Handball - Laws Of The Game

[First Wazzock 1,014]

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be

careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• kicks or attempts to kick an opponent

• trips or attempts to trip an opponent

• jumps at an opponent

• charges an opponent

• strikes or attempts to strike an opponent

• pushes an opponent

• tackles an opponent

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any

of the following three offences:

• holds an opponent

• spits at an opponent

• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own

penalty area)

A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred

Which means Hand playing the ball NOT the ball hitting the hand

[Trent Canary 0]

Are you at the game? Or seen a replay? Not arguing with you, but so far it seems snorefolk thought it was a penalty, but Ward didnt complain. Also Sky didnt mention it being controversial. Ill wait to see it myself before commenting I think.I trust you would have wrote this if the penalty was for us rather than against?  [;)]

[First Wazzock 1,014]

No not at the game. Just showing the rules following comments made by Adams on Radio Norfolk.

[Harry 0]

snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5

[Trent Canary 0]

Well as I said ill wait and see. It was probably one of those decision that one set of fans will think should have gone their way, and the other set of fans think it should have been the opposite.It sounds likely that it was accidental and no penalty, hopefully the ref hasnt caved in to the home fans.

[Lewie - Holt Our Saviour 0]

[quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty

[Largey 0]

Take a look at the highlights on SSN. Barnett heads it out and it doesmhit Wards hand. Now in my opinion he had time to move out of the way, the camera angle wasn''t great but i would have been annoyed if the opposition had got away with it against us.

Great header by Hoolahan!

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="Largey"]Take a look at the highlights on SSN. Barnett heads it out and it doesmhit Wards hand. Now in my opinion he had time to move out of the way, the camera angle wasn''t great but i would have been annoyed if the opposition had got away with it against us. Great header by Hoolahan![/quote]

Maybe he did have time to get out of the way, but was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he intentionally play it?

[Largey 0]

For me, it looked like he tried to control it but it hit his hand. As I say, the camera was a bit slow so I did not see it concisely, but there was certainly enough time between Barnett headering it out and hitting Wards hand, for him to get out of the way. May I add, there was very little complaints from any City players, including Ward himself.

[YarmouthCanary 0]

[quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]Silly question I know... who are snorfolk?

[Largey 0]

Radio Norfolk = Snorefolk :)

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Lewie - Holt Our Saviour"][quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty[/quote]Laughage[:D]

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Lewie - Holt Our Saviour"][quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty[/quote]Yeah.  Radio Norfolk seemed pretty certain too.

[Guest]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="Lewie - Holt Our Saviour"][quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty[/quote]Yeah.  Radio Norfolk seemed pretty certain too.[/quote]Apparently BBC Radio Norfolk were saying the same.

[Phyxius 0]

[quote user="Northluck C."][quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="Lewie - Holt Our Saviour"][quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty[/quote]Yeah.  Radio Norfolk seemed pretty certain too.[/quote]Apparently BBC Radio Norfolk were saying the same.[/quote]Anybody know what Radio Norfolk''s view of the incident was??

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="First Wazzock"]

Maybe he did have time to get out of the way, but was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he intentionally play it?

[/quote]If you have a chance to move your hand out of the way but don''t then surely the referee has to decide that you''re intentionally handling it? You can''t argue over semantics or else you would never be able to give a penalty unless a defender deliberately swiped the ball away with a hand.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="Phyxius"][quote user="Northluck C."][quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="Lewie - Holt Our Saviour"][quote user="Harry"]snorefolk say it wasn''t a penalty and so do Radio 5 [/quote]radio Norfolk were also adament that it wasn''t a penalty[/quote]Yeah.  Radio Norfolk seemed pretty certain too.[/quote]Apparently BBC Radio Norfolk were saying the same.[/quote]Anybody know what Radio Norfolk''s view of the incident was??[/quote]To be honest, I''m not interested in that.  I''d rather hear Radio Norfolk''s view.

