Jump to content
Aggy

Handball tonight /handball rule

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Infantino has said VAR is here to stay but may require modifications to the laws, They are meeting this weekend.

12 months ago the only argument would have been should Godfey have dropped him. The goal would have stood and pundits could have argued all night. Neither player handled it deliberately and it was a cracking finish.

But as much as we hate it, VAR went in our favour.

No, the new rules went in our favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

So it touched his hand - did it really alter the course of the ball or was it deliberate?  If not, then no offence has occured in the laws of the game, unless the laws have changed.

 

Yes it has changed. If it hits your hand and then you score it’s now handball regardless of intent. Has been that way all season.

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Yes, I know it is the rule, my issue is with VAR, the rules and the implementation.  Too many goals are being lost due to VAR and it's forensic nonsense.

How is this relevant to last night? VAR applied the rules correctly, regardless of what your thoughts are on the rules.

1 hour ago, CDMullins said:

Which is one of the fundamental issues with the rules/VAR in its current form.

Again don’t think that example has anything to do with VAR.  We need to separate the two - VAR can’t be blamed for implementing the rules.
 

Likewise with the offside decisions - the technology probably isn’t good enough for it to be used as it currently is, but using what they’ve got they are trying to implement what is essentially a “line call”. You’re either offside or not, there is no subjectivity involved there. It’s just whether you can with certainty say the technology is good enough to make that call at the very split second the ball is played - I don’t think it is currently. Interesting comments about going back to the “daylight” interpretation of offside this week from UEFA (ie; only offside if there is daylight between the attacker and defender). That would give the benefit back to the attacker and gives the technology a bit more leeway.


Going back to the handball rule, I actually don’t mind it - it takes out any risk of controversy, if it hits your hand and you score directly afterwards it’s no goal. But that in itself raises a question about how far back you go. The Snodgrass handball a couple of months ago for instance, where it hit someone’s arm near the halfway line, they took on two defenders, went forward ten yards, passed it to Snodgrass who then had a very difficult finish (still from the edge of the box, so not a tap in) and they pulled it back for the non-deliberate handball on the halfway line - ludicrous to go back for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

Probably should have been allowed imo.  Yes, it hits his hand as the ball came down, but doesn't look deliberate to me or change the course of the ball. Var is turning football into a joke game, devoid of any spirit and although I would have hated to go one down of course, a "hint" of handball with 50/50 as to whether it was deliberate or not, should not have meant disallowing a goal.  We want goals and VAR is destroying too many.

I agree completely. Can you imagine our supporters response if one of our players had a similar goal disallowed.To me even a slow replay from several angles is not clear cut. The game is played by human beings and should be refereed by the same people. These days you hesitate to cheer a goal in case it is subsequently "VAR disallowed". This close inch by inch analysis has to be ditched. I am sure it will be in due course  there are many bigwigs who have made a big **** up and there will delay a bit to save face. I thought the Ref - Graig Pawson - had a good game and tried to let the game flow. He even allowed Krul a bit of leeway with his time wasting - I know they all do it !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aggy said:
57 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

So it touched his hand - did it really alter the course of the ball or was it deliberate?  If not, then no offence has occured in the laws of the game, unless the laws have changed.

Yes it has changed. If it hits your hand and then you score it’s now handball regardless of intent. Has been that way all season.

I presume they did that because of VAR and they thought they could make it simpler, but all they've done is take the spirit out of the game. I don't know if it hit Godfrey's arm or shoulder before it hit the forward's hand yesterday, but if it did hit his arm and then hit the forward's hand, then that kind of makes it a 50/50 in my book and benefit of doubt to ther striker.  Of course I don't want them to score, but the attempts to make clinical decisions and the forensic analysis of these handballs is just as bad imo as for the offsides.  It clearly hit his hand, ok - so in the days before VAR the ref would have to make the decision on what he sees (rather than think "oh var will sort it out") - and most times imo a ref would see a 50/50 situation and let that stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not matter if Godfrey hand balled it, the rule says if the attacker touches the ball, in anyway, whilst scoring it's a no goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I presume they did that because of VAR and they thought they could make it simpler, but all they've done is take the spirit out of the game. I don't know if it hit Godfrey's arm or shoulder before it hit the forward's hand yesterday, but if it did hit his arm and then hit the forward's hand, then that kind of makes it a 50/50 in my book and benefit of doubt to ther striker.  Of course I don't want them to score, but the attempts to make clinical decisions and the forensic analysis of these handballs is just as bad imo as for the offsides.  It clearly hit his hand, ok - so in the days before VAR the ref would have to make the decision on what he sees (rather than think "oh var will sort it out") - and most times imo a ref would see a 50/50 situation and let that stand.

