The new rule on handball🙈

[Mark F]

Dermot has given the reason the hand ball was allowed............because it was'nt deliberate and Gordon did not score.

But Burnley v Forest had a goal disallowed for that or they thought it was a handball I presume.

You were unlucky there but unfortunately doesn’t excuse the rest of the game !

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Probably needs yet another tweak to include a handball leading to a direct assist.

 

[madeinsheffield]

But he stopped the ball going out of play with his hand didn’t he?

 

[ATL Recs]

Just watched the lowlights on M o Day 2 with the brains of the BBC pundits and apparently a player can handle the ball in the penalty area as long as he doesn’t score. Maybe we should take advantage of that to restore our reputation.

That wasn’t the case with Berge against Forest

 

[Tezza1889]

As for the handball.. He actually handles the ball slaps it and changes it's direction.

At old Trafford if crystal palace are attacking that gets ruled out, because the ref doesn't need a signed Palace shirt. Especially when if he makes the call that it's a handball the far greater prize of a signed man utd shirt is on offer, should he make the right decision..

He knows to make the right decision because his mate got signed roy Keane and David Beckham shirts a few years ago, and they've really gone up in value.

The only mistake the ref made was not getting the chance to aquire a Harry kane shirt last season..

 

[Karlos]

Wasn’t the old punishment for obstruction an indirect free kick? When did you last see one of those?

The ones that boil my piss are the ones where a defender is putting his body between the ball and the attacker to usher the ball out for a goal kick. In loads of occasions you will see blatant obstruction and they are never given.

 

[BrisBlade]

Maybe I dreamt it, but in the mists of time I recall a direct free kick was for hand to ball (ie deliberate) and an indirect if it was ball to hand (accidental) and led to an unfair advantage. Always seemed sensible, not sure why it needed changing.

 

[1889]

Basically, the IFAB and PGMOL have seen to it that whatever handball decision they make, they can never be wrong. Whats more, nobody but them really understand what the rule is, therefore whichever way they want it to go, they can justify it.

The rule as I remember it, stated that if there is an accidental handball and the resulting deflection goes in the offenders teams favour, it’s handball. But I suppose that was too black and simple to interpret?

I hate Premier League referees, absolute, arrogant, arseholes one and all. Don’t get me started on the media wheeling out Dermott Gallagher and Mike Dean, to try and justify the on field referees piss poor decision making, who the fuck thought that was a good idea? Talk about stealing a living, I don't know how they keep their face’s straight, pair of egotistical pricks.

 

[Champagneblade]

Probably needs yet another tweak to include a handball leading to a direct assist.

Can't help but feel that even if what happened for the first somehow falls in the rules that the rules didn't cater for that scenario i.e. your handball significantly impacting the outcome.

I'd have thought a player running with a bouncing ball that flicks his hand with no significant impact can be ignored. Yesterday it hit his hand which kept the ball in play when it would have gone out. Surely that shouldn't come within the remit.

I don't know why they have to mess with it, attacking handballs and defending ones. Just make it simple. You are not allowed to handle the ball unless you are the keeper. If it hits your hand it's a foul.

You'll get some accidental ones, some that can't get out of the way of a shot but at least it is clear. You might feel unlucky but at least did it hit the hand below the sleeve is black and white. Besides which I've never understood intentional. Unless it is Luis Suarez on the line vs Ghana, then 99% of handballs are unintentional.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

Can't help but feel that even if what happened for the first somehow falls in the rules that the rules didn't cater for that scenario i.e. your handball significantly impacting the outcome.

I'd have thought a player running with a bouncing ball that flicks his hand with no significant impact can be ignored. Yesterday it hit his hand which kept the ball in play when it would have gone out. Surely that shouldn't come within the remit.

I don't know why they have to mess with it, attacking handballs and defending ones. Just make it simple. You are not allowed to handle the ball unless you are the keeper. If it hits your hand it's a foul.

You'll get some accidental ones, some that can't get out of the way of a shot but at least it is clear. You might feel unlucky but at least did it hit the hand below the sleeve is black and white. Besides which I've never understood intentional. Unless it is Luis Suarez on the line vs Ghana, then 99% of handballs are unintentional.

In principle I agree, problem with a rule like that is you’ll get cheating gets aiming for arms in the penalty box!

