An arm away from losing

[JF 694]

2 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

It is never, ever a penalty in my opinion. If by the letter of the law it should be a penalty is not something I am qualified to judge, however, if that is the case, then the law is an a$$ and should be changed.

 

Edit, really a$$ is filtered?

It isn’t a penalty by the letter of the law, irrelevant of any claims otherwise 

[westcoastcanary 173]

53 minutes ago, JF said:

That’s great. But the footage above clearly shows there is no deflection...

Clearly? Not clear at all. Was it you who accused me of "seeing what I wanted to see"? 

[JF 694]

38 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

Clearly? Not clear at all. Was it you who accused me of "seeing what I wanted to see"? 

Maybe you should’ve gone to Spec-savers!?

Edited April 16, 2019 by JF

[Van wink 2,994]

That delete button is red hot🐓

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

1 hour ago, westcoastcanary said:

@Purple Canary

First of all, thank you for taking my view of the penalty issue seriously enough to reply in kind. Makes a nice change 

"I have looked at it again and I still cannot see any kind of contact with the PSG's player's thigh, but if it did make contact  it was - and I notice the word you use now is "glance" - the merest glance that did not alter the course of the ball significantly. It was still heading where it had been from the time it left the Man Utd player's boot - towards the outstretched arm of the PSG defender." 

I was watching the match and was convinced from what I saw in real time that the ball struck the leg and then the arm. Having looked at it again, in real time replay and slow motion, that remains my opinion. It was commented on at the time that no Man U player appealed for a penalty. Dalot, whose shot it was, and who was well placed to see what happened, did not appeal. Why not? There was no question that the ball hit Kimpembe, the referee awarded a corner. The lack of any Man U appeal suggests to me that Man U players, including Dalot, believed it had stuck Kimpembe somewhere other than his arm. The images of the incident show that, given the trajectory of the shot, the only part of Kimpembe's body that the ball could have struck other than his arm was his thigh. Dalot in particular was well placed to see that. His failure to appeal for a penalty supports my view that the ball first struck Kimpembe's leg and then his arm. 

"It was nothing like the significant deflection from Godfrey's leg to his arm."

The degree of deflection is not crucial. What's crucial is simply whether the deflected ball strikes the arm in the course of an attempted block.  

"Another clear difference is that the Man Utd player was five or more yards away from the PSG player, who had time to jump up but also potentially get his arm out of the way, given that it was in the way of the ball.

While with Godfrey the ball is hit from a much shorter distance and he instinctively dives to block"

This, while true, does not mean that Godfrey wasn't guilty of handball simply because Morsey was closer when he shot. The point is not that Godfrey didn't have time to get his arm out of the way, but that he deliberately dived into a close-quarters block, with his arm extended. 

" .......... and can have no idea that the one arm of his that is outstretched will end up being where the ball goes after the deflection."

No, I agree, Godfrey could not know that the ball would hit his arm after hitting his leg. However, Godfrey could be expected to know that to dive into the block as he did, with his arm extended as it was, laid him open to having the ball strike his arm. This is the point I made previously about the meaning of "deliberate". People seem to think that, for the handball to be "deliberate", it has to be like Egan's handball which got him sent off in Sheffield United's game against Millwall, where the player specifically resorts to using his hand to block the ball. That narrow interpretation of "deliberate" is simply incorrect, and its being so is not "new"; in the operative sense of "deliberate", Godfrey's handball was deliberate simply because of the manner in which he, quite deliberately, dived in, i.e. with his arm extended in the manner it was.

"It comes back to the point I made on the match thread about a new interpretation that it is a penalty, irrespective of intentionality"

Exactly; what IS new, in David Ellery's words, is changing the rule so as to make handball depend solely "on outcome rather than intent". But that says nothing about how exactly "intent" has been interpreted hitherto, including currently, prior to this new change coming into effect. My point is that "intentional" or "deliberate", as currently applied, is not restricted to cases like Egan's. The fact that Godfrey did not specifically intend to use his arm to block the ball ("narrow" interpretation) does not mean that his handball was "unintentional" ("wider" interpretation); hence as currently applied, the decision against Godfrey was correct.

