Handball is Handball

[Willie Carlin]

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.

I’ll repeat my first comment. Where’s the ball going if it doesn’t hit his hand. It was going to Baldock therefore he gained possession with his arm. Score correct 1 0 Blades win

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I’ll repeat my first comment. Where’s the ball going if it doesn’t hit his hand. It was going to Baldock therefore he gained possession with his arm. Score correct 1 0 Blades win

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it was handball. According to the new rules, it is handball all day long. But... it has nothing to do with where the ball is going. It makes no difference whether he gained possession with his arm or not, he is simply not allowed to touch the ball. That's why the rule is stupid.
If what you are saying was true, it might actually make a bit more sense.

 

[Seth Rollins]

By the new rules its handball so correct decision was given. Now just imagine if West Ham had the misfortune to be relegated on goal difference & that goal would’ve kept them up?? Now that would be the icing on the VAR cake!!

 

[Hamburg Blade]

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.

This is a major sticking point for me. I don't like the principle that there are different rules depending on the situation. What's handball for an attacker is not handball for the defender, or somewhere else on the pitch. For me, it should either be handball or not.
Of course, we have it with the penalty area, where a foul is treated differently (leading to referees not giving a foul when he would give it anywhere else on the pitch) but at least that is to increase excitement and goals.

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.

I find it a bit sad that football can do this to people. It's not difficult to recognise that it's a crap rule but we're happy it worked for us this time. This is also the same rule that came within a knat's of disallowing McB's goal against Man Utd.

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.

Me neither. In fact, the worst cases, eg Henry vs Ireland, would now be picked up by VAR without any rule change. This rule is clearly aimed at stopping goals from accidental handball, and I don't remember there being much clamour to stop that.

 

[MobileBlade]

Interesting interview with Norwood today on 5Live. He was on a train to London so line kept cutting out but basically they asked if the players on the pitch knew what VAR was being checked for or whether they were a bit in the dark like the crowd.

He said at first he thought they were checking for offside. He then asked the ref. Interestingly he said that the replied that he (the ref) wasn't sure if it was handball so he had asked VAR for clarification. Now if that was right, that was good use of the system.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Interesting interview with Norwood today on 5Live. He was on a train to London so line kept cutting out but basically they asked if the players on the pitch knew what VAR was being checked for or whether they were a bit in the dark like the crowd.

He said at first he thought they were checking for offside. He then asked the ref. Interestingly he said that the replied that he (the ref) wasn't sure if it was handball so he had asked VAR for clarification. Now if that was right, that was good use of the system.

Wouldn't VAR have checked even if he hadn't asked? I thought all goals were checked.

 

[MobileBlade]

Wouldn't VAR have checked even if he hadn't asked? I thought all goals were checked.

They are supposed to be but it is all about phase of play. And what is checked for. Only saying what Norwood said.

 

[ormester]

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.

The difference is egaibs wasn't clear abd obvious rice's was

 

[ormester]

The difference is egaibs wasn't clear abd obvious rice's was

Egan I mean

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The difference is egaibs wasn't clear abd obvious rice's was

You're talking about VAR's part in it and the fact that people were told it would only be used for clear and obvious errors. That's a different matter.
The rule is the same whether it is obvious or subtle, key to creating a goal or completely insignificant, the ball simply cannot touch the hand or arm.
Someone clearly decided that "we don't want to see goals when a hand is involved" and a rule was made.

 

[MobileBlade]

You're talking about VAR's part in it and the fact that people were told it would only be used for clear and obvious errors. That's a different matter.
The rule is the same whether it is obvious or subtle, key to creating a goal or completely insignificant, the ball simply cannot touch the hand or arm.
Someone clearly decided that "we don't want to see goals when a hand is involved" and a rule was made.

As I said on another thread, blame Terry Henry for that.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

As I said on another thread, blame Terry Henry for that.

I'd rather blame Maradona

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I've also just noticed I can't spell gnat.
Not that I need to very often.

 

[metalblade]

And the knobs on MOTD are still saying although he used his hand the goal should have stood .....................................WTF

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Hopefully the rule is changed back to something more like it was previously. But till then...if a reverse situation like this happens, and one of our players is aware they’ve just inadvertently touched with their hand the ball that’s now at their feet, I hope Wilder is instructing them to try and win a corner rather than try and score or create a goal. If we then score from the corner, they wouldn’t look at how the corner was awarded, so the handball decision wouldn’t happen on review.

Question though. Let’s say the Egan and Rice challenges happened instead in the West Ham penalty area for the ball yesterday, and like before it hits Rice on the hand. He hits a remarkably long punt downfield to Snodgrass to finish. VAR spots the ball hitting the hand and disallows the goal as per the new handball rules. However, we know that penalties for this sort of connection are not given under the new rules...so is the goal ruled out for handball but no penalty is given? How does play, for us, restart in the West Ham penalty area?

 

[metalblade]

Hopefully the rule is changed back to something more like it was previously. But till then...if a reverse situation like this happens, and one of our players is aware they’ve just inadvertently touched with their hand the ball that’s now at their feet, I hope Wilder is instructing them to try and win a corner rather than try and score or create a goal. If we then score from the corner, they wouldn’t look at how the corner was awarded, so the handball decision wouldn’t happen on review.

Question though. Let’s say the Egan and Rice challenges happened instead in the West Ham penalty area for the ball yesterday, and like before it hits Rice on the hand. He hits a remarkably long punt downfield to Snodgrass to finish. VAR spots the ball hitting the hand and disallows the goal as per the new handball rules. However, we know that penalties for this sort of connection are not given under the new rules...so is the goal ruled out for handball but no penalty is given? How does play, for us, restart in the West Ham penalty area?

