Penalty appeal and consistency

[VictoryBlade]

Man Ure are a bunch of cunts!

 

[FatPaul]

I honestly thought the appeal was against their No'11 also. I'm sure it hit his arm after the ball came back across. Anyone have a longer look at it?

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Neither penalties. A fair game played in the right spirit by two sets of players who are interested in playing football. Fuck the whataboutery.

 

[Gavlar]

If the ball hits an arm it's a pen......isn't it?

if the ball hits the arm it's still a ball...............

 

[Fulwood Blade]

I didn't watch the Man U game, but these are stills from both games.

Does anyone know why the man u was given? was it different circumstances?

UTB

 

[bromtom]

View attachment 84888View attachment 84889

I didn't watch the Man U game, but these are stills from both games.

Does anyone know why the man u was given? was it different circumstances?

UTB

Yes, the Man U one involved Man U

 

[Champagneblade]

Here Dermot Gallagher to explain why the ref's decisions are always right:

Ref Watch: Penalties in Man Utd win analysed; Etienne Capoue rightly avoided red against Chelsea

Plus: A handball call in Newcastles draw with West Ham and a denied penalty in Burnleys draw with Sheffield United.

www.skysports.com

Because he made such a genuine attempt and he's such a nice lad, no pen. But the other lad unscrupulously prevented it reaching the attacking player despite it being blasted at close range...

 

[BettingBlade]

Here Dermot Gallagher to explain why the ref's decisions are always right:

Ref Watch: Penalties in Man Utd win analysed; Etienne Capoue rightly avoided red against Chelsea

Plus: A handball call in Newcastles draw with West Ham and a denied penalty in Burnleys draw with Sheffield United.

www.skysports.com

Because he made such a genuine attempt and he's such a nice lad, no pen. But the other lad unscrupulously prevented it reaching the attacking player despite it being blasted at close range...

Dermot Gallagher is a spineless cunt.

 

[Bladesthorpe]

Strange isn't it when Manchester Utd have had 16.

To be fair they do attack more than us and their leading scorer has more than 5 goals.

 

[PokerBlade]

Only the keeper is allowed to use his hands in open play in a game of football and this has to be inside his area! Now correct me if I'm wrong with that and this is how handballs should be ruled if it touches your arm or hand no matter how it does it should be penalised. Then there is no issue with consistency or accidental/not. Simple

But then every time you get close to the box you'd nail the ball at a defender's arm and get penalty after penalty.

 

[What the Hecky]

You know It would probably help if refs actually understood what constitutes an arm being in an "unnatural position" to be able to determine what is or isn't handball

Our arms aid us immensely with our balance when playing football, it is natural for arms to swing and extend when kicking or jumping. The natural position of the arms will then help determine the intention of the handball, if the arms are in an unnatural position then was there intention to handball or was there mitigating circumstances.

There is no consistency in the rules because there is too much bias in how the rules are being implemented from team to team.

 

[BushBlade]

You know It would probably help if refs actually understood what constitutes an arm being in an "unnatural position" to be able to determine what is or isn't handball

Our arms aid us immensely with our balance when playing football, it is natural for arms to swing and extend when kicking or jumping. The natural position of the arms will then help determine the intention of the handball, if the arms are in an unnatural position then was there intention to handball or was there mitigating circumstances.

There is no consistency in the rules because there is too much bias in how the rules are being implemented from team to team.

Which is why there are ‘inconsistencies’. Because every time the ball touches a defender’s arm a ref has to make the judgement call as to whether it was a player sticking his arm out for balance or to ‘make himself big’. A decision he has to make in a second.
Then people post still photographs after studying incidents for days saying ‘why are these different?’ The answer is ‘it’s a real life situation where humans have to make very quick decisions, it’s not a computer programme where the same input always gives the same output’.

 

[Harrisblade]

Yes, the Man U one involved Man U

Extended arm

New handball, goal kick, and free kick rule changes now into effect

Major changes to the handball rule mean the penalty given in the Champions League final may not be called moving forward.

soccer.nbcsports.com

• Deliberate handball remains an offense. 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)
• The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near .
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
  • If a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
  • If the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a team-mate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

The IFAB wrote a lengthy reasoning for the change in the handball rule. This reads,

Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when ‘non-deliberate’ handball is an offense. The re-wording follows a number of principles:

• Football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
• Football expects a player to be penalized for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity
• It is natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling.
• Having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a ‘natural’ position and a player is ‘taking a risk’ by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding
• If the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hands/arms it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball
• When the GK clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play, this shows no intention to handle the ball so, if the ‘clearance’ attempt is unsuccessful, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball without committing an offense

 

[What the Hecky]

Which is why there are ‘inconsistencies’. Because every time the ball touches a defender’s arm a ref has to make the judgement call as to whether it was a player sticking his arm out for balance or to ‘make himself big’. A decision he has to make in a second.
Then people post still photographs after studying incidents for days saying ‘why are these different?’ The answer is ‘it’s a real life situation where humans have to make very quick decisions, it’s not a computer programme where the same input always gives the same output’.

