Weekends Football 22/24 September

[Mark Albrighton]

6 minutes ago, villan95 said:

Sheff Utd got absolutely thrashed but no idea how the 1st goal isn't disallowed when it touches Gordon's hand? Unless they changed the rule again.

And then the 3rd comes from a free kick that looked like a great tackle to me.

Obviously they completely imploded afterwards but you could argue both of those change the game significantly.

I think it was Shay Given that said because he himself didn’t score it, it’s not handball. 

Ludicrous.

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I think it was Shay Given that said because he himself didn’t score it, it’s not handball. 

Ludicrous.

It's not that it isn't handball - the ref should give it. It's that it no longer reaches the threshold for VAR to intervene.

They tie themselves in knots with some of this stuff. 

[bobzy]

35 minutes ago, villan95 said:

Sheff Utd got absolutely thrashed but no idea how the 1st goal isn't disallowed when it touches Gordon's hand? Unless they changed the rule again.

And then the 3rd comes from a free kick that looked like a great tackle to me.

Obviously they completely imploded afterwards but you could argue both of those change the game significantly.

Have you actually looked at the handball rule?  I'm surprised many are given at all.  To quote:

 

"HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

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"

(Link:  https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct)

 

I don't think the handball by Gordon is deliberate, so that rules out the first offence.  I don't think his body is unnaturally bigger, so that rules out the second offence.  Of course, whilst it overall leads to a goal, there's also not a goal directly scored as a result of the handball, so that rules out the third offence.

By the letter of the law, it's just not handball.  In terms of seeing the game sensibly, surely it has to be?

Then you look at Romero's handball against Arsenal.  He's jumping to block a shot which is terrible and bounces up off the ground on to his arm.  I don't think his handball is deliberate or that his body is unnaturally bigger... but that one is given as a handball.  Should it have been?  Sensibly you'd say yes as it's stopping a shot towards goal... but by the letter of the law?

It's a mess.

 

(Also, apparently Newcastle were denied a stonewall penalty around 2-0 or 3-0.  As you say, doesn't really matter).

[villan95]

3 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Have you actually looked at the handball rule?  I'm surprised many are given at all.  To quote:

 

"HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

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"

(Link:  https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct)

 

I don't think the handball by Gordon is deliberate, so that rules out the first offence.  I don't think his body is unnaturally bigger, so that rules out the second offence.  Of course, whilst it overall leads to a goal, there's also not a goal directly scored as a result of the handball, so that rules out the third offence.

By the letter of the law, it's just not handball.  In terms of seeing the game sensibly, surely it has to be?

Then you look at Romero's handball against Arsenal.  He's jumping to block a shot which is terrible and bounces up off the ground on to his arm.  I don't think his handball is deliberate or that his body is unnaturally bigger... but that one is given as a handball.  Should it have been?  Sensibly you'd say yes as it's stopping a shot towards goal... but by the letter of the law?

It's a mess.

 

(Also, apparently Newcastle were denied a stonewall penalty around 2-0 or 3-0.  As you say, doesn't really matter).

I just remember a couple of seasons ago goals were being ruled out for any attacking players handling the ball in the final phase of play and intent didn't matter. So it was basically different rules for attackers and defenders. So maybe they've changed it since.

[villan95]

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

(Also, apparently Newcastle were denied a stonewall penalty around 2-0 or 3-0.  As you say, doesn't really matter).

First goal is definitely crucial though

[Davkaus]

The "unnaturally bigger" part is what drives so many handballs. The rules seem to have tried to give the players leeway to play without fear of being penalised for normal movements, but if your arm is away from your body, it gets given even if you're jumping or balancing, it's what leads to the ridiculous sight we often see of defenders now trying to close down attackers while having their arms literally hidden behind their back.

What further complicates it is they seem to tinker with handball and offside every single season, so not only is it one of the most complex rules, it's in a regular state of flux, to the extent half the people paid to talk about football on TV have no idea what the rules are anymore. Few football fans actually read the rule changes, and are reliant on thick as shit pundits telling them whether the decision was right or not. 

