Handball is Handball

[Jesus_was_a_Blade]

Under the current rules it is handball and therefor great example of VAR working.
Personally I don't think it should be handball, there's nothing he could do about it as the balls been headed from no more than a yard away.
That being said, it was funny as f*ck when it was disallowed

What I want to know is how long has to pass before they wouldn't have looked at the handball? What would have happened if Rice had known it hit his hand? Could he have passed the ball back to his defence, they keep possession for a minute, and then score a goal, would that stand?
Is it a time issue, a phases of play thing, or does the ball have to go dead to stop them looking at an incident?

Because it will happen at some point. A player will go clean through on goal, but know that the ball hit their arm, so they turn back & don't bother scoring...

 

[HVR]

If you were to super slow mo the video, you might find Rice did slightly pull his elbow in and straighten his forearm, thereby making the ball drop in front of him, otherwise the ball may have deflected back across Egan.
You cannot judge the intension of a player, so they said if it touches the hand and leads to a goal its disallowed.
This is fair, and so is the other rule because an attacker could simply scoop the ball up with his foot into a defender's hand to get a penalty.

 

[BushBlade]

If you were to super slow mo the video, you might find Rice did slightly pull his elbow in and straighten his forearm, thereby making the ball drop in front of him, otherwise the ball may have deflected back across Egan.
You cannot judge the intension of a player, so they said if it touches the hand and leads to a goal its disallowed.
This is fair, and so is the other rule because an attacker could simply scoop the ball up with his foot into a defender's hand to get a penalty.

That ^.

I’m not going to argue it’s fair because it isn’t but it’s the fairest way without getting glaring inconsistencies when one ref gives a goal to Arsenal whilst another one disallows a carbon copy goal for us against Man U.

Our hatred of VAR is making us forget why it was brought in.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

If the rule is changed back then it become open to interpretation by refs, which then leads to inconsistency of decisions. You’ll get two similar incidents in two different games where one goal is ruled out and the other is allowed. Which is equally unsatisfactory, arguably more so.

I’d rather have some inconsistency as a result of human decision than permanent inconsistency built into the current rules through handball being different depending on whether it’s a defender or attacker doing it.

 

[BushBlade]

I’d rather have some inconsistency as a result of human decision than permanent inconsistency built into the current rules through handball being different depending on whether it’s a defender or attacker doing it.

I can’t speak for you but those inconsistencies caused a lot of outrage at the time. Personally, I dislike VAR but at the same time, I’ve seen bad goals being given in the championship and thought it grossly unfair.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Personally I think that kind of incident should be allowed to stand but if you compare it to Egan at Brighton, the ball brushed his hand/arm and was on it's way into the net anyway. If the ball doesn't hit Rice's hand he doesn't get the opportunity to create the goal.

You are suggesting that accidental handball should not be penalised.

However imagine if a player blasts the ball towards goal....on the replay it’s clearly going off target but the ball accidently hits an attacking players elbow or hand deflecting into the net. It seems madness that a player can score a goal with his hand.

Think the fairest rule is accidental handball is OK as long as it has no effect on the outcome

But that would mean the West Ham gosl would still be disallowed because they gained a clear advantage
where as Egans goal at Brighton should count because his accidental handball had no effect.

Its the same with Liverpool’s goal against Spurs....it looks like the ball might have grazed Henderson’s hand meaning the goal should be disallowed
but it had similiarities to the Egan goal....the handball was minimal and didn’t effect the outcome.

Agree with the recent comments...at least the current rule is black and white...so there’s consistency.....which is what we all want.

 

[benn5712]

All said, our defending for that non goal was shite. How Snodgrass even managed to put that away is annoying.

 

[Davalon]

You are suggesting that accidental handball should not be penalised.

However imagine if a player blasts the ball towards goal....on the replay it’s clearly going off target but the ball accidently hits an attacking players elbow or hand deflecting into the net. It seems madness that a player can score a goal with his hand.

Think the fairest rule is accidental handball is OK as long as it has no effect on the outcome

But that would mean the West Ham gosl would still be disallowed because they gained a clear advantage
where as Egans goal at Brighton should count because his accidental handball had no effect.

