Jump to content

Handball Rule


David

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

People will moan about the constantly changing handball rules...but VAR is the biggest problem. Now every single possible incident is revisited. 

To be fair (and I'm no fan of VAR), it got the decision spot on last night. The ball hit the Fulham players hand just before his team mate smashed it in - ridiculous rule that a complete accident can lead to a goal being chalked off, but that's the current law - made even worse when the commentator explained (which I hadn't realised) that if the ball had struck the arm of a Spurs player in exactly the same way, it wouldn't have been given as handball.....

Thankfully the idiots seem to have finally seen some sense, but they still insist on including an accidental ball striking the arm as being a reason to disallow a goal...and they also say they're only changing the rule because officials aren't being consistent in the way they're applying it - no admission that the authorities screwed up the rule in the first place.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is interested in handball unless it's in the penalty area or leads to a goal or stops a goal. 

So unless its intentional... OR directly contributes to or prevents a goal AND arm is in an unnatural position away from the body... Its not handball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

made even worse when the commentator explained (which I hadn't realised) that if the ball had struck the arm of a Spurs player in exactly the same way, it wouldn't have been given as handball.....

Man City had that go against them last season (incidentally against Spurs). From a corner the ball hit a spurs defenders hand, deflected onto a City player's hand then onto Jesus who scored. The goal was disallowed for handball against City, even though it hit the Spurs player's hand first, and without it hitting their hand wouldn't have hit the City player's. It's at that point they should have realised they have the rule wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

No one is interested in handball unless it's in the penalty area or leads to a goal or stops a goal. 

So unless its intentional... OR directly contributes to or prevents a goal AND arm is in an unnatural position away from the body... Its not handball. 

I think it was the intentional bit that was causing a problem so they changed the rule and created something ridiculous.  We do have some bloody idiots running football at present.

The rules have been mostly with us for over 100 years and there is a reason for that.  It is not that they can't be changed it is more that you need to be certain that the change is worthwhile.  Let the ref decide whether it is intentional or not and the excuse that I wasn't looking at the ball when it hit it whilst is was flapping around like a bird shouldn't be a consideration. 

CKR's goal should have been ruled out under the old rules, how effing stupid would that be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens

Having digested the new rules I thought I would translate them.

 

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah,  mumble mumble 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Spanish said:

I think it was the intentional bit that was causing a problem so they changed the rule and created something ridiculous.  We do have some bloody idiots running football at present.

The rules have been mostly with us for over 100 years and there is a reason for that.  It is not that they can't be changed it is more that you need to be certain that the change is worthwhile.  Let the ref decide whether it is intentional or not and the excuse that I wasn't looking at the ball when it hit it whilst is was flapping around like a bird shouldn't be a consideration. 

CKR's goal should have been ruled out under the old rules, how effing stupid would that be

Handball should be simple. Is it intentional or not. I’d say 9 out of 10 handballs aren’t, so there really shouldn’t be that many instances. Not many people intentionally try to block the ball with their hand in the box except for a real moment of madness. 

I remember then trying to analyse it back in the day, like they’re in some crime thriller ‘reverse the tape, zoom in, enhance and ... there, you can see him move his arm fractionally towards the ball, that’s intent if ever I’ve seen it.’

of course everyone on the opposing team wants a handball, but most of the time it’s clearly unintentional.

VAR was brought in to stop things like maradonna’s goal, or Henry’s. So clear and obvious, and intentional, that we still talk about them, but missed by the ref on the day. They’ve completely butchered the idea that was VAR, and they’ve completed ballsed up the interpretation of handball and offside. 

it should be so simple, I really can’t understand how they’ve made it so complicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Spanish said:

I think it was the intentional bit that was causing a problem so they changed the rule and created something ridiculous.  We do have some bloody idiots running football at present.

The rules have been mostly with us for over 100 years and there is a reason for that.  It is not that they can't be changed it is more that you need to be certain that the change is worthwhile.  Let the ref decide whether it is intentional or not and the excuse that I wasn't looking at the ball when it hit it whilst is was flapping around like a bird shouldn't be a consideration. 

CKR's goal should have been ruled out under the old rules, how effing stupid would that be

The rule change wouldn’t affect the CKR goal it would still technically be handball.

“It will remain a handball offence if a player scores accidentally with their hand or arm, or uses their hand or arm directly before scoring.“

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, rustylee said:

The rule change wouldn’t affect the CKR goal it would still technically be handball.

“It will remain a handball offence if a player scores accidentally with their hand or arm, or uses their hand or arm directly before scoring.“

So what is the impact of the rule change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/03/2021 at 01:19, RadioactiveWaste said:

How about "referee judges it it's significant"?

Or just referee's ddecision is final suck it up buttercup, it's only a game.

I think that is way better wording. How in the hell could ref know players intentions? Mind reading is darn hard after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...