| Gary Neville not understanding football 13:50 - May 17 with 2500 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
You can't give handball if you kick it onto your own hand. Comes off Mbeumo's hip and hits his arm, he's not 'controlled it with his arm' at all. [Post edited 17 May 14:02]
|  |
| |  |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:39 - May 17 with 663 views | bsw72 |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:19 - May 17 by hunty21 |
Clear handball you can't use your arm to control whether its intentional or not VAR agreed this should of been disallowed |
Sigh. Not quite true.
When it is NOT a handball:
Unintentional deflection: The ball takes an accidental, rapid deflection off your own body, giving you no time to react or move your arm away.
Natural positioning: Your arm is in a natural position dictated by your body movement (such as running, jumping, or balancing) and is not being used to artificially make your body "unnaturally bigger".
When it IS a handball:
Making the body unnaturally bigger: Even if the ball deflects off your leg, a referee can still call a handball if your arm is extended, raised, or sticking out, and it makes your body take up more space.
Scoring a goal: If the ball deflects off you and immediately hits your hand before going directly into the opponent’s goal, it is a handball, even if it is completely accidental.
Deliberate play: If you deliberately play the ball onto your own arm to control or direct it (or if you move your arm toward the ball after the deflection), it will be whistled as a foul.
The reason it went to VAR and then back to the ref because they wanted the ref to confirm his subjective view of whether any of the reasons to make it a foul should be considered.
The amount of fans and pundits who are not aware of the laws of the game never ceases to astound me. |  | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:40 - May 17 with 657 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:33 - May 17 by redrickstuhaart |
Its a classic case of the rule being overcomplicated because people kept moaning about stuff. thereby making it worse.
I think the ref got it wrong, but on the basis that there was a degree of intent. |
I think we have this problem now with a lot of rules in the game.
It's the result of 'creep' caused by too much tinkering around the edges. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:47 - May 17 with 641 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:39 - May 17 by bsw72 |
Sigh. Not quite true.
When it is NOT a handball:
Unintentional deflection: The ball takes an accidental, rapid deflection off your own body, giving you no time to react or move your arm away.
Natural positioning: Your arm is in a natural position dictated by your body movement (such as running, jumping, or balancing) and is not being used to artificially make your body "unnaturally bigger".
When it IS a handball:
Making the body unnaturally bigger: Even if the ball deflects off your leg, a referee can still call a handball if your arm is extended, raised, or sticking out, and it makes your body take up more space.
Scoring a goal: If the ball deflects off you and immediately hits your hand before going directly into the opponent’s goal, it is a handball, even if it is completely accidental.
Deliberate play: If you deliberately play the ball onto your own arm to control or direct it (or if you move your arm toward the ball after the deflection), it will be whistled as a foul.
The reason it went to VAR and then back to the ref because they wanted the ref to confirm his subjective view of whether any of the reasons to make it a foul should be considered.
The amount of fans and pundits who are not aware of the laws of the game never ceases to astound me. |
Which source is that bit from?
A part of the problem is that they scatter bits and pieces of guidance, which dont necesarily sit perfectly with the actual rules, all over the place! |  |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:01 - May 17 with 614 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:39 - May 17 by bsw72 |
Sigh. Not quite true.
When it is NOT a handball:
Unintentional deflection: The ball takes an accidental, rapid deflection off your own body, giving you no time to react or move your arm away.
Natural positioning: Your arm is in a natural position dictated by your body movement (such as running, jumping, or balancing) and is not being used to artificially make your body "unnaturally bigger".
When it IS a handball:
Making the body unnaturally bigger: Even if the ball deflects off your leg, a referee can still call a handball if your arm is extended, raised, or sticking out, and it makes your body take up more space.
Scoring a goal: If the ball deflects off you and immediately hits your hand before going directly into the opponent’s goal, it is a handball, even if it is completely accidental.
Deliberate play: If you deliberately play the ball onto your own arm to control or direct it (or if you move your arm toward the ball after the deflection), it will be whistled as a foul.
The reason it went to VAR and then back to the ref because they wanted the ref to confirm his subjective view of whether any of the reasons to make it a foul should be considered.
The amount of fans and pundits who are not aware of the laws of the game never ceases to astound me. |
My understanding (and I get it is an interpretation and not a direct reading of the rules so may well be incorrect - I would love to see the wording of the relevant rule to know how clear it is), is that because it leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal then (although unintentional) it is still handball and the goal should not have stood.
