Our 'penalty'

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

grafikhaus

grafikhaus

Kraft durch Freude
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
12,173
Reaction score
21,258
Location
Lodge Moor, Sheffield
Here on MoTD2 at 23:26. The commentator said 'It might just have glanced off the elbow of Joel Ward' and - on the replay - 'the elbow was tucked in' (not it wasn't - he turned sideways and 'set up' to parry the ball) and the ubiquitous 'Would have been a hard one to give...'

1566208867521.png

But all in all, fairly reasonable comments on a disputed incident. Last season. But since the new rules, VAR and the Laporte 'handball' which was just as questionable and resulted in Man. City's Jesus having a 'winning goal' disallowed on Saturday, the bar has been raised now. Incidents such as this can be scrutinised and 'millimetre management' now applies. But not when it's us.

For once, Danny Murphy got off his fence and said 'VAR should be scrapped' but nobody thought to compare the two incidents.
 



grafikhaus said:
Here on MoTD2 at 23:26. The commentator said 'It might just have glanced off the elbow of Joel Ward' and - on the replay - 'the elbow was tucked in' (not it wasn't - he turned sideways and 'set up' to parry the ball) and the ubiquitous 'Would have been a hard one to give...'

View attachment 60051

But all in all, fairly reasonable comments on a disputed incident. Last season. But since the new rules, VAR and the Laporte 'handball' which was just as questionable and resulted in Man. City's Jesus having a 'winning goal' disallowed on Saturday, the bar has been raised now. Incidents such as this can be scrutinised and 'millimetre management' now applies. But not when it's us.

For once, Danny Murphy got off his fence and said 'VAR should be scrapped' but nobody thought to compare the two incidents.
Click to expand...
Now not for one moment saying I agree with this - to be honest its absolutely stupid - but they changed the Law interpretation this season. For the attacking side, if the ball touches the hand or arm, irrespective, in the build up to the goal then it is disallowed. For defenders it is all about the arm being in a natural position and all that. That pic shows the defence bringing his arms up to protect his face so the argument will be it was a natural position from that distance. Interesting that VAR never actually checked it though to see if the referee had made a clear and obvious error.

Just on VAR, I said at the time and I am now more than adamant that it should be used like in cricket and tennis in that a team has a finite number of appeals (eg one per half or three per game) to contest a decision. It has to be done the next time play is stopped within so many seconds. May break up play in some cases but that is what it is. Or even the manager on the touch line buzzes or something during the next phase of play.

Also, that stupid handball interpretation needs stopping immediately.
 
MobileBlade said:
Now not for one moment saying I agree with this - to be honest its absolutely stupid - but they changed the Law interpretation this season. For the attacking side, if the ball touches the hand or arm, irrespective, in the build up to the goal then it is disallowed. For defenders it is all about the arm being in a natural position and all that. That pic shows the defence bringing his arms up to protect his face so the argument will be it was a natural position from that distance. Interesting that VAR never actually checked it though to see if the referee had made a clear and obvious error.

Just on VAR, I said at the time and I am now more than adamant that it should be used like in cricket and tennis in that a team has a finite number of appeals (eg one per half or three per game) to contest a decision. It has to be done the next time play is stopped within so many seconds. May break up play in some cases but that is what it is. Or even the manager on the touch line buzzes or something during the next phase of play.

Also, that stupid handball interpretation needs stopping immediately.
Click to expand...

Agree with most of that, but what is 'a natural position'? (John Terry made an entire career out of defending like a starfish). And 'to protect his face'? The ball was a couple of feet from his face and, granted, I don't blame him but (new) rules is (new) rules and - far from making things clearer - this introduces a whole new level of debate and uncertainty. Thirteen years on and these 'improvements' haven't moved on from 'Chris Morgan meant to foul Gerrard.'

And finally 'Interesting that VAR never actually checked it though to see if the referee had made a clear and obvious error.' This will become a ref's 'get out of jail free card'. There were numerous incidents yesterday where - in my opinion - the ref. got it totally wrong but, as VAR never overruled him, it would appear he had a perfect game. 🤨
 
grafikhaus said:
Agree with most of that, but what is 'a natural position'? (John Terry made an entire career out of defending like a starfish). And 'to protect his face'? The ball was a couple of feet from his face and, granted, I don't blame him but (new) rules is (new) rules and - far from making things clearer - this introduces a whole new level of debate and uncertainty. Thirteen years on and these 'improvements' haven't moved on from 'Chris Morgan meant to foul Gerrard.'

And finally 'Interesting that VAR never actually checked it though to see if the referee had made a clear and obvious error.' This will become a ref's 'get out of jail free card'. There were numerous incidents yesterday where - in my opinion - the ref. got it totally wrong but, as VAR never overruled him, it would appear he had a perfect game. 🤨
Click to expand...
The clear and obvious has to be inside the area. There was an incident late in the game where a defender nearly took out McBurnie's head (now that is not a standard high kick!!) but it was just outside the penalty area (and it was just) so VAR could not look at it.
 
I’d be interested to hear what everyone’s opinion was on the high kick on McBurnie when he was in their box in the second half ?

