Handball is Handball

[Edinblade]

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team.
The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled the ball with his hand. Even if accidental, he gained a clear and obvious advantage from his hand.
For once VAR did it’s job and was 100% correct.
Had there been no VAR and replays afterwards showed the handball, we would have felt cheated.
It’s only because it happened in the last minute, the whole issue has been exaggerated.

 

[Kop Cat]

And exaggerated because it was the only game on Friday and it was on Sky, the rule makers of the Premier League. That handball was a million times more obvious and straightforward than some of the offsides by 10mm 2 minutes before the ball was in the net.

 

[McGrath]

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team.
The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled the ball with his hand. Even if accidental, he gained a clear and obvious advantage from his hand.
For once VAR did it’s job and was 100% correct.
Had there been no VAR and replays afterwards showed the handball, we would have felt cheated.
It’s only because it happened in the last minute, the whole issue has been exaggerated.

You're right. It doesn't matter whether it was deliberate or not, that's just his word anyway. Had I been playing on a Sunday morning, I'd have been livid if a team scored from that and a lot of players would put their hands up and admit it hit their hand.

Most infringements in a game aren't deliberate. Players don't tend to be deliberately offside, most fouls are just late or badly timed tackles. They still result in free kicks though. This is the same.

That was far more of a clear cut decision than most other VAR decisions.

 

[TimofeeVee]

Handball is handball. True though.

 

[TimofeeVee]

If it had been the other way, and we'd been ruled out, of course it's disappointing....but I can see why the decision was made!

 

[LoughboroBlade]

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team.
The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled the ball with his hand. Even if accidental, he gained a clear and obvious advantage from his hand.
For once VAR did it’s job and was 100% correct.
Had there been no VAR and replays afterwards showed the handball, we would have felt cheated.
It’s only because it happened in the last minute, the whole issue has been exaggerated.

Under the new rules, it’s clearly handball.

Under the rules up to this season, it would not have been given.

Under the new rules, had Rice headed against Egan’s hand in the penalty area, allowing Egan to move away and clear the ball, it is highly unlikely a penalty is given.

It’s a bad rule change and completely inconsistent – whereas previously two similar offences might be interpreted differently by referees, this new rule for handball builds inconsistency into the rules themselves.

 

[Moosie]

Under the new rules it's offside, but how many who were there last night saw it clearly and shouted handball?

There was a call on Talk Sport on the way back from the match last night that had a caller saying the media is to blame for VAR. We've had years and years of analysis after games, blaming refs for marginal offsides, and handballs they've missed, etc. This is one of the reasons why VAR has been introduced.

Now imagine if VAR hadn't been on show last night but the new handball rule is still in place, we'd be feeling cheated out of a win and rightly so. All VAR did was overturn a 'clear and obvious' error that the ref had made.

Egan's goal was probably less of 'handball' that Rice's last night and that was overturned, you get some, you don't.

Made it sweeter that it was against that lot though.

 

[YES Blade]

Under the new rules, it’s clearly handball.

Under the rules up to this season, it would not have been given.

Under the new rules, had Rice headed against Egan’s hand in the penalty area, allowing Egan to move away and clear the ball, it is highly unlikely a penalty is given.

It’s a bad rule change and completely inconsistent – whereas previously two similar offences might be interpreted differently by referees, this new rule for handball builds inconsistency into the rules themselves.

It’s a really difficult one as like you say it’s not consistent for defending and attacking.

There was a perfect example when the ball hit Zabaleta’s arm in front of the Kop. It was a shot on goal and his arm was by his side so rightly not a penalty, but if we make it fair and consistent do we make those penalties? Most people wouldn’t want those to be penalties so that’s fine, it’s attacking where it becomes less clear cut.

We want to see more goals in football so I would say go back to the old accidental handball rule, but it’s really a difficult one as last night I would be saying Rice controlled it with his arm so wasn’t accidental and it would come down to referee/VAR interpretation.

 

[McGrath]

Had the ball accidentally hit the referee and bounced into the path of Snodgrass to score, then the ref would have brought it back for a drop ball. There would have been no complaints.

So why it should be any different if it accidentally hits a players hand, I don't know!

I suspect any controversy here is less about the decision and more about the general hysteria that the media whips up around VAR.

 

[Cheesebored]

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.

 

[Bergen Blade]

There were two reasons to disallow that goal; the handball, but also for Price fouling Egan. Egan clearly gets to the ball first and is then barged into by Price:

 

[Blademan89]

There were two reasons to disallow that goal; the handball, but also for Price fouling Egan. Egan clearly gets to the ball first and is then barged into by Price:

I thought it was a freekick also, I questioned it as he scored. If it was the other way round I'm sure the ref would have blown straight away. And rightly disallowed, he wouldn't have got the ball if it didn't hit is arm.

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Most people have the common sense to know the handball change was brought in to make it easier for var rather than the debatable accidental ruling before. But the fact we only have this in action when it leads to a goal but not when its a handball by a defender shows what a utter mess it is.

The old handball rule was better.

 

[SwissBlade]

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team.
The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled the ball with his hand. Even if accidental, he gained a clear and obvious advantage from his hand.
For once VAR did it’s job and was 100% correct.
Had there been no VAR and replays afterwards showed the handball, we would have felt cheated.
It’s only because it happened in the last minute, the whole issue has been exaggerated.

Your thread title is basically what the rule change is now.
No accidental
No Ball to hand

If the ball hits the hand (or arm) its handball.

