Handball is Handball

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

LoughboroBlade said:
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.
Click to expand...
correct. It's a shit rule and needs a rethink.

but by the rules as they stand, it's a correct decision as was Egan's goal at Brighton.

The fact that this hurt West Ham and they are sooo upset about it really is a shame.
 

The reason we've had the previous rule where it had to be deliberate is because otherwise every time I get the ball near the box I'm going to chip or drill it at a defender's arm and get a lot of penalties and free kicks. Which is why this has only been changed for the attacking team.

The problem with this new change is that now we have a weird situation where handball is different depending on where the player is, whether he's attacking or defending, and the result is a more convoluted rule set that's denying goals that were never a problem. We had it against us when Egan scored with a glance off the arm and we all thought it was ridiculous then so as much fun as it is to see Wham in tears let's not base our opinions on whether things are in our favour on a given weekend.

Personally I never saw it as a problem that there were many controversial goals scored where we couldn't tell it was deliberate or not. The problem was always players being crafty enough to do it without the ref seeing. All this change seems like is as a way that VAR can spot more things and up it's tally of "correct" decisions.
 
1889Paul said:
Players were gaining advantages from handling the ball so the law was needed..... The law has been evolved.
Click to expand...
I've heard this before but can't remember the circumstances that made them feel the change needed to be so intrusive.

I can think of a few examples of cheating such as Henry against Ireland which with VAR could have been covered by the old rules, couldn't it?

Obvs - Maradona as well - but the same, old rules and VAR would have ruled it out,

Oh and there was the lad at WBA who kept doing it last year but again these were clear and obvious cheating whereas the Egan goal and last nights were just unavoidable accidents in my view and both should probably stand alongside the Man city lad who had one earlier in the season
 
The 'intentional' shit has always seemed like bollox to me, well before VAR came about. Virtually no handballs are actually intentional, if we only penalised genuine intentional hanndballs, they'd only occur when some fucker saves it off the goal line or tries to Maradona it.

My view of handball has always been that if it should be if it hits your hand, and it's anywhere other than by your sides, or tucked into your body, it's a handball, anywhere on the pitch.
 
I’m no fan of the new rule but under the old rules I’ve seen them given.

I’ve seen it countless times when playing and watching, a player leaves their arm out to hedge their bets and make themselves bigger to get a ball under control with their chest when under pressure, they claim it’s accidental but leaving your arm in like that invites a handball. Egan’s non goal at Brighton was far more accidental.

The ‘automatic handball’ rule is a farce and I hope to see it scrapped, it’s designed purely for knownowts and armchair fans but rules are rules and the players need to adapt their games to suit. Suck it up lads.
 
Edinblade said:
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.
Click to expand...
Who is saying the goal should have been given? Other than Moyes, Rice and probably most WH fans, I haven't heard anyone saying it should have been allowed to stand.
Plenty are saying the rule is bad and should be scrapped, but that's different.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
You don't appear to understand the handball rule. You're not the only one.
Click to expand...
HANDLING THE BALL

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.
 
Willie Carlin said:
HANDLING THE BALL

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.
Click to expand...
With respect you’re the one that doesn’t understand the handball rules😉🤭
 
Willie Carlin said:
HANDLING THE BALL

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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. So why suggest that he needed to use his hand to control the ball in order to score when it makes no difference?
 
Cheesebored said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is a very fair comment. 👍
I can accept hand/arm ball is hand/arm ball but how many that have been allowed to stand, when scoring, this season? I doubt it's zero.
And that's what gets us all, isn't it..
 
ormester said:
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
Click to expand...
It's not as if the Egna handball was really that obvious it decisive. Had it not flicked his fingernail, it was already on its way in off his thigh.

Whereas in this case, had he not handled then the attack would have ended.
 

And as we speak (have not seen it yet), Livarpool are 'allowed' a handball goal.. 🤣
Surprised?
 
It's an unfair rule, but it's equally unfair to both teams. If we scored that goal then had it disallowed, this thread would not exist.

Them's the facts.
 