"The new interpretation is that if the arm is in an "unnatural position" - generally sticking out - then it is a penalty, intentional or not. The logic being that the arm should not be where it is and has stopped the ball from going where it was intended  to go. 

But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg."

Not so; it was Godfrey's leg and arm "that stopped the ball from reaching its destination".

Since I wrote that it appears the law was in any event going to be "clarified" again, so that the kind of accidental deflection on to the arm we saw with Godfrey will not be penalised, on that basis, that it was a legitimate part of his body that stopped the shot reaching its intended destination.

It remains to be seen exactly what this second change involves, and the specific type of incident it is designed to cover. As far as Godfrey's handball goes, it is irrelevant, precisely because it hasn't yet come into effect. 

 

 

But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg."

Not so; it was Godfrey's leg and arm "that stopped the ball from reaching its destination".

If you wanted to continue a serious discussion it would really have been better if you had not, when purporting to direct-quote me, so obviously left out a crucial word - in this case "intended".

The point I was clearly making was that if there was a touch off the PSG's player's leg - and no-one else seems to think there was - it didn't take the Man Utd shot away from its intended destination. Whereas the clear Godfrey deflection did.

 

[Ian 1,201]

55 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

Clearly? Not clear at all. Was it you who accused me of "seeing what I wanted to see"? 

Well the ball doesn't deviate and there's no change to the ball's rotation/spin, so why do you think there's a deflection? 

[Hairy Canary 737]

There isnt one and he knows it. He just isn't man enough to admit he's wrong.

[westcoastcanary 173]

12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But in this case it wasn't Godfrey's arm that stopped the ball from reaching its intended destination - it was his leg."

Not so; it was Godfrey's leg and arm "that stopped the ball from reaching its destination".

If you wanted to continue a serious discussion it would really have been better if you had not, when purporting to direct-quote me, so obviously left out a crucial word - in this case "intended".

The point I was clearly making was that if there was a touch off the PSG's player's leg - and no-one else seems to think there was - it didn't take the Man Utd shot away from its intended destination. Whereas the clear Godfrey deflection did.

 

Failing to include the original "intended" might be seen as a serious omission if I hadn't already quoted your exact wording (in your original blue font) immediately above.

More to the point, exactly what difference does it make to either your point or mine whether the destination of the ball is described as intended or not? In both cases the defending player deliberately set out to block a shot at goal. The destination, or, if you insist, intended destination, of the shot in both cases was the goal. The initial trajectory of the shot in both cases was towards the goal.

Your real point is not actually about what destination was intended, but about the extent to which the shot was diverted from its original trajectory by the initial contact with the player's leg. My point is that how much the ball was diverted from its original trajectory by initial contact with the player's leg is neither here nor there.The salient factor is simply that, in both cases, contact with the arm, in the position it was, contributed to the shot being blocked.

The referee is not required to judge whether the trajectory of the ball immediately prior to hitting the arm is still "as intended" by the player shooting. Nor is it a requirement that the shot must be on target. All that matters is that the ball strikes the away-from-the-body arm in the course of a deliberate attempt to block the shot.

 

I cannot for the life of me understand why current guidance concerning application of the Laws governing e.g. handball, under which our referees operate, is not made public. It must surely be in the interest of the officials themselves that those who are only too ready to accuse them of having made a mistake are as well-informed as possible about the factors governing refereeing decisions.

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

13 hours ago, Ian said:

Well the ball doesn't deviate and there's no change to the ball's rotation/spin, so why do you think there's a deflection? 

Simply because I don't agree that the video footage you posted definitively shows that there was no deflection. Indeed I think it is a rather good example of how VAR will fall short of providing definitive answers in many cases. (That's not to say I am against VAR; quite the opposite. But it won't provide definitive answers to every question.)

A question for you Ian. If the video clearly establishes that the ball didn't deflect of Kimpembe's thigh, what is your explanation for the fact that neither Dalot nor any other Man Utd player close to the incident appealed for a penalty? Was it because they thought, perhaps correctly, that the ball deflected off Kimpembe's thigh?

[westcoastcanary 173]

15 hours ago, JF said:

Maybe you should’ve gone to Spec-savers!?