 

[Champagneblade]

In principle I agree, problem with a rule like that is you’ll get cheating gets aiming for arms in the penalty box!

It would be something teams would have to deal with but the problem at the moment is nobody seems to know what wil be given or not. Likewise the 'foul' and yellow for Robbo when he cleanly took the ball has now made tackling extremely subjective. It's almost saying even if you win the ball cleanly there can be no collateral damage, so you can only win the ball if you have no contact with the opponent, which seems ridiculous.

 

[BladeByChoice]

50 years a fan and 20 years a player at Primary School, Secondary School, Youth and Pub Sunday League, and all this experience has got me to the point where I haven’t got a clue what’s going on.

I just sing Premier League, corrupt as fuck every time the ref blows against us or the other fuckers score, and I know I’m right about 80% of the time .

 

[dsr-burnley]

That wasn’t the case with Berge against Forest

With Berge, the ref slowed it down to super-slow motion and saw that Berge's arm moved fractionally towards the ball. He's clearly not one of those refs who recognises that a running man's arm is bound to move and that super-slow motion is not the best way to judge a man's intention.

 

[Ludgblade64]

It's quite simple really.

It's handball if the hand is in an unnatural position at a 75 degree angle whilst perpendicular to the body and on the edge of the seven-yard box during an attacking phase of play (but not in the 3rd or 7th phases).

It's not handball if the hand is extended from the body at a contrasting angle to the hip bone and the offence doesn't happen within a 45-mile radius of Watford Gap or during the 4th, 9th or 12th phases of attacking play.

It's not that simple, because your arms are used for balance, if I pushed you, where do you think your arms would go, because of gravity, they would push out, stopping you from falling to the ground.

Watch players like Currie, Marsh, Greaves, Best, Waddle, Hoddle, see where there arms are positioned, using there arms for balance, when moving

Football players are moving at speed, changing direction all the time, adjusting their bodies, and you use your shoulders and arms for forward motion, and balance, you don't run with your arms down the side, it's a unnatural position, this penalty law is stupid, just say hand to ball, why are they trying to make football complicated.

Also watching the penalty against wolves v Luton, the player is off balance, with his arms outstretched and because the ball bounce up and hit his arm.

 

[Willie Carlin]

There’s always loads of blocking on corners to make it possible for someone to get a clean header, surely that’s obstruction?

Blocking!!! There’s players being assaulted in the area nowadays and nothing being done. It’s a free for all at most corners. Players grabbing others etc. These offences should be penalty every time but Refs shitting in the hole and not got the balls to give a decision.

 

[wizadry]

Blocking!!! There’s players being assaulted in the area nowadays and nothing being done. It’s a free for all at most corners. Players grabbing others etc. These offences should be penalty every time but Refs shitting in the hole and not got the balls to give a decision.

This happens every weak, they don’t let the corner be taken now and they go up to the players to warn them instead beforehand, only for said players to continue doing it and still not getting punished for it, as you say, they’re either a right set of bottlejobs or cheating twats.

Anyway, my post was responding to the obstruction rule which for reason be known to any twat never gets used even though the rule should still be enforced.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

With Berge, the ref slowed it down to super-slow motion and saw that Berge's arm moved fractionally towards the ball. He's clearly not one of those refs who recognises that a running man's arm is bound to move and that super-slow motion is not the best way to judge a man's intention.

Judging intention is an opinion, not a fact, so VAR may provide evidence, but not proof. We need decision-makers who understand football. Gordon didn’t move his hand towards the ball, but the ball was bouncing gently and he made no attempt to move his hand away from the ball. Because of that, my opinion is that the handball was deliberate.

 

[Digs blade]

But Burnley v Forest had a goal disallowed for that or they thought it was a handball I presume.

You were unlucky there but unfortunately doesn’t excuse the rest of the game !

Yeah I fell the same¡

 

[bakeblade]

It's quite simple really.

It's handball if the hand is in an unnatural position at a 75 degree angle whilst perpendicular to the body and on the edge of the seven-yard box during an attacking phase of play (but not in the 3rd or 7th phases).

It's not handball if the hand is extended from the body at a contrasting angle to the hip bone and the offence doesn't happen within a 45-mile radius of Watford Gap or during the 4th, 9th or 12th phases of attacking play.

I'm sure I've seen on the FA web site that it also depends on the day of the week. If it's a Sunday it's not handball, but if it's a Monday it is. Unless the month contains a R, in which case the above logic is reversed.