Wonder how bitter Rice and the rest of the Spammers would be if they'd had seven decisions go against them for someones fucking foreskin being offside. In this instance, in my opinion, this is exactly the kind of thing VAR should be used for
 
I was watching on sky and they quickly showed the shot of it clearly hitting rice’s arm unintentionally or not!!!. My missus saw it and said that it should be disallowed. I also thought the same but just thought that the twats at stockley Park would fuck us over once again🙄. Thankfully I was wrong and it was satisfying to see moyes’s mood suddenly change🤣🤣⚔️⚔️⚔️
 
Edinblade said:
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.
Click to expand...

Having now looked at it numerous times, I think that prior to the new rules around handball being introduced, that would still have been given as handball. (Obviously assuming it was spotted by the referee or linesman)

Some people seem to think that in order to be regarded as having deliberately handled the ball a player must make some kind of intentional or reckless movement with the hand towards the ball. I don't think that is what the rule means.

In this particular case it looks to me as if the player's forearm is extended forwards and away from his body. If it wasn't the ball would have missed his hand entirely and he would never have gained control of it and so never been able to make his run and put Snodgrass away. As you say, the only reason that goal was scored was because Rice gained control of the ball by use of the hand. I don't think there was any intention on his part to do that, but within the laws of the game I would have thought that was an obvious 'deliberate' handball.

If we had scored a goal like that against them and it had been allowed to stand I think David Moyes may well have been singing from a different hymn sheet.

Another thing that struck me when listening to the after match interviews was that Moyes didn't seem to know the new ruling on handball. He repeatedly called it a bad (or similar description) decision and that it was a perfectly good goal. It wasn't and whatever we or anyone else may think of the handball rule, the correct decision was made.
 
oldblade said:
Another thing that struck me when listening to the after match interviews was that Moyes didn't seem to know the new ruling on handball. He repeatedly called it a bad (or similar description) decision and that it was a perfectly good goal. It wasn't and whatever we or anyone else may think of the handball rule, the correct decision was made.
Click to expand...
To be fair, wasn't Moyes unemployable when the rules were changed? 🤭
 
offside are hugely infuriating because my judge of VAR is did the player gain an advtange from an "illegal" move. all the offside where by even the best eyesight we know they are level

i am surprised by the issue i dont deny there have been a few bad handballs like man city v spurs in august where because it brushed the hand from a corner on its way it to jesus its not given now that "killing the game" because jesus wouldve scored with or without it but this isnt it because alot like Egan v Brighton. rice might not have meant it but he gained an obvious advtange from that handball. without he wouldnt have been able to control it & score the goal

i stand by my comment a few weeks ago that VAR is on whole working well but 5% rules are making 95% look bad
 
sheff_blade90 said:
why should liverpool be punished for spurs handball espically as im pretty sure that referee wouldve played advatange if he had of seen the incident
Click to expand...

VAR was originally checking to see if it had hit a Liverpool player’s hand. It didn’t – it hit a Spurs player’s. So the goal rightly stood.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
Exactly. So why suggest that he needed to use his hand to control the ball in order to score when it makes no difference?
Click to expand...
. You have no argument!! The rule clearly states that if a player gains possession by the ball hitting his arm/hand it is a foul. That’s what happened!!
 
Willie Carlin said:
. You have no argument!! The rule clearly states that if a player gains possession by the ball hitting his arm/hand it is a foul. That’s what happened!!
Click to expand...

That’s not the rule. The bit I’ve placed in bold below is critical for it to be ruled on review as a handball offence.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
•the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
•a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
•the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
•the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Simply “gaining possession” through accidental handball isn’t an offence.
 

Willie Carlin said:
. You have no argument!! The rule clearly states that if a player gains possession by the ball hitting his arm/hand it is a foul. That’s what happened!!
Click to expand...
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with gaining possession. The ball only has to touch his hand. He doesn't have to gain an advantage, do it deliberately or gain possession.
EDIT - that's not clear enough, he doesn't have to gain an advantage, do it deliberately or gain possession WITH HIS HAND, for it to be handball. In this case, it clearly helped him, but it didn't have to, any touch of the hand and then his going on to create a goal scoring opportunity is no longer allowed.
People went apeshite about our disallowed goal against Brighton but this is exactly the same rule being applied with exactly the same criteria.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

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