In other words, does the rule not state that unintentional handball that leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal being scored is ruled as handball? |  |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:02 - May 17 with 608 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:01 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
My understanding (and I get it is an interpretation and not a direct reading of the rules so may well be incorrect - I would love to see the wording of the relevant rule to know how clear it is), is that because it leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal then (although unintentional) it is still handball and the goal should not have stood.
In other words, does the rule not state that unintentional handball that leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal being scored is ruled as handball? |
I *think* it's the deflection off the hip that makes all the difference in this instance. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:05 - May 17 with 597 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:02 - May 17 by Cheltenham_Blue |
I *think* it's the deflection off the hip that makes all the difference in this instance. |
I am agreeing that it is unintentional.
I just think that the rule still says that is handball where it leads (within the same attacking phase) to a goal.
Mbeumo's blocked shot deflects off two defenders to land at the feet of Cunha who taps it home. That, to me, is clearly the same attacking phase. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:08 - May 17 with 591 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:05 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I am agreeing that it is unintentional.
I just think that the rule still says that is handball where it leads (within the same attacking phase) to a goal.
Mbeumo's blocked shot deflects off two defenders to land at the feet of Cunha who taps it home. That, to me, is clearly the same attacking phase. |
I'm sure Sky will roll out Dermot Gallagher on Monday to explain it.
MotD will likely do the same tonight with Keith Hackett or someone else from the 90s | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:13 - May 17 with 588 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:01 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
My understanding (and I get it is an interpretation and not a direct reading of the rules so may well be incorrect - I would love to see the wording of the relevant rule to know how clear it is), is that because it leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal then (although unintentional) it is still handball and the goal should not have stood.
In other words, does the rule not state that unintentional handball that leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal being scored is ruled as handball? |
See my post above... Its googleable in 2 seconds.
If the unintentional handball leads "immediately" to a goal, then it is given as handball.
The definition of immediately is unclear, but subject to at least one piece of "further guidance" suggesting that if the goal is socred by a team mate that is "mitigating factor". Which is nonsensical, but can be interpreted either way. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:26 - May 17 with 566 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:13 - May 17 by redrickstuhaart |
See my post above... Its googleable in 2 seconds.
If the unintentional handball leads "immediately" to a goal, then it is given as handball.
The definition of immediately is unclear, but subject to at least one piece of "further guidance" suggesting that if the goal is socred by a team mate that is "mitigating factor". Which is nonsensical, but can be interpreted either way. |
I have always seen that interpreted as in the same attacking phase.
As I posted in the article I linked, that can be several passes later if it is the same attacking phase.
That's how I have always understood it to be interpreted. Can you give me somewhere that states either that is an incorrect interpretation or where it has been interpreted otherwise? | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:29 - May 17 with 556 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:08 - May 17 by Cheltenham_Blue |
I'm sure Sky will roll out Dermot Gallagher on Monday to explain it.
MotD will likely do the same tonight with Keith Hackett or someone else from the 90s |
Gallagher is everything that is wrong with modern refereeing. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:31 - May 17 with 551 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:26 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I have always seen that interpreted as in the same attacking phase.
As I posted in the article I linked, that can be several passes later if it is the same attacking phase.
That's how I have always understood it to be interpreted. Can you give me somewhere that states either that is an incorrect interpretation or where it has been interpreted otherwise? |
The natural meaning of "immediate" is the very next action.
But the stupid additonal FA guidance suggests a goal by another player might be a "mitigating factor", indicating that tthat COULD be a reason for it not to be called. But doesnt have to be. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:34 - May 17 with 542 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:31 - May 17 by redrickstuhaart |
The natural meaning of "immediate" is the very next action.
But the stupid additonal FA guidance suggests a goal by another player might be a "mitigating factor", indicating that tthat COULD be a reason for it not to be called. But doesnt have to be. |
Would you say that a blocked shot that falls to a player who puts the ball in the net is "immediate"? I would.
I have always known it interpreted as "the same attacking phase." If you really want to interpret immediate pedantically, the ball would have to go directly into the goal off the hand. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:46 - May 17 with 526 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:34 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Would you say that a blocked shot that falls to a player who puts the ball in the net is "immediate"? I would.