Its the same with Liverpool’s goal against Spurs....it looks like the ball might have grazed Henderson’s hand meaning the goal should be disallowed
but it had similiarities to the Egan goal....the handball was minimal and didn’t effect the outcome.

Essentially yes I am.

But then I'm just saying I prefer the old law rather than hate the new one.

Whilst there's more of an element of black and white in the new law, I find it odd that you can adopt a different handball rule for different parts of the pitch and accidental grazing of the arm having no impact can still mean no goal.

I'm just not particularly comfortable with certain incidents only being unacceptable if a goal ends up being scored. Where's the line drawn? Same phase of play like offside supposedly?

I can get away with an obvious accidental handball in my own half but in 5 or 6 passes time we score from 30 yards.

Just a bit inconsistent for my liking but no laws of the game are perfect I suppose.

 

[Sheffsteel]

The “unfairness” regards the West Ham goal wasn’t the decision....the decision using the laws of the game was clearly correct.

The unfairness relates to the delay....it’s a form of fan cruelty.
I saw the potential handball within 2 seconds....so why did the VAR people let West Ham fans and players celebrate for 40 seconds before it comes up with “VAR is checking the goal“ on the big screen.

Then when checking it....why did VAR take another 40 seconds to make a decision?
Im no expert but it took me 2 seconds to see it was clear handball...it wasn’t even a difficult decision....but VAR seem to act in slow motion.

It was the delay that is unacceptable, not VAR......it’s cruel to fans and I do have sympathy towards any fans (including Hammers) that suffer the protracted wait.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Essentially yes I am.

But then I'm just saying I prefer the old law rather than hate the new one.

Whilst there's more of an element of black and white in the new law, I find it odd that you can adopt a different handball rule for different parts of the pitch and accidental grazing of the arm having no impact can still mean no goal.

I'm just not particularly comfortable with certain incidents only being unacceptable if a goal ends up being scored. Where's the line drawn? Same phase of play like offside supposedly?

I can get away with an obvious accidental handball in my own half but in 5 or 6 passes time we score from 30 yards.

Just a bit inconsistent for my liking but no laws of the game are perfect I suppose.

Agree...it’s quite complicated when you consider all the different scenarios regards.....rules need to be consistent and take into account the issues below.

deliberate or accidental, did it effect the ball or not, where on the pitch did the handball take place, was it in the latest phase of play, did it result in a goal?

 

[GrayBlade]

Sure is

 

[Ridgeway Blade]

The “unfairness” regards the West Ham goal wasn’t the decision....the decision using the laws of the game was clearly correct.

The unfairness relates to the delay....it’s a form of fan cruelty.
I saw the potential handball within 2 seconds....so why did the VAR people let West Ham fans and players celebrate for 40 seconds before it comes up with “VAR is checking the goal“ on the big screen.

Then when checking it....why did VAR take another 40 seconds to make a decision?
Im no expert but it took me 2 seconds to see it was clear handball...it wasn’t even a difficult decision....but VAR seem to act in slow motion.

It was the delay that is unacceptable, not VAR......it’s cruel to fans and I do have sympathy towards any fans (including Hammers) that suffer the protracted wait.

Perhaps the guys at Stocley Park thought game was done and dusted and were packing their things up, getting their coats on etc when the 'goal' happened. Suddenly had to jump into action and get back into action. Perhaps they disallowed it for West Ham spoiling their quick getaway ona Friday night.

Oh, by the way, I am joking - or am I?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

If the rule is changed back then it become open to interpretation by refs, which then leads to inconsistency of decisions. You’ll get two similar incidents in two different games where one goal is ruled out and the other is allowed. Which is equally unsatisfactory, arguably more so.

Isn't the solution to give better guidance to the referees? Explain the rules rather than change them? The game has always relied on interpretation, which is why it flows more than any other similar sport. Taking interpretation out by moving the rules to an exteme doesn't fit with the spirit of the game.
We still rely on interpretation for fouls and if they did the same with fouls it would be something like "any tapping of the leg below the knee is a foul whether intentional or not, advantageous or not". It would make it clearer and easier for refs and more consistent, but who wants that?