The handball rule was implemented Europe wide for the start of this season. VAR has been in other countries in Europe for a couple of seasons already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal being disallowed was due to the new rule, not because of VAR per sé. VAR simply enforced the rule and made sure the 'correct' decision was made.

Do I like the new rules regarding handballs this season, i.e. any touch during an act of goalscoring or any time the ball hits an arm that's away from the body it's a foul? No, I don't. I fail to see how IFAB thought last year that there weren't enough handballs called in the game and there needed to be more fouls given. There were plenty already.

This new rule, when combined with VAR, means that far too many penalties are being given for handball now. Incidents where the ball touches a defender's hand when he can do absolutely nothing about it because the ball was played into it from a yard away but the hand wasn't beside his body like a penguin frustrate me no end. 

IFAB need to refigure this rule. It should be brought back to the old rule where a handball had to be deliberate, with maybe an exception being made for when a player doesn't take reasonable steps to prevent contact between arm and ball, for example jumping for the ball with the hand above the head or not getting the hand out of the way when a ball is struck from 15 yards away.

Oh and for the conspiracy theorists:

- The referee didn't give the handball because he has to be sure. You can always disallow a goal for handball after it has been scored, but you can't restart if the ref blows up in error.

- Of course they have to check more than one angle and more than once. Sometimes one angle can be deceiving so in order to make sure the arrive at the right decision, they have to be thorough. It isn't about the VAR thinking 'how can I **** Norwich up today?".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Yes it has changed. If it hits your hand and then you score it’s now handball regardless of intent. Has been that way all season.

How is this relevant to last night? VAR applied the rules correctly, regardless of what your thoughts are on the rules.

Again don’t think that example has anything to do with VAR.  We need to separate the two - VAR can’t be blamed for implementing the rules.
 

Likewise with the offside decisions - the technology probably isn’t good enough for it to be used as it currently is, but using what they’ve got they are trying to implement what is essentially a “line call”. You’re either offside or not, there is no subjectivity involved there. It’s just whether you can with certainty say the technology is good enough to make that call at the very split second the ball is played - I don’t think it is currently. Interesting comments about going back to the “daylight” interpretation of offside this week from UEFA (ie; only offside if there is daylight between the attacker and defender). That would give the benefit back to the attacker and gives the technology a bit more leeway.


Going back to the handball rule, I actually don’t mind it - it takes out any risk of controversy, if it hits your hand and you score directly afterwards it’s no goal. But that in itself raises a question about how far back you go. The Snodgrass handball a couple of months ago for instance, where it hit someone’s arm near the halfway line, they took on two defenders, went forward ten yards, passed it to Snodgrass who then had a very difficult finish (still from the edge of the box, so not a tap in) and they pulled it back for the non-deliberate handball on the halfway line - ludicrous to go back for that.

It actually as though;

Becuase its allowing referee's the opportunity to not make a decision.

Last night 27,000 saw the ball hit Inechano's hand - at which point it's a free kick to Norwich.

The referee allowed the game to go on, knowing if Inechano scored VAR would check/rule out.

However, what if Krul tipps Inechano's shot wide and they score the from corner?

 

Just to add, never in a million years is it actually a 'handball'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

Last night 27,000 saw the ball hit Inechano's hand - at which point it's a free kick to Norwich.

 

That’s not correct. When it hits his hand, he hasn’t scored. If you’re saying it’s not a deliberate handball, then why is it a freekick to Norwich?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the new rules went in our favour.

Still depends on the chap in front of the VAR monitor to decide. Or else they wouldn't have looked at it so many times. It was obvious in normal time, well for us watching on TV,that he had handled it. The ref doesn't have that option obviously. But VAR still had enough looks to make sure it was handball.

Edited by keelansgrandad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

That’s not correct. When it hits his hand, he hasn’t scored. If you’re saying it’s not a deliberate handball, then why is it a freekick to Norwich?

 

I know what you're saying and its rigth but this is exactly why the rules/use of VAR just aren't working.

How can a handball for defenders and attackers be different?

How can it then only be handball if a goal is scored?

How can it be handball if the ball goes literally millimetres from Godfrey onto Inechano?

How can the referee be allowed to not make a decision based on the fact VAR will check it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

No, the new rules went in our favour.

Still depends on the chap in front of the VAR monitor to decide. Or else they wouldn't have looked at it so many times. It was obvious in normal time, well for us watching on TV,that he had handled it. The ref doesn't have that option obviously. But VAR still had enough looks to make sure it was handball.

I'd argue its not VAR that saved us but actually the referee didnt apply the rules and hid behind VAR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

I know what you're saying and its rigth but this is exactly why the rules/use of VAR just aren't working.

How can a handball for defenders and attackers be different?

