, I'm saying where the shot is going isn't a relevant consideration. |
Not in the laws of the game there isn’t:
http://theifab.com/laws/fouls-and-misconduct-2018/chapters/direct-free-kick-2018
Where the shot is going is something which is considered in practice though. A shot hitting a defenders arm on the goal line and denying a goal will almost certainly result in a penalty (and indeed a red card), regardless of the intent, positioning of the arm or any other factor | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