See this is why they need a set checklist of things they need to satisfy for a decision to made in the days of VAR, refs make split second decisions based on what they see or think they saw.

Unnatural position, intent, decision making time, things that all play a part in determining what effect the hand has played in effecting the outcome.

The same events happen time and time again in games that we should know what is and isn't handball by now FFS .

I mean if a ball is booted into a player who has a split second to move the arm out of the way, then logic says that it cannot be a penalty, unless the arm is in an unnatural position. Players have to play with their arms behind their backs when closing down out wide even though the arms are in a natural position, because now players will flick the ball into the arm looking for it.

I can't think of any scenario that hasn't played out over the years that we couldn't set rules out to say definitely what is or isn't fucking hand ball

Common sense is lost in the hierarchy of power and decision making because bias plays a part in that decision making.

 

[PokerBlade]

You know It would probably help if refs actually understood what constitutes an arm being in an "unnatural position" to be able to determine what is or isn't handball

Our arms aid us immensely with our balance when playing football, it is natural for arms to swing and extend when kicking or jumping. The natural position of the arms will then help determine the intention of the handball, if the arms are in an unnatural position then was there intention to handball or was there mitigating circumstances.

There is no consistency in the rules because there is too much bias in how the rules are being implemented from team to team.

I think a lot of the problem is that we come up with rules, and all rules require some interpretation, so then clarification is released to explain the current interpretation of the rules, then we endlessly squabble about the problems of the interpretation, so then another reinterpretation and clarification is offered, and by the end of a few cycles most people have lost track of what the letter of the law is vs. what's interpretation/clarification, and completely lost sight of the fact that "deliberate" isn't actually all that complicated.

I get that we can't mind-read the players but for the most part the system functions pretty well. Referees failing to spot handballs has always been a much bigger issue than deciding whether it's deliberate.

 

[BushBlade]

See this is why they need a set checklist of things they need to satisfy for a decision to made in the days of VAR, refs make split second decisions based on what they see or think they saw.

Unnatural position, intent, decision making time, things that all play a part in determining what effect the hand has played in effecting the outcome.

The same events happen time and time again in games that we should know what is and isn't handball by now FFS .

I mean if a ball is booted into a player who has a split second to move the arm out of the way, then logic says that it cannot be a penalty, unless the arm is in an unnatural position. Players have to play with their arms behind their backs when closing down out wide even though the arms are in a natural position, because now players will flick the ball into the arm looking for it.

I can't think of any scenario that hasn't played out over the years that we couldn't set rules out to say definitely what is or isn't fucking hand ball

Common sense is lost in the hierarchy of power and decision making because bias plays a part in that decision making.

I don’t really agree with any of that tbh but I can’t be arsed arguing about it. I’m fairly sure though that if you showed 100 people with good football knowledge 100 potential penalty incidents and got them to judge whether or not they were pens, you wouldn’t get 100 answers that were all the same.

 

[What the Hecky]

I don’t really agree with any of that tbh but I can’t be arsed arguing about it. I’m fairly sure though that if you showed 100 people with good football knowledge 100 potential penalty incidents and got them to judge whether or not they were pens, you wouldn’t get 100 answers that were all the same.

No argument needed bud lol all civil here . I agree that and this is because of the inconsistencies in the rules and how they are implemented along with bias lol.

I personally wouldn't say either was a penalty yesterday but at the exact same time I'd say I have seen them given and so if they are given once they should always be.

 

[What the Hecky]

I think a lot of the problem is that we come up with rules, and all rules require some interpretation, so then clarification is released to explain the current interpretation of the rules, then we endlessly squabble about the problems of the interpretation, so then another reinterpretation and clarification is offered, and by the end of a few cycles most people have lost track of what the letter of the law is vs. what's interpretation/clarification, and completely lost sight of the fact that "deliberate" isn't actually all that complicated.

I get that we can't mind-read the players but for the most part the system functions pretty well. Referees failing to spot handballs has always been a much bigger issue than deciding whether it's deliberate.

And that's where we start to build a checklist of what is and isn't handball. Just make the rule and stick to it, I mean I'd love for them to use common sense but they don't

 

[guancheblade]

weve had one fucking penalty all season what happened to the whole "it will even out over the season" thing. VAR, Hawkeye and PGMOL are as bent as you can get.

That old saying means naff all... there aren't enough games left of the season for it to "even itself out" for us!!