I have always known it interpreted as "the same attacking phase." If you really want to interpret immediate pedantically, the ball would have to go directly into the goal off the hand. |
The wording is incompetent and vague in the context of a football match.
But when there is official guidance saying that the goal being scored by another player is a factor against giving handball, it is hard to see how "same attacking phase" can be the correct interetation. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:56 - May 17 with 523 views | bsw72 |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 16:01 - May 17 by Nthsuffolkblue |
My understanding (and I get it is an interpretation and not a direct reading of the rules so may well be incorrect - I would love to see the wording of the relevant rule to know how clear it is), is that because it leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal then (although unintentional) it is still handball and the goal should not have stood.
In other words, does the rule not state that unintentional handball that leads (in the same attacking phase) to a goal being scored is ruled as handball? |
No. | | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 17:46 - May 17 with 489 views | mellowblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 15:39 - May 17 by bsw72 |
Sigh. Not quite true.
When it is NOT a handball:
Unintentional deflection: The ball takes an accidental, rapid deflection off your own body, giving you no time to react or move your arm away.
Natural positioning: Your arm is in a natural position dictated by your body movement (such as running, jumping, or balancing) and is not being used to artificially make your body "unnaturally bigger".
When it IS a handball:
Making the body unnaturally bigger: Even if the ball deflects off your leg, a referee can still call a handball if your arm is extended, raised, or sticking out, and it makes your body take up more space.
Scoring a goal: If the ball deflects off you and immediately hits your hand before going directly into the opponent’s goal, it is a handball, even if it is completely accidental.
Deliberate play: If you deliberately play the ball onto your own arm to control or direct it (or if you move your arm toward the ball after the deflection), it will be whistled as a foul.
The reason it went to VAR and then back to the ref because they wanted the ref to confirm his subjective view of whether any of the reasons to make it a foul should be considered.
The amount of fans and pundits who are not aware of the laws of the game never ceases to astound me. |
sounds about right to me.
Also whether intentional or accidental does not come into it now. | | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 17:53 - May 17 with 485 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 17:46 - May 17 by mellowblue |
sounds about right to me.
Also whether intentional or accidental does not come into it now. |
Intent does come into it. If its intentional, its handball. Full stop. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 18:28 - May 17 with 464 views | charlie1 |
So how many posts just like this will we have next season and, of the decisions they are based on, how many will Town end up on the wrong end of do we think?
My starting bid is 25 out of 25. | | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:32 - May 17 with 446 views | Kropotkin123 |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 13:54 - May 17 by Cheltenham_Blue |
But he did deflect the ball into his arm, you can't have a ruling that say's "imagine the players don't have arms'
If it wasn't for the deflection off his hip, that gets ruled out, and restart with a free kick. The deflection changes it all. |
Call me a utilitarian, but the logical solution is amputating everyone’s arms. No hands, no handballs. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:42 - May 17 with 430 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:32 - May 17 by Kropotkin123 |
Call me a utilitarian, but the logical solution is amputating everyone’s arms. No hands, no handballs. |
There are other benefits.
It would get rid of holding at corners and elbowing opposing players overnight. | |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:50 - May 17 with 425 views | Mercian |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 14:01 - May 17 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Nope. If Mbeumo knocks the ball to himself and he benefits from it, by scoring it gets ruled out for handball, but the player gained no advantage as it broke to Cunha.
Its one of those weird rules that I'm sure at some point IFAB will close up.
But in this case, the ref got it right. |
Not so. If he does not deflect it the ball goes to Williams who clears it. |  | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 22:49 - May 17 with 400 views | Plums |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:42 - May 17 by Cheltenham_Blue |
There are other benefits.
It would get rid of holding at corners and elbowing opposing players overnight. |
The law around throw ins may need some adjusting though |  |
| |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 22:52 - May 17 with 396 views | mellowblue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 17:53 - May 17 by redrickstuhaart |
Intent does come into it. If its intentional, its handball. Full stop. |
the point (badly made by me) is whether it is intentional or accidental, it makes no difference, according to the rules. | | | |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 23:13 - May 17 with 385 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Gary Neville not understanding football on 20:50 - May 17 by Mercian |
Not so. If he does not deflect it the ball goes to Williams who clears it. |
But it did deflect. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