I thought it was ok as the defender seemed to kick the ball cleanly but spoke to others in the boozer after who thought it was dangerous play - foot raised high etc
 
I wouldn’t have wanted a penalty for that and I’d be absolutely fuming if we conceded one for the same thing.

If someone blasts a ball at you close range I think you naturally draw your arms into your body and scrunch yourself up exactly like the defender is doing there.

I think VAR is wank so far, I think having two handball rules for defenders and attackers is wank and I think football is turning soft and pathetically wank. How some say we were roughing them up yesterday is a joke to me. It’s supposed to be a contact sport and we did nothing more than show a bit of commitment.

I’m relived that Lundstram smashed that goal in so we don’t have to worry about McG’s sitter and this ‘penalty’
 
It would've been a ridiculous penalty to give. It's hit at him from close range and he's brought his arms in close to his body. If that becomes a penalty then every player should just start smashing it at the nearest player every time they get close to the box.
 
MobileBlade said:
Now not for one moment saying I agree with this - to be honest its absolutely stupid - but they changed the Law interpretation this season. For the attacking side, if the ball touches the hand or arm, irrespective, in the build up to the goal then it is disallowed. For defenders it is all about the arm being in a natural position and all that. That pic shows the defence bringing his arms up to protect his face so the argument will be it was a natural position from that distance. Interesting that VAR never actually checked it though to see if the referee had made a clear and obvious error.

Just on VAR, I said at the time and I am now more than adamant that it should be used like in cricket and tennis in that a team has a finite number of appeals (eg one per half or three per game) to contest a decision. It has to be done the next time play is stopped within so many seconds. May break up play in some cases but that is what it is. Or even the manager on the touch line buzzes or something during the next phase of play.

Also, that stupid handball interpretation needs stopping immediately.
Click to expand...

VAR did check it.
 
Rufus Smalls said:
I’d be interested to hear what everyone’s opinion was on the high kick on McBurnie when he was in their box in the second half ?

I thought it was ok as the defender seemed to kick the ball cleanly but spoke to others in the boozer after who thought it was dangerous play - foot raised high etc
Click to expand...

Thing that winds me up is that Freeman got a booking moments earlier because he slid in with his foot raised, in spite of the fact the other player was doing the same thing, and in spite of the fact it was never going to hurt anyone. But then the ref arbitrarily decides that going in at head height is safe. If that's not a high foot and dangerous play then I'm utterly baffled as to what is.
 
MobileBlade said:
The clear and obvious has to be inside the area. There was an incident late in the game where a defender nearly took out McBurnie's head (now that is not a standard high kick!!) but it was just outside the penalty area (and it was just) so VAR could not look at it.
Click to expand...

But Stevens' shot - and the 'handball' - were inside the area:

1566210656214.png

The McBurnie incident was just outside the area but was 'dangerous play' - always has been, always will be. No need for VAR to take a look at it, that was purely down to the ref. to give us a free-kick and a yellow card for the Palace defender. These 'new rules' don't alter everything that has gone before - they just protect inept refs.

Rufus Smalls said:
I’d be interested to hear what everyone’s opinion was on the high kick on McBurnie when he was in their box in the second half ?

I thought it was ok as the defender seemed to kick the ball cleanly but spoke to others in the boozer after who thought it was dangerous play - foot raised high etc
Click to expand...

You decide

1566211064690.png

although I'm sure some would say the Palace player's foot was in a 'natural position' and there was no 'clear and obvious' blah, blah.
 
Last edited:
grafikhaus said:
But Stevens' shot - and the 'handball' - were inside the area:

View attachment 60053

The McBurnie incident was just outside the area but was 'dangerous play' - always has been, always will be. No need for VAR to take a look at it, that was purely down to the ref. to give us a free-kick and a yellow card for the Palace defender. These 'new rules' don't alter everything that has gone before - they just protect inept refs.
Click to expand...
Was the handball checked by VAR? There was nothing on the scoreboard to say it was being checked. But another poster says it was.
 



MobileBlade said:
Not in the ground thet didnt.
Click to expand...

Yeah they didn't tell us, but it was checked having checked the recording. The information coming to us will improve, but everything is checked if it's a Pen claim.

I think the trick is to just assume everything is being checked, because it likely is.
 
MobileBlade said:
I think it got it wrong as I said earlier :) - but it was outside the area so not under VAR remit.
Click to expand...

But surely (fuck me, wouldn't it have been simpler if the ref. had just given us the bastard penalty? :)) we're reading the new rules arse about face? The ref. is still in charge, is there to make decisions and - if VAR review it and they think it's wrong - to overrule it? It seems it abdicates all responsibility from the ref. and he'll just take the easy route, not make any difficult decisions and let VAR take the blame.
 
Rufus Smalls said:
I’d be interested to hear what everyone’s opinion was on the high kick on McBurnie when he was in their box in the second half ?