How can it then only be handball if a goal is scored?

How can it be handball if the ball goes literally millimetres from Godfrey onto Inechano?

How can the referee be allowed to not make a decision based on the fact VAR will check it?

 

I think it was done officially to reduce when goals were scored or assisted with the hand, but I agree that it's silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

I know what you're saying and its rigth but this is exactly why the rules/use of VAR just aren't working.

How can a handball for defenders and attackers be different?

How can it then only be handball if a goal is scored?

How can it be handball if the ball goes literally millimetres from Godfrey onto Inechano?

How can the referee be allowed to not make a decision based on the fact VAR will check it?

 

I do understand why the new rule isn’t liked - I’ve wavered between thinking it’s stupid and coming round a bit more. But that’s the rule, not VAR.

The rule could be limited to only when the ball goes in directly off the arm. That’s more in keeping with what I think the rule change was intended to do. I can’t imagine it was intended to be used as it was last night (or in the Snodgrass one I referenced earlier for example). The whole point of the rule change, as I understand it, was because it was deemed unfair if it goes in off your hand, even if it’s not deliberate. I actually have a little bit of sympathy with that, but it has to be clear how far back you go.

The “how far do you go back” question isn’t limited to this though. The offside rule - well before VAR - had all the different “phases” you had to consider. 

On the questions above, I’d briefly comment (because they are interesting to discuss):

1) I think it depends on what the purpose of the law is. If it’s because you’re saying you don’t want anyone to be able to score with their hand at all (accidentally or deliberately) then it can’t be the same for defenders as attackers. 

2) You could ask a similar ‘timing’ question about the offside rule that is now largely accepted. How can you be in an offside position but be onside? Or not be offside until you actually touch it. Nowadays, you can be in an offside position when the first pass is played, but be deemed onside as long as you are onside in the “second phase”. Gives you a massive advantage of being able to hang in offside positions which you just couldn’t do thirty years ago.  

3) As above really.

4) If, by the very nature of the law, you have to go back anyway (because the ref simply can’t make the decision at the point it actually hits his hand as we don’t know if he’s going to score or not) then surely it makes sense to go back and double check it just to be completely sure.
 

If the whole point of VAR is to stop clear and obvious mistakes, then if it’s not clear and obvious to the ref on the pitch, I’m all for refs letting play go on in favour of an attacking team and then seeing if there was anything clear and obvious on the replay. Better that than stopping an attack for a borderline decision which you then find out was probably incorrect.
 


 

 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CDMullins said:

It actually as though;

Becuase its allowing referee's the opportunity to not make a decision.

Last night 27,000 saw the ball hit Inechano's hand - at which point it's a free kick to Norwich.

The referee allowed the game to go on, knowing if Inechano scored VAR would check/rule out.

However, what if Krul tipps Inechano's shot wide and they score the from corner?

 

Just to add, never in a million years is it actually a 'handball'.

This^^.  Referees can now opt out of making a decision and the whole game is now centred around technology that cannot be applied either accurately or justly or with any degree of common sense - and the affect on the immediate aftermath of a non-decision being made can change the course of a match. 

I accept that "under the rules" the goal had to be disallowed, but really, there is so much affected by VAR apart from just the actual decisions with the impact on the game. Just leave it to referees/officials at the game.....unless we can actually get the people using the technology to use it properly, quickly and sensibly, like it appears they can abroad.  Why are we so bad at using it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hogesar said:

Because whilst they wanted to find any opportunity to rule out Pukkis goal vs Spurs, they were even more desperate to try and give the goal Leicesters way.

This is utter rubbish. I hate how our fans think there is some conspiracy against us to try to get us relegated; it's embarrassing. Nobody was trying to get a specific decision in any game, they are trying to get the correct decision, often not succeeding.

7 hours ago, CDMullins said:

However, what if Krul tipps Inechano's shot wide and they score the from corner?

Just to add, never in a million years is it actually a 'handball'.

Fully agree with both of these points. It's not actually the refs fault though, I believe they have been told to let the game flow and check later if there is any doubt?

It was never, ever a handball. By the current rules, the correct decision was made but that doesn't mean the rules are correct. I don't think that's the spirit of the original handball rule; the rule is there to stop blatant cheating by using your hands, not to penalise people who happen to have hands that entirely accidentally get in the way of the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

This is utter rubbish. I hate how our fans think there is some conspiracy against us to try to get us relegated; it's embarrassing. Nobody was trying to get a specific decision in any game, they are trying to get the correct decision, often not succeeding

It's called a tongue-in-cheek comment at the overall ineptitude of all those at stockley park and their dismal application of VAR this season. No fans genuinely think there is a conspiracy against us, so you can stop being embarrassed for the love of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...