| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:38 - Nov 7 with 1640 views | jayessess |
A mate who was a referee at amateur level explained to me the refs' perspective on this - which is that if you don't punish non-deliberate handballs players will spread their body (including arms) like a goalkeeper to maximise their chances of blocking a shot or cross. They haven't deliberately handled the ball but they've positioned themselves in a way that allows them to accidentally handle the ball with plausible deniability and thus make attacking play harder.
I think the suggestion that you could solve both problems by making all inadvertent handballs an indirect free kick is a good one. No real advantage to be gained by spreading yourself like a goalkeeper but also no disproportionate punishment for blocking a cross and no need to spend the game defending with your arms behind your back.
Too sensible for the authorities to adopt. |  |
|  |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:44 - Nov 7 with 1591 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:38 - Nov 7 by jayessess |
A mate who was a referee at amateur level explained to me the refs' perspective on this - which is that if you don't punish non-deliberate handballs players will spread their body (including arms) like a goalkeeper to maximise their chances of blocking a shot or cross. They haven't deliberately handled the ball but they've positioned themselves in a way that allows them to accidentally handle the ball with plausible deniability and thus make attacking play harder.
I think the suggestion that you could solve both problems by making all inadvertent handballs an indirect free kick is a good one. No real advantage to be gained by spreading yourself like a goalkeeper but also no disproportionate punishment for blocking a cross and no need to spend the game defending with your arms behind your back.
Too sensible for the authorities to adopt. |
All unecessary. The rule is quite clear if applied properly and stripped back to what it used to be.
Thats the whole point of the unnatural position stuff. If someone spreads themselves, then they are deliberately making a barrier of their arms and its not non deliberate.
Handballs for completely inadvertent stuff is a joke. A referee really ought to be capable of a sensible judgment, based on distance, arm position etc. They always used to... |  | | |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:58 - Nov 7 with 1546 views | jayessess |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:44 - Nov 7 by redrickstuhaart |
All unecessary. The rule is quite clear if applied properly and stripped back to what it used to be.
Thats the whole point of the unnatural position stuff. If someone spreads themselves, then they are deliberately making a barrier of their arms and its not non deliberate.
Handballs for completely inadvertent stuff is a joke. A referee really ought to be capable of a sensible judgment, based on distance, arm position etc. They always used to... |
The "unnatural position" caveat is a quite recent invention (2013). Prior to that the rule was that your hand had to deliberately move towards the ball for it to be an offence.
Think the distance thing is a good example of why it's complicated. You can be stood half a yard away from someone but still have your arms out in a way that makes it harder from them to kick a ball past you.
Penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the vast majority of handballs anyway. Make it a non-penalty offence and you can remove the subjective judgement aspect - just every time it strikes a hand, it's a free kick, proportionate outcome (the hand prevented you from shooting/crossing so you get an opportunity to shoot/cross) - seems fair to me. | |
| |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 21:01 - Nov 7 with 1541 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:58 - Nov 7 by jayessess |
The "unnatural position" caveat is a quite recent invention (2013). Prior to that the rule was that your hand had to deliberately move towards the ball for it to be an offence.
Think the distance thing is a good example of why it's complicated. You can be stood half a yard away from someone but still have your arms out in a way that makes it harder from them to kick a ball past you.
Penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the vast majority of handballs anyway. Make it a non-penalty offence and you can remove the subjective judgement aspect - just every time it strikes a hand, it's a free kick, proportionate outcome (the hand prevented you from shooting/crossing so you get an opportunity to shoot/cross) - seems fair to me. |
No- the handball had to be intentional. There did not have to be movement towards the ball.
Its not complicated if we simply recognise that it needs to be a matter of judgment for a referee and have clean simple guidelines saying that distance, speed, and intentional spreading are factors in the decision. It really isnt difficult. A penalty is not disproportionate at all for any actual handball (ie intentional...) given the advantage you can get in the area from it.
Ridiculous to penalise people even with an indirect free kick, for something unintentional. Thats before you start getting wingers deliberately flicking it up towards arms to win free kicks. | | | |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 13:11 - Nov 8 with 1151 views | Blue_In_Boston |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 20:38 - Nov 7 by jayessess |
A mate who was a referee at amateur level explained to me the refs' perspective on this - which is that if you don't punish non-deliberate handballs players will spread their body (including arms) like a goalkeeper to maximise their chances of blocking a shot or cross. They haven't deliberately handled the ball but they've positioned themselves in a way that allows them to accidentally handle the ball with plausible deniability and thus make attacking play harder.
I think the suggestion that you could solve both problems by making all inadvertent handballs an indirect free kick is a good one. No real advantage to be gained by spreading yourself like a goalkeeper but also no disproportionate punishment for blocking a cross and no need to spend the game defending with your arms behind your back.
Too sensible for the authorities to adopt. |
This unnatural position is a load of nonsense. Until I see the 100 metres at the Olympics being ran with arms tucked in, or behind the back I refuse to accept it. Arms pump back and forth, away from the body - that is called running. Watch professional athletes to a 5 year old at sports day. [Post edited 8 Nov 2024 13:12]
| | | |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 13:17 - Nov 8 with 1111 views | SamWhiteUK |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 21:01 - Nov 7 by redrickstuhaart |
No- the handball had to be intentional. There did not have to be movement towards the ball.
Its not complicated if we simply recognise that it needs to be a matter of judgment for a referee and have clean simple guidelines saying that distance, speed, and intentional spreading are factors in the decision. It really isnt difficult. A penalty is not disproportionate at all for any actual handball (ie intentional...) given the advantage you can get in the area from it.
Ridiculous to penalise people even with an indirect free kick, for something unintentional. Thats before you start getting wingers deliberately flicking it up towards arms to win free kicks. |
No one complains in hockey, where a ball on your foot sees a free hit to the opposition. It's just how it is |  | | |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 14:00 - Nov 8 with 1047 views | rickw |
I don't know if it was just him but I remember John Terry had started to hold his arms out wide to block shots and it was shortly after then when the "unnatural position" rule came in. Unfortunately continental referees see that as anything not by your sides.
I've thought for a while indirect free-kicks for accidental handballs (which would be 99% of them!) as it's shi# when matches get decided by something so insignificant [Post edited 8 Nov 2024 14:01]
|  |
| |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 14:03 - Nov 8 with 1021 views | blueasfook |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 14:00 - Nov 8 by rickw |
I don't know if it was just him but I remember John Terry had started to hold his arms out wide to block shots and it was shortly after then when the "unnatural position" rule came in. Unfortunately continental referees see that as anything not by your sides.
I've thought for a while indirect free-kicks for accidental handballs (which would be 99% of them!) as it's shi# when matches get decided by something so insignificant [Post edited 8 Nov 2024 14:01]
|
Cut defenders arms off below the elbow. Problem solved. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 17:42 - Nov 8 with 866 views | jayessess |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 13:17 - Nov 8 by SamWhiteUK |
No one complains in hockey, where a ball on your foot sees a free hit to the opposition. It's just how it is |
Can't see why you'd particularly want to exchange an open play crossing/shooting opportunity for an indirect free kick anyway (if you've got enough time/space to consciously direct a ball at someone's arm, why wouldn't you try and find your striker's head?). | |
| |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 17:42 - Nov 8 with 863 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Another nice VAR problem to get enraged about. LOL. on 14:03 - Nov 8 by blueasfook |
Cut defenders arms off below the elbow. Problem solved. |
level with the T-shirt line innit. Tougher to saw through the humerus than than just cracking open the elbow joint, but if that's what the rules require... |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