 

[BushBlade]

Isn't the solution to give better guidance to the referees? Explain the rules rather than change them? The game has always relied on interpretation, which is why it flows more than any other similar sport. Taking interpretation out by moving the rules to an exteme doesn't fit with the spirit of the game.
We still rely on interpretation for fouls and if they did the same with fouls it would be something like "any tapping of the leg below the knee is a foul whether intentional or not, advantageous or not". It would make it clearer and easier for refs and more consistent, but who wants that?

I was under the impression that the refs received a lot of guidance pre VAR and there were still plenty of subjective decisions, particularly with handball. It can be very difficult to determine someone’s intention.

The logical thing would be, as has already been mentioned, to make all handballs a foul whether it’s intentional or not, but that would just result in attackers deliberately kicking the ball at a defender’s arm as soon as they were in the box.

The reality is, we’re all to blame. Every single one of us that has said ‘we’ve been cheated’ when the ref made a mistake, everyone who’s phoned up phone ins saying the same and the media who’ve run with it, the managers who’ve used it as an excuse for losing games, all of us. We’ve pissed and moaned about unfair decisions and demanded a solution.

We could scrap VAR tomorrow but as soon as a ref makes a game changing mistake we’ll complain about it.

 

[Kenilworth]

Not on any high horse, handball is one of those rules that causes controvosy and one of the reasons is that so many people don't understand the actual rule - including TV pundits and commentators. If by "my view" you meant "this is how the handball rule should be written" then fine, but that's what you wrote (you wrote "is", not "should be").
Otherwise, almost everything you wrote in your post is wrong according to the rules, new and old.

Like I said, was expressing my view of handball on a forum. I wasn’t there to recite the “laws” of the game and dictate how they should be interpreted or how VAR should handle them. I wasn’t promoting myself as the oracle on matters pertaining to handball. Thanks for the grammar lesson, though.

 

[Kenilworth]

The “unfairness” regards the West Ham goal wasn’t the decision....the decision using the laws of the game was clearly correct.

The unfairness relates to the delay....it’s a form of fan cruelty.
I saw the potential handball within 2 seconds....so why did the VAR people let West Ham fans and players celebrate for 40 seconds before it comes up with “VAR is checking the goal“ on the big screen.

Then when checking it....why did VAR take another 40 seconds to make a decision?
Im no expert but it took me 2 seconds to see it was clear handball...it wasn’t even a difficult decision....but VAR seem to act in slow motion.

It was the delay that is unacceptable, not VAR......it’s cruel to fans and I do have sympathy towards any fans (including Hammers) that suffer the protracted wait.

Easy
To
Make it sweeter for us

 

[HammerInPeace]

Sure is

View attachment 68493

I KNEW IT! I FUCKING KNEW IT!!!

 

[Jinxy1966]

Alan Brazil & Jamie O’Hara on Talk Shite this morning reckon goal should have stood as it was unfair on the poor West Ham fans who had travelled all that way on a Friday night. Obviously wouldn’t have been unfair to us to allow it even though it was one of the easiest, most obvious VAR decisions so far. I don’t get all this sympathy towards the shammers. Perhaps the porno brothers have some candid snaps of pundits other halves & are threatening to put them in the Reader’s Wives section of their matchday program.

 

[davidblade]

As delighted as I am by the reversal, it's a very harsh decision IMO. Not only has Egan thundered the ball into his arm from 6 inches but Rice then has work to do to find Snodgrass who scores. Most other decisions of disallowed handballs I can recall this season have involved the goalscorer. Also Rice doesn't appear to move his arm towards the ball intentionally, hes running at pace.

For me rice position his body /arm that the ball was more likely to hit his arm unnaturally so it was hand ball.,

 

[Cheesebored]

For me rice position his body /arm that the ball was more likely to hit his arm unnaturally so it was hand ball.,

Don't agree but it's nice to see a sensible different opinion.