nottingram Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Was a definite handball although also about the only thing he got right all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEL Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Ball was going to hit his face which could cause a problem and that's why Bent protected himself tbh. Never mind move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, RoyMac5 said: Rubbish. It really isn't rubbish. He didn't want the ball to hit him in the face, naturally enough. So he raised his arm in the event that the ball came towards his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimRam Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Glad the goal did not stand...would have been a travesty to get anything from that performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utisbug Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Obviously a penalty. Yes a penalty would be given the other way round against a defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 He's chosen to put his hands there when he didn't need to. He did it for safety reasons of protection but still his choice. Therefore hand ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambalin Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 This is what Ref's are told about handball.....from a article by Graham Poll. Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Beagle said: As a Ref I am interested in your replies..... So, as a ref, what is your view? Goal or no goal? Could have gone either way but I think the ref got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Key Club King Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 Try jumping towards a moving object that may come towards your face. The hands come up naturally for protection and you will not really see this done any other way. Your arms would go up just by the momentum in jumping anyway. On the basis of the law it was probably not handball but having said that I think it is best that these are given as handball as people may start to take advantage of it and spread their arms out a little bit more to get hit. More importantly, we deserved nothing out of that game and it would just be papering over cracks if we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Can't moan too hard, it was handball. Frustrating, but it was one of those nights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Goal for me! He charged the ball down and it got launched at him. Wasn't unnatural to of had hands in that position considering a ball is being launched towards your face. Rob green knows he got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adslegend Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 His arm was raised in an unnatural position. If his arm had been down then the ball would have missed him and would not have been deflected in. Correct decision for me although would have been nice if it was allowed. Could have given us the boost we needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringOfBeads Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 It's a simple answer. Did the ball hit him on the arms? Yes. we're his arms raised ? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Just out of interest, what is classed as a 'natural position' for your arms when running and jumping at speed when closing an opponent down? I would suggest that what Bent did was pretty natural and would be the shape that is acquired by players 99% of the time, the other 1% being David Luiz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 If that had been allowed against us we would most certainly think it should have been disallowed. Right decision sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fraser_23 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 12 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said: Protecting his face from what? The ball. That has to be construed as deliberate. Protecting his face is a natural reaction. You're not going to just jump and not cover your head Like I said..... it's debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Would I have been disappointed if the goal had stood against us? Yes. Did we deserve anything from the game? No. But that said I don't think that Bent intentionally handled the ball. The incident also happened at the start of the second half when we were having probably our best spell. We could possibly have gone on from there and dominated the rest of the game. They could also have kicked on even stronger pushing for a second. No one knows what would have happened if....... Probably was the right decision if I'm honest, but only because Keough got away with one on the goal line at our place. Then again if that wasn't a penalty and a sending off then Bent's goal should have stood ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Should have attempted a bicycle kick, that's what I would have done if I was a professional footballer playing in that situation. Fitness and ability prevented me tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Le Mesmer Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 I've never quite understood the rules about these things. Ball to hand and all that stuff. Reading through the posts it has made me not so certain of my original 'correct decision' verdict. The ball is loose. Both Bent and Green are running towards it. Bent jumps as Green just more or less takes a punt at the ball. Bent is jumping naturally with a slight tendency to turn his back on Green as he doesn't want to get hurt by the ball. None of this is deliberate. He has jumped and IMO there is absolutely no deliberate intent or movement of the arm towards the ball. It's basically just Green leathering the ball at his outstretched arm. Again I'm not sure of the rules. Are these decisions based on what the ref determines as deliberate or can you just literally as an attacker, get inside the penalty area and try and kick the ball as hard as you can towards an opponents arm when the opponent has no idea what's going on and that would be deemed a penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 Bicycle kicks? I thought they were vydras speciality anyway? I'd imagine arthritis would prevent bent attempting those manoeuvres at his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.