As you said, Handball is Handball
(but its a bit of a shit rule change that we have to get used to)

 

[ormester]

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team.
The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled the ball with his hand. Even if accidental, he gained a clear and obvious advantage from his hand.
For once VAR did it’s job and was 100% correct.
Had there been no VAR and replays afterwards showed the handball, we would have felt cheated.
It’s only because it happened in the last minute, the whole issue has been exaggerated.

That was the clearest handball of the ones given the West ham fans are just sour but 100% handball and to say he didn't get a advantage he practically played basketball

 

[ormester]

I thought it was a freekick also, I questioned it as he scored. If it was the other way round I'm sure the ref would have blown straight away. And rightly disallowed, he wouldn't have got the ball if it didn't hit is arm.

I was at work but saw it and thought foul

 

[ormester]

Look at egans goal at Bright it wasn't that clear this one was handball quite simple and even better to right that smug face of snodgrass off

 

[Davalon]

Correct decision based on the law changes.

Can't say I'm a fan of the changes but at least it makes these decisions more black and white.

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.

I empathise whether it's West Ham or not but it's the correct application of the new law and something we've had to suck up this season on a few occasions.

 

[JimW1889]

I wouldn't have begrudged it being ruled out for us with the old rules, and it certainly is handball with the new ones. Gains a clear advantage by it striking his arm that he wouldn't have got if it didn't. Only problem is that it was a pretty open and shut VAR case that lasted around 3 minutes handball to being ruled out.

I also think with the ability to spot everything with VAR the laws have to be simplified to black and white on handball, fuck knows how long it would've gone on if it was based on it being deliberate.

 

[Mumbo]

There were two reasons to disallow that goal; the handball, but also for Price fouling Egan. Egan clearly gets to the ball first and is then barged into by Price:

Looking at that clip it’s not even a clear ball to hand incident as Rice’s hand movement is clearly towards the ball and he may well have handled it even without Egan’s header.It’s handball all day long.

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

Starting from June 1, 2019 onwards, the IFAB have confirmed that a goal scored or created with the use of an accidental handball will not count .

Jamie Hoyland scored a memorable goal to win us a Cup Tie v Manchester United at BDTBL. The goal was ridiculous because the ball hit his arm to deflect into the net. Nevertheless, it was a goal based on the handball rule then.

Last night those whinging cockneys scored a goal following a clear handball by Declan Rice that meant the ball dropped at his feet instead of passing him on its way to safety. To argue that the goal should have stood is ridiculous based on the new handball rule, so what is all the fuss about?

The only argument is whether the new rule or the old one is preferable.

TalkSport presenters last night argued about the pain those West Ham fans felt after travelling for 3 hours to the Lane to experience the joy of a last minute equaliser only to have it ruled out for handball - saying the goal should have stood.
Now that is a ridiculous argument.

It's not a case of: Is VAR a good or bad thing? or - Should we allow last minute goals for the sake of opposition fans who've travelled a long way only to see their dreams shattered in the last minute due to a contentious decision?

So - WTF? (Why The Fuss?)

 

[LoughboroBlade]

WTNT (Why The New Thread)?

Handball is Handball

I’m puzzled by how many folk are saying the goal should have been given. In football, players are not allowed to use their hand. If the ball hits the hand and it results in a goal, how is that fair on the defending team. The only reason Rice was able to lay on the pass was because he controlled...

www.s24su.com

 

[Scarebus]

The fact it was a 93rd minute equaliser is what's adding the controversy. If that's chalked off in the first half (like Egans) no one's that bothered.

 

[YES Blade]

It’s any excuse to have a moan about VAR.

In the days before VAR, if the ref disallowed the goal incorrectly there wasn’t anywhere near this amount of fuss. But when it’s VAR correctly disallowing a goal, it becomes a huge issue because it’s VAR. Work that one out?!?

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

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.

:

All irrelevant in relation to the handball rule. It was handball under the new rule, so nothing to argue about - no goal, end of....

 

[Mumbo]

To me Rices Hand position makes the ball to hand case a bit dodgy anyway,it was a handball all day long it’s just London-centric sour grapes.

 

[Worksop II]

I am happy for everyone who wants to join in the, it was sunfair, not handball, goal should have stood

and I hope that little worm buries deep into the West Ham Psyche ......... fuck them. and all who sail in her

 

[Linz]

Threads merged

 

[1889Paul]

Part of the reason to why we are debating the handball is that fans and ex pro's arent accepting the rule change.
Players were gaining advantages from handling the ball so the law was needed...... Why we are saying it wouldn't have been disallowed in previous seasons it doesn't matter.... The law has been evolved.
Compare it with the knock on rule in rugby.... Frustrating for everyone when it happens but everyone knows it will be pulled up so there's no arguments.
Yes this rule is frustrating but accept the rule for what it is and move on.

 

[Moosie]

Part of the reason to why we are debating the handball is that fans and ex pro's arent accepting the rule change.

The only reason it's getting debated imo is that it's because it was against 1966 world cup winners and media darlings West Ham. If it was the other way around we more than likely wouldn't be having the debate.

Take the goal Shelvey scored against us. Everyone just dismissed it as 'play to the whistle'. In this case we've played to the current rules after a VAR review so what's the problem? We've had the same thing with Egan with the disallowed goal at Brighton.

All the players knew what the rule was going to be in the summer so to come out and slam VAR the way Rice did shows that he knew without it the goal would have stood.

Was it Warnock who used to say refereeing decisions balance themselves out over the course of a season? If that's the case then we've got a few more VAR decisions to come our way!