 

[PokerBlade]

And that's where we start to build a checklist of what is and isn't handball. Just make the rule and stick to it, I mean I'd love for them to use common sense but they don't

I'm reminded of a thing in psychology that happened with schizophrenia. I'll probably butcher this a bit but the point will make sense. Basically British and American psychologists at the time (60's or 70's I think) were working with essentially the same research and definitions as to what schizophrenia was. One country tended to diagnose based on checklists of symptoms, and one took the approach that a clinician should diagnose based on their experience as a clinician and ability to recognise a disorder when they saw it (can't remember which way round but I think we were the latter). The problem found was that the two groups, in spite of working from the same definitions and general criteria, diagnosed very different patients. The checklist excluded some clear candidates because they lacked something on the checklist or whatever, the "common sense" approach included people that didn't seem to meet much of the criteria whilst the diagnoses were far less consistent.

So long and short of it is that checklists give you more consistency but can miss some obvious edge cases. The common sense approach hits more of the obvious cases but gives you a lot less consistency. Which one you choose is an open question and mostly comes down to preference.

That's the problem with the handball rule explained in terms of schizophrenia. Football's mad qed.

 

[What the Hecky]

I'm reminded of a thing in psychology that happened with schizophrenia. I'll probably butcher this a bit but the point will make sense. Basically British and American psychologists at the time (60's or 70's I think) were working with essentially the same research and definitions as to what schizophrenia was. One country tended to diagnose based on checklists of symptoms, and one took the approach that a clinician should diagnose based on their experience as a clinician and ability to recognise a disorder when they saw it (can't remember which way round but I think we were the latter). The problem found was that the two groups, in spite of working from the same definitions and general criteria, diagnosed very different patients. The checklist excluded some clear candidates because they lacked something on the checklist or whatever, the "common sense" approach included people that didn't seem to meet much of the criteria whilst the diagnoses were far less consistent.

So long and short of it is that checklists give you more consistency but can miss some obvious edge cases. The common sense approach hits more of the obvious cases but gives you a lot less consistency. Which one you choose is an open question and mostly comes down to preference.

That's the problem with the handball rule explained in terms of schizophrenia. Football's mad qed.

Yeah I can get that, I mean humans make mistakes even with the best of intentions, but this isn't medicine in the sense of dealing with unknowns.

We should know what the law is, right now it seems nobody is actually sure of that anymore. We should look at this from a legal stand point, the rule should evolve as the situations dictate, every ref should have seen thousands of circumstances of what is or isn't handball by now that they should be able to know what to look for.

 

[PokerBlade]

Yeah I can get that, I mean humans make mistakes even with the best of intentions, but this isn't medicine in the sense of dealing with unknowns.

We should know what the law is, right now it seems nobody is actually sure of that anymore. We should look at this from a legal stand point, the rule should evolve as the situations dictate, every ref should have seen thousands of circumstances of what is or isn't handball by now that they should be able to know what to look for.

Well, the point is if you leave it up to refs to say "I know handball when I see it" what happens is it turns out that every ref applies the rule a bit differently, and fans feel aggrieved that there's no consistency. But if you make it so there's no wiggle room for subjectivity, then you end up with things given/not given that go against the spirit of the game and how fans would like to see it played.

There's not going to be a perfect way to do it and all we can do is try to get better at it. But it's hard to get better at it if both approaches lead to problems and no one can agree as to which we should use.

 

[What the Hecky]

Well, the point is if you leave it up to refs to say "I know handball when I see it" what happens is it turns out that every ref applies the rule a bit differently, and fans feel aggrieved that there's no consistency. But if you make it so there's no wiggle room for subjectivity, then you end up with things given/not given that go against the spirit of the game and how fans would like to see it played.

There's not going to be a perfect way to do it and all we can do is try to get better at it. But it's hard to get better at it if both approaches lead to problems and no one can agree as to which we should use.

Rules and laws evolve over time due to interpretation and circumstances.

How many times have we talked over different hand ball incidents, by now we should have a pretty damn clear definition of what constitutes a hand ball in almost any given circumstance based on the years of experience of watching football and that's what annoys me most.

I can't think of any incident that could happen in football that we haven't seen before which would change that.

Under the old rule the Spurs goal stands, under the old rule we had the refs being able to determine what they see as intentional, unnatural, or what was unavoidable, but still being implemented with inconsistencies due to human error, VAR is supposed to remove human error by allowing the officials to see all the mitigating circumstances the ref may have missed.

It isn't like the FA have a video link to show what refs should be looking to call hand ball or not using the millions of examples we have on video that would clear up so much until an incident we have never seen before happens that we can debate about, maybe an Eagle steals the ball at a corner and as it swoops down to score the goal the ball hits a players arm

 

[PokerBlade]

Rules and laws evolve over time due to interpretation and circumstances.