I thought it was ok as the defender seemed to kick the ball cleanly but spoke to others in the boozer after who thought it was dangerous play - foot raised high etc
Click to expand...
His foot was very high, does it matter if he got the ball? It’s a bit like the simpsons “ I’m going to swing my arms and move forward if you get in the way then it’s your fault”
 
grafikhaus said:
But surely (fuck me, wouldn't it have been simpler if the ref. had just given us the bastard penalty? :)) we're reading the new rules arse about face? The ref. is still in charge, is there to make decisions and - if VAR review it and they think it's wrong - to overrule it? It seems it abdicates all responsibility from the ref. and he'll just take the easy route, not make any difficult decisions and let VAR take the blame.
Click to expand...
I agree. Which is why I said VAR should be used by appeal not just to look at any decision.
 
grafikhaus said:
But Stevens' shot - and the 'handball' - were inside the area:

View attachment 60053

The McBurnie incident was just outside the area but was 'dangerous play' - always has been, always will be. No need for VAR to take a look at it, that was purely down to the ref. to give us a free-kick and a yellow card for the Palace defender. These 'new rules' don't alter everything that has gone before - they just protect inept refs.



You decide

View attachment 60054

although I'm sure some would say the Palace player's foot was in a 'natural position' and there was no 'clear and obvious' blah, blah.
Click to expand...
Anyone remember Kilgannon being sent off at swillsboroughfor an identical situation as this !!!
 
Greasy Chap Butty said:
at first, I was screaming 'penalty' . In slow mo , I agree it wasn't. His arm was well tucked in, best he could.
Click to expand...

Best he could is irrelevant. It's hit his arm. Therefore it is handball and a penalty. All we've got now is micro-management from the officials and their discretion as to how they interpret the law. Ball to hand is now as good as handball. His arm in that image isn't in a 'natural position'. As mentioned, we've seen goals disallowed for less.
 
Ainsley Harriott said:
Best he could is irrelevant. It's hit his arm. Therefore it is handball and a penalty. All we've got now is micro-management from the officials and their discretion as to how they interpret the law. Ball to hand is now as good as handball. His arm in that image isn't in a 'natural position'. As mentioned, we've seen goals disallowed for less.
Click to expand...
Where do you get 'it's hit his arm , therefore a pen' from ? The only new rule is for strikers scoring from handball in any shape or form.
That wasn't a pen. I'm as biased as the next bloke, but claiming it was is pointless. Nobody wants to see penalties for that kind of normal play.
 
BladeInIreland said:
His foot was very high, does it matter if he got the ball? It’s a bit like the simpsons “ I’m going to swing my arms and move forward if you get in the way then it’s your fault”
Click to expand...
I dopn't think it matters if he got the ball or not. It's dangerous play!
 
Firstly I don't think penalties should be given for that 'handball' where the ball has been smashed at him from a couple of yards, however we've seen penalties given for very similar incidents, the one that Man U got against PSG last season sticks out. Players are now defending with their hands behind their backs and the defender in this case clearly didn't do that so it was a voluntary action on his part. As far as I could make out, this was exactly the type of situation that VAR would rule on and yet it didn't appear to have been used.

Remember Basham got red carded last season for a ridiculous 'handball' against Blackburn by Premier ref, Andrew Taylor, although VAR was not used in that instance.
 
coaxingstar71 said:
Firstly I don't think penalties should be given for that 'handball' where the ball has been smashed at him from a couple of yards, however we've seen penalties given for very similar incidents, the one that Man U got against PSG last season sticks out. Players are now defending with their hands behind their backs and the defender in this case clearly didn't do that so it was a voluntary action on his part. As far as I could make out, this was exactly the type of situation that VAR would rule on and yet it didn't appear to have been used.

Remember Basham got red carded last season for a ridiculous 'handball' against Blackburn by Premier ref, Andrew Taylor, although VAR was not used in that instance.
Click to expand...

The Premier League are working to a higher standard with regards to handballs in the box, for example the Premier League have said that the Liverpool penalty in the Champions League final wouldn't have been awarded.
 
super_pig said:
doesn't matter. hit the arm. handball under the current rules. they are idiotic btw ;)
Click to expand...
no it's not:
from FA website:

It is an offence if a player:
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
 
Greasy Chap Butty said:
no it's not:
from FA website:

It is an offence if a player:
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
Click to expand...
fair enough. i don't understand it. i suspect i'm not the only one! :D
thanks for the clarification..
 



super_pig said:
fair enough. i don't understand it. i suspect i'm not the only one! :D
thanks for the clarification..
Click to expand...
Most handballs are just the same as they've always been.
The only difference is scoring. If you score, even off an accidental handball or hitting an arm held against the body, the goal is disallowed.
i.e the strict rule only applies to the attacking side if they score off it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Deadbat
United 1 Watford 0 - report/ratings
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
United Aren't Back.
U
Karaoke Blade
'Til I Die'
Replies
9
Views
2K
YorkBlade
YorkBlade
Y
Our goal v. Citeh. McBurnie offside?
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
PokerBlade
P
Deadbat
United 1 Forest 3 - report
Replies
16
Views
3K
JohnDenver
JohnDenver
Deadbat
Brentford 2 United 0 - report
Replies
20
Views
3K
billyblademan
billyblademan

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom