| The handball law 12:17 - Aug 31 with 1085 views | Garv |
Done to death already but the handball law isn't actually the problem is it?
If ball brushes a couple of fingers and the ball ends up in the net a couple of passes later, then fine. Let the game flow and don't go looking for reasons to disallow goals.
But yesterday the issue surely was that they somehow deemed the handball as accidental? Now, not many handballs are genuinely deliberate, but that was as close as you're likely to get to being deliberate, was it not? Even if it was an instinctive movement.
It wasn't as if they needed to go looking for a reason to disallow that, the reason was staring everyone in the face.
So if they'd decided the handball was 'deliberate' (which in modern terms it very much was), it would have been disallowed whether the shot was on target or not.
So the law is irrelevant, am I wrong? |  |
| |  |
| The handball law on 12:25 - Aug 31 with 1030 views | Ftnfwest |
Is correct, not accidental. The rules anyway are too obsessed with deliberate and accidental as well. There are always incidents where the handball is a bit involuntary but the players gains a significant advantage from it. Free kick and no yellow card. |  | | |
| The handball law on 12:29 - Aug 31 with 1009 views | Trequartista |
This is disgraceful from Dermot Gallagher... totally refuses to engage on if the original handball should have been a foul... he's there purely to protect fellow referees, which is what they all do...the sheer arrogance of the last paragraph!
INCIDENT: Harry Maguire's shot led to United's second goal, but the ball hit his hand in the build up. VAR deemed this was accidental and Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer - as the ball went down as a Jacob Greaves own goal.
DERMOT SAYS: It's definitely the right decision. it strikes his hand, but striking his hand isn't an offence in itself. It has to be deliberate or lead to a goal scored by himself.
It strikes Maguire's hand, he shoots, it's going wide and hits Greaves, so it becomes an own goal. So through no fault of the referee or VAR, they have to give the goal.
It's always been the rule. It was changed a few years ago. It's clearly an own goal and it's covered in law.
It's accidental handball. It's unfortunate for Ipswich but it's ironic that we're debating the decision. The only thing to debate is whether you like the rule or not. [Post edited 31 Aug 12:30]
|  |
| |
| The handball law on 12:31 - Aug 31 with 981 views | SouthBucksBlue |
You’re not wrong. There are 2 salient points. Whether the handball was accidental and whether the shot was on target. Although I don’t agree with the law as it stands the shot was clearly off target. But this only matters if the hand ball was accidental. It seems that VAR didn’t look at the handball accepting the ref’s call on it which is ridiculous as it’s a critical condition of this law..
It’s VAR big team bias which clearly exists even if it’s subconscious. |  | | |
| The handball law on 12:40 - Aug 31 with 941 views | SWLondonBlue93 |
| The handball law on 12:29 - Aug 31 by Trequartista |
This is disgraceful from Dermot Gallagher... totally refuses to engage on if the original handball should have been a foul... he's there purely to protect fellow referees, which is what they all do...the sheer arrogance of the last paragraph!
INCIDENT: Harry Maguire's shot led to United's second goal, but the ball hit his hand in the build up. VAR deemed this was accidental and Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer - as the ball went down as a Jacob Greaves own goal.
DERMOT SAYS: It's definitely the right decision. it strikes his hand, but striking his hand isn't an offence in itself. It has to be deliberate or lead to a goal scored by himself.
It strikes Maguire's hand, he shoots, it's going wide and hits Greaves, so it becomes an own goal. So through no fault of the referee or VAR, they have to give the goal.
It's always been the rule. It was changed a few years ago. It's clearly an own goal and it's covered in law.
It's accidental handball. It's unfortunate for Ipswich but it's ironic that we're debating the decision. The only thing to debate is whether you like the rule or not. [Post edited 31 Aug 12:30]
|
Dermot Gallagher is the Karoline Leavitt of PGMOL. | | | |
| The handball law on 12:47 - Aug 31 with 904 views | monty_radio |
I worry that Maguire may have a dreadful health problem with skin sensation when a clear and obvious clout on both hands feels like something may have "brushed " his hand. | |
| |
| The handball law on 13:17 - Aug 31 with 832 views | Basuco |
Gary Neville summed it up nicely, "If that happened at the other end of the pitch the goal would have been disallowed". |  | | |
| The handball law on 13:34 - Aug 31 with 754 views | mellowblue |
| The handball law on 12:29 - Aug 31 by Trequartista |
This is disgraceful from Dermot Gallagher... totally refuses to engage on if the original handball should have been a foul... he's there purely to protect fellow referees, which is what they all do...the sheer arrogance of the last paragraph!
INCIDENT: Harry Maguire's shot led to United's second goal, but the ball hit his hand in the build up. VAR deemed this was accidental and Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer - as the ball went down as a Jacob Greaves own goal.
DERMOT SAYS: It's definitely the right decision. it strikes his hand, but striking his hand isn't an offence in itself. It has to be deliberate or lead to a goal scored by himself.
It strikes Maguire's hand, he shoots, it's going wide and hits Greaves, so it becomes an own goal. So through no fault of the referee or VAR, they have to give the goal.
It's always been the rule. It was changed a few years ago. It's clearly an own goal and it's covered in law.
It's accidental handball. It's unfortunate for Ipswich but it's ironic that we're debating the decision. The only thing to debate is whether you like the rule or not. [Post edited 31 Aug 12:30]
|
you are right , the interpretation of the law by ref/VAR is correct if they interpret the handling as accidental. That is in the eye of the beholder, no doubt influenced by who the opposition is. It has always been the way or maybe he is Just another "homer" referee.
However the law is still badly written if the outcome is altered by whether the ball ends up in the net via the shot or via a deflection because the shot is wide. Personally I would do away with that distinction and either say that that if a goal comes after an "accidental" handball during that passage of play, it is ruled out . Just for the sake of consistency. Seems crazy that Man U are benefitted by the fact that Maguire cannot shoot a ball on target. | | | |
| The handball law on 13:35 - Aug 31 with 745 views | SWLondonBlue93 |
| The handball law on 13:17 - Aug 31 by Basuco |
Gary Neville summed it up nicely, "If that happened at the other end of the pitch the goal would have been disallowed". |
Is it not crazy in this VAR era that this is generally accepted to be the truth, but nothing is done about it? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The handball law on 14:12 - Aug 31 with 671 views | GeoffSentence |
It was hand to ball, could only have been more obviously a 'deliberate' handball oh he'd bounced it a couple of times. Accidental my big fat hairy @rae. |  |
| |
| The handball law on 14:16 - Aug 31 with 659 views | Trequartista |
| The handball law on 13:34 - Aug 31 by mellowblue |
you are right , the interpretation of the law by ref/VAR is correct if they interpret the handling as accidental. That is in the eye of the beholder, no doubt influenced by who the opposition is. It has always been the way or maybe he is Just another "homer" referee.
However the law is still badly written if the outcome is altered by whether the ball ends up in the net via the shot or via a deflection because the shot is wide. Personally I would do away with that distinction and either say that that if a goal comes after an "accidental" handball during that passage of play, it is ruled out . Just for the sake of consistency. Seems crazy that Man U are benefitted by the fact that Maguire cannot shoot a ball on target. |
It used to be that "any" handball would rule the goal out, but that was scrapped because the slightest brush on the fingertips in the build-up by any attacker was ruling out goals.
Personally, I don't want two-tier handball. You make a handball rule and stick to it. You judge if Maguire's handball is a foul or not. If it is, blow for a free-kick or overrule a goal on VAR (I don't like VAR but that's a separate point). If it is not, play on and a goal is a goal. [Post edited 31 Aug 14:18]
| |
| |
| The handball law on 14:22 - Aug 31 with 623 views | Garv |
| The handball law on 12:29 - Aug 31 by Trequartista |
This is disgraceful from Dermot Gallagher... totally refuses to engage on if the original handball should have been a foul... he's there purely to protect fellow referees, which is what they all do...the sheer arrogance of the last paragraph!
INCIDENT: Harry Maguire's shot led to United's second goal, but the ball hit his hand in the build up. VAR deemed this was accidental and Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer - as the ball went down as a Jacob Greaves own goal.
DERMOT SAYS: It's definitely the right decision. it strikes his hand, but striking his hand isn't an offence in itself. It has to be deliberate or lead to a goal scored by himself.
It strikes Maguire's hand, he shoots, it's going wide and hits Greaves, so it becomes an own goal. So through no fault of the referee or VAR, they have to give the goal.
It's always been the rule. It was changed a few years ago. It's clearly an own goal and it's covered in law.
