General officiating/rules

[The_Steve]

14 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think there's one bit I'm not clear of in terms of how they apply that line. Is it that any of the ball touching *below* that line makes it handball, or that any touch *above* that line means it isn't handball, similarly to 99% of the ball being over the line doesn't mean it's out of play? This was quite a close one either way IMO and I think you could call it either way depending on the answer to that.

I've genuinely got no idea.

He also uses his arm in an unnatural manner to move the ball. I honestly don’t get the rules anymore but that factor also leads me to think it was a pen. 

[Genie]

2 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said:

I mean, you are making assumptions about the wording there right? They should be more clear if it's an "and", as it is it's totally open to interpretation.

And it is in no way debatable that they had control, that's just ridiculous.

The rules suck anyway, as always.

You’re clutching at straws now. It’s always and, unless they’ve said or.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

 

What are you on about? You quoted the rules yourself. It clearly states that the attacking phase hasn’t ended if the ball is still in/around the penalty area. 

How can you argue with that?

The rules are written in such a way they can be interpreted either way. The fact this debate is happening (not just here) shows the subjectivity of it, therefore not a clear and obvious error so not for VAR to review 

[Genie]

Just now, The_Steve said:

He also uses his arm in an unnatural manner to move the ball. I honestly don’t get the rules anymore but that factor also leads me to think it was a pen. 

Maybe someone can enlighten me because I genuinely don’t know, does the ball have to “only” hit the hand arm for it to be handball? If it hits hand and hip at the same time, or below and above armpit, is it handball?

[Genie]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

The rules are written in such a way they can be interpreted either way. The fact this debate is happening (not just here) shows the subjectivity of it, therefore not a clear and obvious error so not for VAR to review 

I think it’s bias that’s causing the debate, We wouldn’t be having it if it was Sheffield United who were penalised.

I think the rules are clear, there’s 2 criteria needed for the attacking phase to be considered over. 

Saying that, they’ll probably get re-written when they cock it up next week or the week after.

[StefanAVFC]

From the IFAB website.
https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/fouls-and-misconduct/#direct-free-kick

Bullet points imply OR

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised 

• scores in the opponents’ goal:

  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidentaL

unless @Genie you think all of these have to be fulfilled for it to be handball?

Edited December 23, 2023 by StefanAVFC

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

He also uses his arm in an unnatural manner to move the ball. I honestly don’t get the rules anymore but that factor also leads me to think it was a pen. 

Not saying it's right or how it should be, but I'm certain as the rules currently are, this is irrelevant, if it's the part of the arm above the line, it isn't handball no matter what kind of contact it is, it's as lawful to play the ball in any way with that body part as it would be your feet.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

From the IFAB website. Bullet points imply OR

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised 

• scores in the opponents’ goal:

  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidentaL

unless @Genie you think all of these have to be fulfilled for it to be handball?

It’s a completely different type of rule.  

[switters]

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

It doesn’t say “or” in between those bullet points, so both must apply. 
The ball must no longer be in / around the penalty area AND the defending team gain controlled possession (which is debatable on its own, but in combination of point one is clearly not a new phase according to the rules).

So if Sheffield United win the ball back and pass it around 10 times in their own penalty area it’s still the same phase of play (according to the rules) because it’s still in/around the penalty area.

well, there's also no "or" between the two options for defining the defending team as controlling possession..do they have to do both of them for that to apply also?! 

The rule should clearly be read as either/or, an attacking phase can either end because the attacking team stops attacking ('forward movement stops') or the defending team takes control (in one way or another)

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

It’s a completely different type of rule.  

In the same rule book,  in one part of the rules, bullet points mean or and in another part, they mean and?

and we’re clutching at straws?

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, switters said:

well, there's also no "or" between the two options for defining the defending team as controlling possession..do they have to do both of them for that to apply also?! 

The rule should clearly be read as either/or, an attacking phase can either end because the attacking team stops attacking ('forward movement stops') or the defending team takes control (in one way or another)

Yeah obviously so IMO. And they clearly met the criteria for controlled possession with the pass between themselves and uncontested dribbling. 

[StefanAVFC]

Also from the PL website, quoted by @NurembergVillan

 

[Genie]

21 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

In the same rule book,  in one part of the rules, bullet points mean or and in another part, they mean and?

and we’re clutching at straws?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if some clarification comes, or is uncovered. 

For me it seems entirely sensible that if the ball is still in/around the opponents penalty area the attacking phase is still live but maybe (probably not) someone from the FA will suggest otherwise.

Listing 2 criteria without an “or” in between also makes sense to me, but again, maybe it’ll be confirmed that these are in fact stand alone criteria for the changing of phase.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if some clarification comes, or is uncovered. 

For me it seems entirely sensible that if the ball is still in/around the opponents penalty area the attacking phase is still live but maybe (probably not) someone from the FA will suggest otherwise.

Listing 2 criteria without an “or” in between also makes sense to me, but again, maybe it’ll be confirmed that these are in fact stand alone criteria for the changing of phase.

Why does it always have to be us anyway, that this clarification is required

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[fightoffyour]

Of course it's or. You can't both clear the ball and control the ball. It's obviously or.

They had the ball outside of the penalty area running towards our half anyway, how is this even a debate?

[villan95]

 

 

[villa4europe]

"backed in to him" 

 

Edited December 23, 2023 by villa4europe

[foreveryoung]

15 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

"backed in to him" 

 

He was trying to hold him up there, because he realised he pushed him over.

Foul in open play, yes all day long.

[Brumstopdogs]