So, should it have been a penalty?

[Crabbycanary3 994]

I've only seen a photo of it, and not seen any VAR reaction etc. 

[splendidrush 720]

I'm wondering if it would have been given at the other end. 

[Alex Moss 2,167]

That could so easily ended up 4-1!

[The Real Buh 3,765]

We could have easily scored a couple more. Every time pukki got the ball I believed he’d score

 

realistically Man City escaped a spanking and they should be grateful to us we showed mercy

[JF 694]

Under the new rules I was under the impression that it was, certainly would have been given in the champions league last season

[Aggy 944]

Just now, JF said:

Under the new rules I was under the impression that it was, certainly would have been given in the champions league last season

Assuming we’re talking about the Stones “handball”, I think it would have been harsh.

Fairly sure the new rules are that if the ball is going in/on target and it hits a player in an unnatural position it’s a penalty. This wasn’t going in, it was just from the corner. Stones wasn’t looking at the ball (I thought there was a stronger claim for a foul - he seemed to be jumping into the man without much intention of playing the ball) but I don’t think it was handball. 

In saying that, I still think it’s unfair that, if that had happened to a forward and gone in it would have been disallowed but when it happens to a defender it’s play on.

[JF 694]

Just now, Aggy said:

Assuming we’re talking about the Stones “handball”, I think it would have been harsh.

Fairly sure the new rules are that if the ball is going in/on target and it hits a player in an unnatural position it’s a penalty. This wasn’t going in, it was just from the corner. Stones wasn’t looking at the ball (I thought there was a stronger claim for a foul - he seemed to be jumping into the man without much intention of playing the ball) but I don’t think it was handball. 

In saying that, I still think it’s unfair that, if that had happened to a forward and gone in it would have been disallowed but when it happens to a defender it’s play on.

This is the problem though, I’m not sure many know the new interpretation. I don’t think it’s a penalty but I was under the impression that this season it was

[Aggy 944]

It is definitely over complicated now. I don’t like all this unnatural positioning element - either should be ‘is it deliberate?’,  as it has been for years(/ever?), or take all of the ref’s decision making out of the equation and simply make it every time the ball hits a hand/arm it’s a foul.

[CDMullins 498]

It was very similar to the handball that ruled out Dendonckers goal for Wolves vs Leicester. 

Think the change of rules means because Dendonckers contributed to a goal, it was ruled out.

[Creative Midfielder 2,203]

Think the new change to the rule is really daft but nevertheless given that it is now the rule last night looked absolutely clear cut penalty to me.

[Mr Angry 2,017]

I think there were 3 changes to the rules.

1. If the ball hits the hand or arm of an attacking player in the lead up to a goal, it’s handball even if it’s accidental. Presumably this is why the Wolves goal was ruled out-I think others have also been disallowed.

2. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player who has made their body unnaturally bigger, it’s a handball.

3. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player from a deflection from either another player close by or from the same player then it’s not handball. So Ben Godfrey’s handball against Wigan would not have been given this season.

I’ve not watched the incident back since, but I think the ball deflected to Stones from another player, so no handball. If it didn’t, did Stones make his body unnaturally bigger? That’s harder to say, especially when players are jumping, but he almost ended up with the ball in both arms.

At least with VAR these incidents are being reviewed, which is progress.

On balance, it’s probably one where we would have been fuming if it had been given against us so I think it was a fair call. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Mr Angry

[Aggy 944]

5 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I think there were 3 changes to the rules.

1. If the ball hits the hand or arm of an attacking player in the lead up to a goal, it’s handball even if it’s accidental. Presumably this is why the Wolves goal was ruled out-I think others have also been disallowed.

2. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player who has made their body unnaturally bigger, it’s a handball.

3. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player from a deflection from either another player close by or from the same player then it’s not handball. So Ben Godfrey’s handball against Wigan would not have been given this season.

I’ve not watched the incident back since, but I think the ball deflected to Stones from another player, so no handball. If it didn’t, did Stones make his body unnaturally bigger? That’s harder to say, especially when players are jumping, but he almost ended up with the ball in both arms.

At least with VAR these incidents are being reviewed, which is progress.

On balance, it’s probably one where we would have been fuming if it had been given against us so I think it was a fair call. 

Number three should never have been a penalty surely. 