 

13 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

There isnt one and he knows it. He just isn't man enough to admit he's wrong.

JF, I am happy to admit that, being in my mid-eighties, my sight is not as good as it once was. If you want to believe it is so bad that I can't see detail in a video I have further enlarged, that's up to you. At this rate someone will soon be on here asking if I suffer from dementia. Why don't you guys grow up and leave the personal stuff out, eh Hairy?

[Ian 1,201]

50 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

Simply because I don't agree that the video footage you posted definitively shows that there was no deflection. Indeed I think it is a rather good example of how VAR will fall short of providing definitive answers in many cases. (That's not to say I am against VAR; quite the opposite. But it won't provide definitive answers to every question.)

A question for you Ian. If the video clearly establishes that the ball didn't deflect of Kimpembe's thigh, what is your explanation for the fact that neither Dalot nor any other Man Utd player close to the incident appealed for a penalty? Was it because they thought, perhaps correctly, that the ball deflected off Kimpembe's thigh?

Is this a wind-up troll account, or are you genuinely serious?

[westcoastcanary 173]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

Is this a wind-up troll account, or are you genuinely serious?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours Ian.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

What's your earliest memories of Norwich City westcoast?

[westcoastcanary 173]

4 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

What's your earliest memories of Norwich City westcoast?

Standing behind the Barclay End goal (don't recall what it was called in those days) with a group of friends ribbing Sandy Kennon. SK was a window cleaner and when he let a goal in we would politely suggest he brought his ladder next match! I'm not Norwich born and bred; I moved there in 1961, which is when I began actively supporting. My first season ticket was in the old main stand. I had a seat behind the Directors box, near the then press box, very central. Those seats were priced the same as seats in the blocks either side of the Directors box, in my case Block C.The view of the pitch was great, but you used to lose sight of lofted balls, of which there were rather a lot in those days! Having that seat meant I was right in line with Justin Fashanu's great volleyed goal against Liverpool. After the old stand burned down I had to be content with a seat in the South stand; not nearly as good. At that time I was able to follow the team away, usually by coach, which left from outside the travel agents in Castle Meadow. The farthest trip that I can recall was the FA Cup replay against Blackburn Rovers in 1966. The away support nowadays don't realise how easy they have it .......... 😋

[Hairy Canary 737]

8 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

 

JF, I am happy to admit that, being in my mid-eighties, my sight is not as good as it once was. If you want to believe it is so bad that I can't see detail in a video I have further enlarged, that's up to you. At this rate someone will soon be on here asking if I suffer from dementia. Why don't you guys grow up and leave the personal stuff out, eh Hairy?

It wàsnt personal West Coast it's what I felt to be true. Nobody else has seen a deflection because there isn't one. So I'm struggling to come up with another explaination.

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Hairy!! Tut Tut Tut! Who'd have thought it...

🙃

[JF 694]

Not sure how saying “maybe you should’ve gone to spec-savers” is personal?? What’s the world coming to? Kleenex had to change their man size tissues, maybe spec-savers will now have to change that!!

[Hairy Canary 737]

4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Hairy!! Tut Tut Tut! Who'd have thought it...

🙃

Sorry Nutty, and I've been trying so hard recently too! It won't happen again. 😉  

[Crabbycanary3 994]

8 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Standing behind the Barclay End goal (don't recall what it was called in those days) with a group of friends ribbing Sandy Kennon. SK was a window cleaner and when he let a goal in we would politely suggest he brought his ladder next match! I'm not Norwich born and bred; I moved there in 1961, which is when I began actively supporting. My first season ticket was in the old main stand. I had a seat behind the Directors box, near the then press box, very central. Those seats were priced the same as seats in the blocks either side of the Directors box, in my case Block C.The view of the pitch was great, but you used to lose sight of lofted balls, of which there were rather a lot in those days! Having that seat meant I was right in line with Justin Fashanu's great volleyed goal against Liverpool. After the old stand burned down I had to be content with a seat in the South stand; not nearly as good. At that time I was able to follow the team away, usually by coach, which left from outside the travel agents in Castle Meadow. The farthest trip that I can recall was the FA Cup replay against Blackburn Rovers in 1966. The away support nowadays don't realise how easy they have it .......... 😋

Well, what a coincidence, I was in the Barclay when Fash scored that great goal, and I was also in line with it, but as I looked over Justin's shoulder I was looking at the South Stand..................