How many times have we talked over different hand ball incidents, by now we should have a pretty damn clear definition of what constitutes a hand ball in almost any given circumstance based on the years of experience of watching football and that's what annoys me most.

I can't think of any incident that could happen in football that we haven't seen before which would change that.

Under the old rule the Spurs goal stands, under the old rule we had the refs being able to determine what they see as intentional, unnatural, or what was unavoidable, but still being implemented with inconsistencies due to human error, VAR is supposed to remove human error by allowing the officials to see all the mitigating circumstances the ref may have missed.

It isn't like the FA have a video link to show what refs should be looking to call hand ball or not using the millions of examples we have on video that would clear up so much until an incident we have never seen before happens that we can debate about, maybe an Eagle steals the ball at a corner and as it swoops down to score the goal the ball hits a players arm

Well one of the things I said from the start about VAR is that a lot of the decisions we squabble about in football are argued about for hours even with the benefit of multiple replays and slow-mos. The idea that a VAR refs were ever going to settle those debates was always a pipe dream.

 

[Tarqs]

Dermot is a bellend, he agrees with 99% of decisions and tries to justify them.

He says that it was a genuine attempt toplay the ball by Pieters, so no pen. Sorry, the ball is kicked from 30 yards away, if he's clumsy enough to completely air shot his clearance then he deserves the penalty.

 

[What the Hecky]

Well one of the things I said from the start about VAR is that a lot of the decisions we squabble about in football are argued about for hours even with the benefit of multiple replays and slow-mos. The idea that a VAR refs were ever going to settle those debates was always a pipe dream.

But that's because we do not have the rules to define what is handball in what specific circumstances and what isn't.

Like I say they could have a million videos saying THIS IS HANDBALL AND THIS IS NOT, but they don't, they just write down some rule that allows for stuff to be missed and bias to run free.

 

[corner_flag]

Extended arm

New handball, goal kick, and free kick rule changes now into effect

Major changes to the handball rule mean the penalty given in the Champions League final may not be called moving forward.

soccer.nbcsports.com

• The following will not usually be a free kick
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
    
  • The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
    
  • If a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
  
  Thanks really helpful.
  
  So the Moura handball was handball, even though he was falling because he stretched his arm out in front of him, it wasn't just under his body.
  
  The Burnley handball wasn't a pen cause his arm was pulled into his body
  
  And the JOC handball wasn't because it hit his arm after he'd played it with his head.
  
  But possibly the Man Utd's one was because the players arm was out from his body? But it was hardly in an unnatural position so pretty dubious. Maybe not actually corrupt but just bottle-jobs - afraid of upsetting the 'big teams'

 

[PokerBlade]

But that's because we do not have the rules to define what is handball in what specific circumstances and what isn't.

Like I say they could have a million videos saying THIS IS HANDBALL AND THIS IS NOT, but they don't, they just write down some rule that allows for stuff to be missed and bias to run free.

We do have rules to define what handball is though. It's how to interpret them that's the problem. You can only give an example of a handball within an interpretation. Like an example would be I can show you a thousand examples of a chair but that doesn't mean you have a perfect definition of a chair.

 

[BettingBlade]

Dermot is a bellend, he agrees with 99% of decisions and tries to justify them.

He says that it was a genuine attempt toplay the ball by Pieters, so no pen. Sorry, the ball is kicked from 30 yards away, if he's clumsy enough to completely air shot his clearance then he deserves the penalty.

Notice how on the Eric Bailly one he just talks about the location of the handball rather than the handball itself. He praises VAR for giving a penalty rather than the free-kick and just brushes on the fact it might have been a handball. The fact he doesn’t have the balls to explain the handball incident knowing it will contradict the other two this weekend is a disgrace.

He should be a politican, he’s an absolute bullshitter.

 

[bromtom]

It really shouldn't be that hard for handball penalties. You can tell when someone deliberately handballs it, everyone that's played and watched football has a good idea of what's deliberate, so let's say the first question is:

Did they deliberately move their arm to handball it? If yes pen, if no, ask the following questions and award based on the answers.

Did the ball striking their arm/hand stop it from reaching an opponent in a position to score?

Did the ball hit their hand after ricocheting off another part of their body or from less than 3-5 yards?

So Egan Vs Villa

Didn't deliberately move his arm
It did stop a goalscoring opportunity
It didn't ricochet off him

2/3 Penalty

Ours Vs Burnley

Didn't deliberately move his arm
Did stop a goalscoring opportunity
Didn't ricochet off him, wasn't from point blank range

2/3 Penalty.

I think that's a pretty fair system, balls through a crowd bouncing all over wouldn't be given, you'd still have to count on refs judging unnatural body positions though, but at least we'd know the criteria with something like that.