 

[Champagneblade]

Judging intention is an opinion, not a fact, so VAR may provide evidence, but not proof. We need decision-makers who understand football. Gordon didn’t move his hand towards the ball, but the ball was bouncing gently and he made no attempt to move his hand away from the ball. Because of that, my opinion is that the handball was deliberate.

That's a very good point, one I'd not seen before. He made no attempt to not handle the ball, he just conveniently let it hit his hand which allowed him to retain possession.

 

[BrisBlade]

Deliberate or not, he gained an advantage from something you're not allowed to do. To my mind that should be a free kick to the opposition (albeit indirect as it was accidental). Not sure why they've made it so complicated.

 

[adiosmiamigo]

Deliberate or not, he gained an advantage from something you're not allowed to do. To my mind that should be a free kick to the opposition (albeit indirect as it was accidental). Not sure why they've made it so complicated.

This was easier Blades v Liverpool a few years ago,Blades defender "intended" to foul Stevie,no contact but a penalty for intention,life was easier then.

 

[Large Mendonca]

The new rules are deliberately vague so that they can be interpreted any which way to suit whoever gains the advantage. I'm betting that if McAtee does what Gordon did at the other end, we get our goal chalked off.

 

[LBA_Blade]

If you look at field hockey, they were having a problem with a couple of things so made major changes.
1) Offside - Abolished it in the mid 90's, granted you can only score if you are in your opponents "D" or penalty box as would be the case in football
2) Foot control - Hockey sticks are naturally on the ground for most of it to stop controlling the ball with your foot, if it hits your foot intentional or not its a 'free hit' and in the D one of their versions of Penalty's which is a penalty corner - They have our version of penalty's (Penalty flicks) for more dangerous stuff happening.

However you look at the above and wonder especially replace foot with hand, if it strikes the hand its a free kick - abolishing offside not so sure. In some ways a few confusing talking points make pub debates and excuses for an extra 5 pints!

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

If you look at field hockey, they were having a problem with a couple of things so made major changes.
1) Offside - Abolished it in the mid 90's, granted you can only score if you are in your opponents "D" or penalty box as would be the case in football
2) Foot control - Hockey sticks are naturally on the ground for most of it to stop controlling the ball with your foot, if it hits your foot intentional or not its a 'free hit' and in the D one of their versions of Penalty's which is a penalty corner - They have our version of penalty's (Penalty flicks) for more dangerous stuff happening.

However you look at the above and wonder especially replace foot with hand, if it strikes the hand its a free kick - abolishing offside not so sure. In some ways a few confusing talking points make pub debates and excuses for an extra 5 pints!

As an occasional observer of hockey (never played), I sense that players often aim the ball at the opponent’s foot rather than try to create anything more skilfully. If rules are rigid, they can lead to tedium. With handball, the ideal is to penalise deliberate handball and ignore unintentional handball; no machine can tell us the intention behind an action. VAR on this should be a piece of evidence, but ultimately a referee has to take the decision, based on opinion. Opinions we disagree with are to my mind better than technically correct, but stupid, outcomes.

 

[Varkanoid]

But he stopped the ball going out of play with his hand didn’t he?

I was arguing that with someone on twitter, er X a Newcastle fan and he told me my eyes are weird if I believe that. The MOTD replay must have been weird too as it clearly showed the ball going towards the white line until it (hit his hand/hand hit the ball/ball hit the hand *) and changed direction away from the line.




*delete as applicable.

 

[GreasyChipBeattie]

Football in the prem is so robotic and confusing to the spectators. Well I know I am

What makes you confusing to spectators mate?

 

[Bell4]

What makes you confusing to spectators mate?

When I smile I’m crying and when I frown I’m laughing.

 

[Chimpan-A]

The rules as they are remind me of some IT systems I have worked on, where a patch to fix one problem causes ten new ones, which are in turn fixed with a new release and the process repeats itself, and you end up with a system that is full of work rounds and no longer works efficiently.
I don’t think they properly stress test rule changes for things like this, although they have 30 years of Premier League games to pick out real life examples to walk through. Do it with players, refs and managers all contributing.

 

[jt64]

As an occasional observer of hockey (never played), I sense that players often aim the ball at the opponent’s foot rather than try to create anything more skilfully.

This is a very standard tactic to get a free hit