I haven’t seen slowed down replays of it, but from memory, Stones’ arms are in a slightly unnatural position - caused mostly because he seemed (to me) moreminterested in barging into the player than get to the ball. But wasn’t even looking at the ball, bounced around from a challenge, so would have been a harsh pen.

[kick it off 2,062]

It did deflect onto him from another player at point blank range. It would have been incredibly harsh.

[Fuzzar 1,861]

10 minutes ago, kick it off said:

It did deflect onto him from another player at point blank range. It would have been incredibly harsh.

This.

[CDMullins 498]

42 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I think there were 3 changes to the rules.

1. If the ball hits the hand or arm of an attacking player in the lead up to a goal, it’s handball even if it’s accidental. Presumably this is why the Wolves goal was ruled out-I think others have also been disallowed.

2. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player who has made their body unnaturally bigger, it’s a handball.

3. If the ball hits the hand or arm of a player from a deflection from either another player close by or from the same player then it’s not handball. So Ben Godfrey’s handball against Wigan would not have been given this season.

I’ve not watched the incident back since, but I think the ball deflected to Stones from another player, so no handball. If it didn’t, did Stones make his body unnaturally bigger? That’s harder to say, especially when players are jumping, but he almost ended up with the ball in both arms.

At least with VAR these incidents are being reviewed, which is progress.

On balance, it’s probably one where we would have been fuming if it had been given against us so I think it was a fair call. 

But how many decisions have we seen that have been reviewed and still appear wrong?

I have no confidence in VAR in fact it has only made the water cloudier.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

I don't think it should be a penalty as there was no intention, and with the old rules, it wouldn't have been.

But with the new rules, that's a penalty. Stones' arm was out, it wasn't within the silhouette of his body or whatever you call it, and the ball clearly struck his arm, possibly twice; he nearly caught the bloody thing.

In the Premier League though, the officials are very reluctant to overturn decisions. I get the impression that if that happened in Serie A, It would've been given as a penalty via VAR.

[Mr Angry 2,017]

30 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

But how many decisions have we seen that have been reviewed and still appear wrong?

I have no confidence in VAR in fact it has only made the water cloudier.

I read that 4 decisions this season have been reviewed but were still wrong-out of over 200. Can’t remember the rest but one was a West Ham penalty against us.

[Mr Angry 2,017]

8 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I don't think it should be a penalty as there was no intention, and with the old rules, it wouldn't have been.

But with the new rules, that's a penalty. Stones' arm was out, it wasn't within the silhouette of his body or whatever you call it, and the ball clearly struck his arm, possibly twice; he nearly caught the bloody thing.

In the Premier League though, the officials are very reluctant to overturn decisions. I get the impression that if that happened in Serie A, It would've been given as a penalty via VAR.

But what part of the rule takes precedence-the silhouette part or the deflection part?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,615]

10 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

But what part of the rule takes precedence-the silhouette part or the deflection part?

I think the 'silhouette'. If the arm is above the shoulder or wide of the body then it's automatically a handball if the ball hits it. I guess it comes down to whether the VAR thought Stones' arm was far enough away from his body to be considered outside the natural silhouette. 

But anyway, it's a stupid rule. Unless players run around like penguins, arms will always be outside the silhouette of the body and there will be lots of penalties. What Stones did shouldn't be a penalty because he didn't mean to handle it, but with these new rules, then it's a penalty.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[Mr Angry 2,017]

7 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I think the 'silhouette'. If the arm is above the shoulder or wide of the body then it's automatically a handball if the ball hits it. I guess it comes down to whether the VAR thought Stones' arm was far enough away from his body to be considered outside the natural silhouette. 

But anyway, it's a stupid rule. Unless players run around like penguins, arms will always be outside the silhouette of the body and there will be lots of penalties. What Stones did shouldn't be a penalty because he didn't mean to handle it, but with these new rules, then it's a penalty.

Yes, I’ve just checked the FA website-the silhouette rule trumps the deflection rule. So perhaps it should have been given.

There used to be a website-maybe TeamTalk?-that looked at dubious decisions each week and did a table to see which teams suffered and which teams gained from these decisions.

[CDMullins 498]

50 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

I read that 4 decisions this season have been reviewed but were still wrong-out of over 200. Can’t remember the rest but one was a West Ham penalty against us.

I've seen the article, do you believe that?

[Mr Angry 2,017]

2 hours ago, CDMullins said:

I've seen the article, do you believe that?

Yes.