 

[bobzy]

Just now, villan95 said:

First goal is definitely crucial though

But by the law, they made the correct decision. 

[bobzy]

Just now, Davkaus said:

The "unnaturally bigger" part is what drives so many handballs. The rules seem to have tried to give the players leeway to play without fear of being penalised for normal movements, but if your arm is away from your body, it gets given even if you're jumping or balancing, it's what leads to the ridiculous sight we often see of defenders now trying to close down attackers while having their arms literally hidden behind their back.

What further complicates it is they seem to tinker with handball and offside every single season, so not only is it one of the most complex rules, it's in a regular state of flux, to the extent half the people paid to talk about football on TV have no idea what the rules are anymore. Few football fans actually read the rule changes, and are reliant on thick as shit pundits telling them whether the decision was right or not. 

 

Yup - and it's basically is your arm sticking up.  Nothing to do with unnatural movement, really, just is your arm "up".  If down, it's fine.

There was a muted appeal against Luiz(?) yesterday where the ball hit his arm.  Was down by his side, never should be a penalty.  But it did hit his arm.  I don't want penalties given for that, but I do think Gordon should be penalised.  I have no idea what the solution is  

[villan95]

Just now, Davkaus said:

It changed at the start of last season so that accidental handballs in the build up are now only penalised if they are by the goalscorer

Ah thanks for that. It does ring a bell now. Still don't agree with it like a lot of rules

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, villan95 said:

I just remember a couple of seasons ago goals were being ruled out for any attacking players handling the ball in the final phase of play and intent didn't matter. So it was basically different rules for attackers and defenders. So maybe they've changed it since.

They have, now it's the goalscorer only, intentional or not

I always thought the purpose of the rule was to stop the last touch being handball regardless of whether or not it was accidental or the hand was by the players side etc - Rodriguez vs us plus I'm sure there was another one and then haven't we seen one this season vs us where a goal was disallowed because it deflected off someone's tucked in arm?

That's what I thought they were doing but of course PGMOL confused it all by adding phases of play but then not enough phases of play for VVD to be considered handball vs city etc etc they've made a mess of it

[Davkaus]

I did think they'd only changed the VAR guidance until @bobzy posted the extract above

By the rules actually I don't think the ref should have given it either, but there is still, as I understand it, a discrepancy whereby a goal could justifiably be ruled out for handball for making the body unnaturally bigger by the assister, which is a separate offence to deliberate handball, but which VAR can't intervene for.

So I think you've got:

• Deliberate handball by the assister or goalscorer, can be ruled out by the ref or VAR
• Making the body unnaturally bigger by the assister, can be ruled out by the ref but not VAR
• Touching the ball in any way with the hand/body even if you don't mean to as the goalscorer can be ruled out by the ref or VAR

What a hot mess  

[Hobsons Choice]

Mitoma is a baller. I'd love him at Villa.

[Genie]

2 hours ago, HKP90 said:

Mitoma is a baller. I'd love him at Villa.

I’m surprised with some of the mega money deals this summer nobody bought him up. 

[villaglint]

23 minutes ago, Genie said:

I’m surprised with some of the mega money deals this summer nobody bought him up. 

Think Chelsea are saving up for this summer. But more likely he will go to City for about £5m as there is some special release clause only they know about. 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, villaglint said:

Think Chelsea are saving up for this summer. But more likely he will go to City for about £5m as there is some special release clause only they know about. 

He’ll be paid £60k per week with a £70m sign on fee.

[Zatman]

2 hours ago, Genie said:

I’m surprised with some of the mega money deals this summer nobody bought him up. 

Probably the fear of a one season wonder and Brighton players flopping elsewhere

[Tegis]

Keenan is broken, but LOL Coventry

[fightoffyour]

10 hours ago, Tegis said:

Keenan is broken, but LOL Coventry

Maybe Monday is finally part of the previous weekend's football? Perhaps Coventry aren't worth starting a thread over?

Stay tuned for more.

[Villatillidie95]

Harvey Barnes out until end of the year after sustaining foot injury in 8-0 victory against Sheffield United