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

8 hours ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Well, what a coincidence, I was in the Barclay when Fash scored that great goal, and I was also in line with it, but as I looked over Justin's shoulder I was looking at the South Stand..................

We were probably looking at each other, Crabby, because I was in the South Stand, on halfway, pretty much directly in line with the shot, and it was the Barclay, with you in it, that was right behind. Of course, what people forget is that if the shot hadn't taken a big deflection off Hansen's left patella it never would have gone in.

[westcoastcanary 173]

9 hours ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

Well, what a coincidence, I was in the Barclay when Fash scored that great goal, and I was also in line with it, but as I looked over Justin's shoulder I was looking at the South Stand..................

 

39 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

We were probably looking at each other, Crabby, because I was in the South Stand, on halfway, pretty much directly in line with the shot, and it was the Barclay, with you in it, that was right behind. Of course, what people forget is that if the shot hadn't taken a big deflection off Hansen's left patella it never would have gone in.

If that Justin Fashanu goal was scored at the Barclay end not the River End, then my memory is evidently so defective that I'd better stop posting altogether. 

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

Westo, I'm about as sure as a man can be that Fashanus goal was scored at the Barclay end, as I'm typing on my phone I can't post a link to YouTube . But someone must be able to settle this with clip

If proved wrong on this occasion, would you at least consider that you are not always correct, now matter how damaging that may be to your sense of footballing  knowledge superiority

I thank you. 

[wcorkcanary 4,681]

Ps wasn't the camera gantry in the south stand back then? The clip I remember was defo from behind fash.

[westcoastcanary 173]

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/justin-fashanu-belter-gets-your-vote-as-the-best-carrow-road-goal-from-a-norwich-city-player-1-3134871

Which stand is that in the background? The old wooden main stand, or the then South Stand?

wcorkanary, I have no sense of "football knowledge superiority"'; on the contrary, the reason I'm on here is in the hope of improving my knowledge and understanding of the game. Unfortunately what I find is that few posters are actually interested in improving their knowledge and understanding of the game, they think they know it all already. 

[Fuzzar 1,836]

Pretty sure it was the Barclay End, as I was standing in the corner next to the away fans (where the hotel is now?) and couldn't see it properly thanks to a large pillar! If it had been at the River End my view would have been unobstructed.

[Fuzzar 1,836]

3 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/sport/norwich-city/justin-fashanu-belter-gets-your-vote-as-the-best-carrow-road-goal-from-a-norwich-city-player-1-3134871

Which stand is that in the background? The old wooden main stand, or the then South Stand?

wcorkanary, I have no sense of "football knowledge superiority"'; on the contrary, the reason I'm on here is in the hope of improving my knowledge and understanding of the game. Unfortunately what I find is that few posters are actually interested in improving their knowledge and understanding of the game, they think they know it all already. 

Well, then we're sorry to have disappointed you westcoast and thank you for your time....😉

[Crabbycanary3 994]

To quote a youngster westcoast, lol.

Anyway , you were there, right in line with it.

[Hairy Canary 737]

One of my fondest memories at CR. Stood in the River End behind Fash as he volleyed it in. Such a good goal I was still buzzing about it when it came on MOTD even though we ended up losing the game.

[westcoastcanary 173]

6 minutes ago, Fuzzar said:

Well, then we're sorry to have disappointed you westcoast and thank you for your time....😉

My pleasure Fuzzar. And my thanks in particular to Parma, nutty, ricardo and one or two others whose always balanced and knowledgeable posts have provided me with what I was looking for. 

[East Rider 585]

Fairly sure that is the main stand. The old south stand had the clock and if memory serves me well a Fisons advert plus a picture of a bulldozer (may be making that bit up).

Unfortunately I think I missed that game, but went to many others around the late 70s (stood in River end) early 80s (Barclay end).