Good question that, really hand ball should be penalised intentional or not or you just play the game as Aussie rules football

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Good question that, really hand ball should be penalised intentional or not or you just play the game as Aussie rules football

Keith Hackett was asked a similar question, looks like my example suggests goal would be given.

 

[metalblade]

Keith Hackett was asked a similar question, looks like my example suggests goal would be given.

The trouble is two wrongs don't make a right. The handball rule needs amending for sure but for me it should be left up to the referee's discretion in both attack and defence. Unintentional hand balls can and do happen the question is does the player gain any advantage from the offence? If he does then it should be penalised. I think back to the ridiculous sending off when Basham in a wall was struck on the arm by the shot, no intention and no advantage gained the ball would have hit his chest otherwise. There is very little common sense in some of the decisions made this season VAR is black and white and the Ref's are scared to go against it, the ultimate call should still be made by the Ref as happens in cricket. The Ref assisted by VAR would have seen Rice changed the direction of the ball with his arm so gaining an advantage and would in all probability ruled the goal out anyway.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Hopefully the rule is changed back to something more like it was previously. But till then...if a reverse situation like this happens, and one of our players is aware they’ve just inadvertently touched with their hand the ball that’s now at their feet, I hope Wilder is instructing them to try and win a corner rather than try and score or create a goal. If we then score from the corner, they wouldn’t look at how the corner was awarded, so the handball decision wouldn’t happen on review.

I was thinking something similar, players now have to be aware that the moment a ball touches their hand/arm they can't create an attacking move, because there's no point. The rule is unclear for me as to whether it's the person with the assist or any player in the build up (a phase) who is affected, but the players have to learn this new aspect of the rules. You will have the ridiculous situation of strikers in the opposition box trying to keep possession of the ball but pass it back out to their own players outside the box instead of trying to get a shot on goal. Which sounds more like rugby.

Question though. Let’s say the Egan and Rice challenges happened instead in the West Ham penalty area for the ball yesterday, and like before it hits Rice on the hand. He hits a remarkably long punt downfield to Snodgrass to finish. VAR spots the ball hitting the hand and disallows the goal as per the new handball rules. However, we know that penalties for this sort of connection are not given under the new rules...so is the goal ruled out for handball but no penalty is given? How does play, for us, restart in the West Ham penalty area?

Brilliant question, never thought of that. I don't agree with Hackett's answer though. It can't be given as a goal or a penalty. The problem for the referee will be how to restart the game.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Brilliant question, never thought of that. I don't agree with Hackett's answer though. It can't be given as a goal or a penalty. The problem for the referee will be how to restart the game.

I’m yet to see anything that clearly answers it, which sums up the ridiculousness of having a two-tier rule system for the same offence. In that situation it’s by the wording of the rules both legal and illegal – Schrödinger’s handball.

 

[Sean Thornton]

And the knobs on MOTD are still saying although he used his hand the goal should have stood .....................................WTF

As it’s fairly definitive it cuts out argument over deliberate/accidental or whatever. It clarifies the situation regarding attacking teams. ( That’s it’s not the same elsewhere on the pitch is puzzling) but it’s amazing despite the rule being well known, a player and a manager together with many pundits seem to think it shouldn’t apply to them despite it having made quite clear before the season started.

 

[grafikhaus]

It's the way the lickspittles in the studio have skewed the debate. When it's United it's 'play to the whistle'. When it's Establishment-favoured West Ham it's unfair.

 

[Willie Carlin]

As we used to say in my playing days. Of course it was handball, he took the lace out of it

 

[Kenilworth]

My view is that is it hits the hand and that gives an advantage to the the player/team who handled, then it is handball. If he made contact with the ball with his hand and it altered the flight of the ball then it is a free kick for hand ball.

if a defender has their hands by their side and the ball hits their arm then not handball.
Rice’s arm was making his body larger. It was also IMO a foul on Egan.

 

[Kenilworth]

Such a sad situation
What an opportunity to create a thread called, Rice and Peeves.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

My view is that is it hits the hand and that gives an advantage to the the player/team who handled, then it is handball. If he made contact with the ball with his hand and it altered the flight of the ball then it is a free kick for hand ball.

if a defender has their hands by their side and the ball hits their arm then not handball.
Rice’s arm was making his body larger. It was also IMO a foul on Egan.

Would it not be easier for you to go by the actual rules, instead of make some up that seem good to you?

 

[Kenilworth]

Would it not be easier for you to go by the actual rules, instead of make some up that seem good to you?

Forum
Opinions allowed
Started with “my view”
Hope you like the view from atop that horse

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Forum
Opinions allowed
Started with “my view”
Hope you like the view from atop that horse

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.

 

[BushBlade]

Hopefully the rule is changed back to something more like it was previously. But till then...if a reverse situation like this happens, and one of our players is aware they’ve just inadvertently touched with their hand the ball that’s now at their feet, I hope Wilder is instructing them to try and win a corner rather than try and score or create a goal. If we then score from the corner, they wouldn’t look at how the corner was awarded, so the handball decision wouldn’t happen on review.

Question though. Let’s say the Egan and Rice challenges happened instead in the West Ham penalty area for the ball yesterday, and like before it hits Rice on the hand. He hits a remarkably long punt downfield to Snodgrass to finish. VAR spots the ball hitting the hand and disallows the goal as per the new handball rules. However, we know that penalties for this sort of connection are not given under the new rules...so is the goal ruled out for handball but no penalty is given? How does play, for us, restart in the West Ham penalty area?

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.

 

[madeinsheffield]

Did it hit his arm? Yes, therefore handball, none of this intentional/not intentional, ball to hand, gained an advantage bollocks, the new rule means it's handball. Black and white, no grey area.

Harsh against us when Egan scored (Brighton?) but it's the rule, same for both teams, so soak it up cockney boys, chin up and move on