It's accidental handball. It's unfortunate for Ipswich but it's ironic that we're debating the decision. The only thing to debate is whether you like the rule or not. [Post edited 31 Aug 12:30]
|
The law doesn't decide if it was accidental or not, the officials did. | |
| |
| The handball law on 14:35 - Aug 31 with 595 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The handball law on 14:22 - Aug 31 by Garv |
The law doesn't decide if it was accidental or not, the officials did. |
Not really. The rule has become so over codified, proper judgment is no longer the key. Its just follow some instructions. Arms "within silhoutte" is probably what the idiot ref thought. | |
| |
| The handball law on 14:35 - Aug 31 with 597 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The handball law on 14:22 - Aug 31 by Garv |
The law doesn't decide if it was accidental or not, the officials did. |
Not really. The rule has become so over codified, proper judgment is no longer the key. Its just follow some instructions. Arms "within silhouette" is probably what the idiot ref thought. | |
| |
| The handball law on 15:16 - Aug 31 with 557 views | homer_123 |
If it's handball, it's handball irrespective of what happens next.
It can't be handball but that doesn't count if it leads to an own goal - that is simply insane.
If the Ref or VAR are saying it wasn't handball, then fair enough (well, not fair enough but fair enough if that is their conclusion).
It is madness, law or interpretation aside, that it is not handball. That is the very definition of ball to hand. Ergo, free kick - it doesn't matter whether it lead to anything or not. Otherwise we are going down a very dangerous path.
I think any sane football fan would agree that if they saw that on the halfway line, we'd all agree that is handball. |  |
| |
| The handball law on 16:40 - Aug 31 with 465 views | Garv |
| The handball law on 15:16 - Aug 31 by homer_123 |
If it's handball, it's handball irrespective of what happens next.
It can't be handball but that doesn't count if it leads to an own goal - that is simply insane.
If the Ref or VAR are saying it wasn't handball, then fair enough (well, not fair enough but fair enough if that is their conclusion).
It is madness, law or interpretation aside, that it is not handball. That is the very definition of ball to hand. Ergo, free kick - it doesn't matter whether it lead to anything or not. Otherwise we are going down a very dangerous path.
I think any sane football fan would agree that if they saw that on the halfway line, we'd all agree that is handball. |
I agree. I am fully behind not penalizing a goal scorer because the ball might have come into contact with a hand or arm. There was an insane one during Covid where the ball was smashed at Harry Kane at Brammall Lane and it led to a goal that was disallowed.
But Maguire's was just handball, I can't believe they came to the conclusion that it was okay. | |
| |
| The handball law on 16:43 - Aug 31 with 438 views | Garv |
| The handball law on 14:35 - Aug 31 by redrickstuhaart |
Not really. The rule has become so over codified, proper judgment is no longer the key. Its just follow some instructions. Arms "within silhouette" is probably what the idiot ref thought. |
You're probably right, but that's so wrong.
No common sense allowed. | |
| |
| The handball law on 16:46 - Aug 31 with 429 views | Garv |
| The handball law on 14:16 - Aug 31 by Trequartista |
It used to be that "any" handball would rule the goal out, but that was scrapped because the slightest brush on the fingertips in the build-up by any attacker was ruling out goals.
Personally, I don't want two-tier handball. You make a handball rule and stick to it. You judge if Maguire's handball is a foul or not. If it is, blow for a free-kick or overrule a goal on VAR (I don't like VAR but that's a separate point). If it is not, play on and a goal is a goal. [Post edited 31 Aug 14:18]
|
I'm glad that got scrapped, because there were some silly ones. Kane at Brammall Lane if I remember correctly.
But that doesn't excuse yesterday. O'Neil summed it up when he said it didn't feel like a goal. | |
| |
| The handball law on 17:15 - Aug 31 with 382 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The handball law on 16:43 - Aug 31 by Garv |
You're probably right, but that's so wrong.
No common sense allowed. |
Absolutely. That's really the point. Instead of "is it deliberate" (which leads any competent ref to consider how close the ball was, where the body was, what the player is doing and, to have a little bit of licence when its probably accidental but some obvious advantage is gained) it is now a long list of things to apply, without any proper view as to the actual issue.
All started with Henry's "goal" and trying to correct that, and snowballed from there. Much like the offside rule. All unnecessary. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
