Many of you dont understand the new handball rules

[Silent Blade]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

View attachment 176582

At the risk of wasting more time, is there any evidence that shirt sleeves are becoming longer this season to make that red area in the picture is shorter?

 

[HD8 Blades]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

View attachment 176582

Just the left hand is handball now?

 

[Neuschwanstein]

So we have hand ball and arm ball.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

Will long sleeve shirts make a comeback?

 

[ben1987]

I was a bit worried they’d give a pen, not so much for where the ball hit him but because it’s VAR, it’s fuckin shite, it hardly ever sorts out anything ‘clear and obvious’ and is just as likely to give a penalty for a beery fart on row C of the away end as it is to add any real value to the game. He moved his arm towards the ball which is what worried me. I was expecting a penalty for intent to handball it or some shite.

Off topic but imo they should get 30 seconds, real time now slow mo of 1/2 angles and then if they cannot see anything ‘clear and obvious’ the on field decision stands.

 

[corner_flag]

Sick of commentators. VAR says Baldock didn't commit handball, because the video showed he didn't commit handball. And the commentators say "Baldock was very lucky there"
Lucky? Lucky not to be penalised for an offence he didn't commit? What exactly goes on in their heads?

 

[Big Hitter]

Sick of commentators. VAR says Baldock didn't commit handball, because the video showed he didn't commit handball. And the commentators say "Baldock was very lucky there"
Lucky? Lucky not to be penalised for an offence he didn't commit? What exactly goes on in their heads?

Not a lot

 

[Grey Blade]

Sick of commentators. VAR says Baldock didn't commit handball, because the video showed he didn't commit handball. And the commentators say "Baldock was very lucky there"
Lucky? Lucky not to be penalised for an offence he didn't commit? What exactly goes on in their heads?

This is the problem with TV coverage. They show incidents from multiple angles in slow motion and undermine the referee's decisions - who only see it from one angle. I wasn't at the game last night but as always I wonder how many fans inside the ground knew what was going on? Watching on TV it was possible to see all the evidence but that doesn't make the use of VAR acceptable.

If it wasn't for TV coverage I'd abandon it all together, but whilst we have TV undermining the refs we're stuck with it (in one form or another).

Because Of TV mucking around with kick off times it gives me the chance to watch Harrogate Town occasionally and it's amusing how many of their fans wish for VAR when they perceive a dodgy decision. They don't know how lucky they are!

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

At the risk of wasting more time, is there any evidence that shirt sleeves are becoming longer this season to make that red area in the picture is shorter?

Aye
Or arms getting shorter?

 

[PokerBlade]

Part of the problem is written at the bottom of your image.

That's not in the laws of the game. That's how they decided to interpret the rules two seasons back. So more broadly, reading the laws of the game also needs for me to have an up-to-date understanding of how they're interpreting the rules (which will include interesting caveats like arm is where a shirt ends and not where the arm begins).

This is why I feel more and more detached from a game I thought I understood.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

View attachment 176582

I fully agree with you and this image explains it well. However the rule changed in 20/21, it wouldn’t be surprising if it had changed 2 or 3 times since!

 

[raul]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

View attachment 176582

You're probably on a lot of ignore lists

 

[Pegster]

Latest ruling is wherever the base of your armpit is :-

The handball rule for football was tightened up by the International Football Association Board (Ifab) in time for the 2021/22 season. The boundary between the shoulder and the arm is defined as the bottom of the armpit, and anything below that is considered a handball, intentional or not1. The guidelines for the 2023/24 season suggest that no handball offence should be called on a player if the ball is previously deflected from his own body, and in particular, when the ball does not go towards the goal2. The player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised if their hand/arm is in such a position3.

 

[Deadbat]

Am tired of the waste of time I replied to those who thought VAR was wrong about Baldock's "handball" and that my explanation went over their heads!

View attachment 176582

Isn't that 3 years out of date? Think its changed about 3 times since then!

 

[Silent Blade]

Isn't that 3 years out of date? Think its changed about 3 times since then!

The handball line is still the same since 2020/21 so it wasn't a handball by Baldock

 

[Flumps]

Sick of commentators. VAR says Baldock didn't commit handball, because the video showed he didn't commit handball. And the commentators say "Baldock was very lucky there"
Lucky? Lucky not to be penalised for an offence he didn't commit? What exactly goes on in their heads?

It could very well be because we've seen decisions given for less. I agree going by the rules it wasn't a handball but me and my mate were both amazed it wasn't given, could easily have been.