Our 'penalty'

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


Beans said:
The new law for handball is different for defenders and attackers.

"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental." - https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332 - covers why City's goal was disallowed.

No, I can't say I like it either, but there it is.
Click to expand...

I know this has been commented on several times already, but the outstanding consideration must surely be intent. Perhaps this is difficult to determine, but then again, the new rule is beyond black and white, it takes no account of whether there's a genuine intent to prevent or contribute towards a scoring opportunity. All that seems to matter is whether the ball makes contact with an arm, which disqualifies the attempt. It's madness on a scale that makes a mockery of tried and tested rules.
 
The ball clearly hits his arm, should that ball then drop to us and we score, would VAR cancel the goal?

I'm led to believe the handball at city came off a city player therefore giving an advantage, so it was cancelled, had it come off the Spurs player would the goal have stood.

For me the palace lad has contact with his arm, and the least we should get is a free kick inside the box, like when a back pass is picked up..

Ref was a full weight ....
 
Tezza1889 said:
The ball clearly hits his arm, should that ball then drop to us and we score, would VAR cancel the goal?

I'm led to believe the handball at city came off a city player therefore giving an advantage, so it was cancelled, had it come off the Spurs player would the goal have stood.

For me the palace lad has contact with his arm, and the least we should get is a free kick inside the box, like when a back pass is picked up..

Ref was a full weight ....
Click to expand...

Or, if the ball hits the Palace defenders arm/hand (which it clearly did) and deflects into the net, by the new 'rules' would our 'goal' have been disallowed?

It's all bollocks.
 
grafikhaus said:
Or, if the ball hits the Palace defenders arm/hand (which it clearly did) and deflects into the net, by the new 'rules' would our 'goal' have been disallowed?

It's all bollocks.
Click to expand...
no, it's only a foul if you gain possession and score in the opponents net. All it does is stop players 'accidentally' handballing it and scoring,
 
Tezza1889 said:
The ball clearly hits his arm, should that ball then drop to us and we score, would VAR cancel the goal?
Click to expand...

grafikhaus said:
Or, if the ball hits the Palace defenders arm/hand (which it clearly did) and deflects into the net, by the new 'rules' would our 'goal' have been disallowed?
Click to expand...

Why would either of those things happen?
Ref was fine yesterday, by the way. Some of the decisions that got fans off their seats around us, were 100% spot on.
 
Danny04 said:
Why would either of those things happen?
Ref was fine yesterday, by the way. Some of the decisions that got fans off their seats around us, were 100% spot on.
Click to expand...
They talk about getting the big decisions right. Zaha should have been booked just for being a nobhead.
 
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...

But if that Stevens shot is on target, isn't there a good chance he's stopped a goal with his arm?

For me the biggest omission yesterday was a VAR penalty review for the high kick on McBurnie near the end. Dangerous play, easily have warranted a red card as well as a pen. But VAR didn't even review 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...

Doesn't matter if you get the ball or not, it's dangerous play by default. Should have been a red card (and penalty if the VAR showed they were inside the box).
 
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 VAR is also there to check for missed red cards. The high kick on McBurnie was exactly that.
 
MobileBlade said:
They talk about getting the big decisions right. Zaha should have been booked just for being a nobhead.
Click to expand...

Ah leave the poor snowflake alone! Zaha is currently taking the piss at Palace, knowing Woy Bodgeson is so inept he'll get away with it. Wanting to move to a bigger club? He had his chance with Man. U and blew it. Now he's got two choices - either knuckle down and make himself attractive for the JTW or behave like a spoilt twat and throw his toys out the pram.

Yesterday would suggest the latter.
 
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...
I was in line with this and it was a very high foot about a yard in the box and nearly took McBurnie's head off only about a minute after Freeman had a yellow card and a free kick against him for almost the same. Very inconsistent.
 

guancheblade said:
But if that Stevens shot is on target, isn't there a good chance he's stopped a goal with his arm?

For me the biggest omission yesterday was a VAR penalty review for the high kick on McBurnie near the end. Dangerous play, easily have warranted a red card as well as a pen. But VAR didn't even review it!!
Click to expand...
VAR will have reviewed it. Not every check is shown on screen etc
 
My view of the Mcburnie incident is that, although there was no contact, the defender intended to foul him,but didn't, which is clearly a penalty.
 
Ok so riddle me this..

If the ball hits a defenders arm but is not determined to be a penalty but then the rebound falls to an attacking player and he slots it away anyway... is the goal allowed?

Cuz doesnt the rules say if the ball hits someones hand/arm and leads to a goal then the goal is disallowed..?

So not only are you not awarded a penalty but you're not awarded the goal from the follow up either??
 
jono_t2000 said:
Ok so riddle me this..

If the ball hits a defenders arm but is not determined to be a penalty but then the rebound falls to an attacking player and he slots it away anyway... is the goal allowed?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Cuz doesnt the rules say if the ball hits someones hand/arm and leads to a goal then the goal is disallowed..?
Click to expand...

No. Only if it hits an attacking player's hand/arm and that leads to a goal / chance:

"
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"
From here: https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020
 
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