[Trent Canary 0]

My take is that it was not intentional, but if it was the other way round we would be apoplectic if it wasnt given. Also if that was outside the box it would have been given every time. For me it goes back to our discussion a few weeks back, that sort of offence isnt enough to be a penalty as the ball was going away from goal, but clearly an offence has taken place as the defender had enough time to move out of the way. Indirect free kick for me [;)]By the law it wasnt a penalty as it wasnt intentional (IMO), but id guess that 80% of handball decisions in and out of the box are not intentional.

[Mister Chops 7]

And Law 33a ("Clattenburg''s Law"), which also states:If a player falls on the ball and handles it, a free kick shall not be given and the player who committed the offence shall then be allowed to have a free shot at goal, provided the player plays for Manchester United and the game is being played at Old Trafford.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Personally, I think this ''ball to hand'' rule is a bit fuzzy.

If Ward were stood on the goal line and the same thing happened, you would have to say it was a pen. He would have prevented a goal with his hand if intentional or not, so it would have to be a pen.

I think a change in direction or effect on the play should also be factored in regardless of intent.

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]Personally, I think this ''ball to hand'' rule is a bit fuzzy. If Ward were stood on the goal line and the same thing happened, you would have to say it was a pen. He would have prevented a goal with his hand if intentional or not, so it would have to be a pen. I think a change in direction or effect on the play should also be factored in regardless of intent.[/quote]

By what you have just said then, it should NOT have been a penalty. There were no Cardiff players who were denied getting the ball in this instance.

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="First Wazzock"]

Maybe he did have time to get out of the way, but was it ball to hand or hand to ball, did he intentionally play it?

[/quote]

If you have a chance to move your hand out of the way but don''t then surely the referee has to decide that you''re intentionally handling it? You can''t argue over semantics or else you would never be able to give a penalty unless a defender deliberately swiped the ball away with a hand.
[/quote]

I did quote the rules at the start but it all boils down to the opinion of the Referee. Intent is hard to read at the best of times.

Somedays the decision appears clear cut and others it appears contentious.

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]And Law 33a ("Clattenburg''s Law"), which also states:

If a player falls on the ball and handles it, a free kick shall not be given and the player who committed the offence shall then be allowed to have a free shot at goal, provided the player plays for Manchester United and the game is being played at Old Trafford.
[/quote]

Not the first time he''s stuffed Spurs at Old Trafford !!!

[Jacko 0]

When I was listening on the radio I assumed the ball must have hit Ward really close in and there was little he could have done to have got his hands out of the way. But actually it was a fairly firm header which travelled quite a long way before it hit Ward on the hard so it looked like a pretty legitimate decision to me. I can understand why it was given to be honest.

I would be more concerned with our defending of set pieces rather than having a go at the ref. We have been undone by Watford, Crystal Palace (twice), Barnsley, Leicester and now Cardiff. I love Lambert but I am fed up with him saying it is not like us to concede set pieces. It really is sadly as the above games have shown.To concede from a long punt downfield is also pretty disappointing. Sounds like we played some decent football but we conceded two really cheap goals so the game was pretty much over as a contest. Not too devasted though and I think we can get back on track against Burnley next Saturday.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Personally, I think this ''ball to hand'' rule is a bit fuzzy. If Ward were stood on the goal line and the same thing happened, you would have to say it was a pen. He would have prevented a goal with his hand if intentional or not, so it would have to be a pen. I think a change in direction or effect on the play should also be factored in regardless of intent

By what you have just said then, it should NOT have been a penalty. There were no Cardiff players who were denied getting the ball in this instance.

Thats right Waz. There was no advantage to Ward or Norwich and that should be an important factor in making a judgement where a player is clearly not intentionally handling the ball.

[Herman 11,136]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]And Law 33a ("Clattenburg''s Law"), which also states:

If a player falls on the ball and handles it, a free kick shall not be given and the player who committed the offence shall then be allowed to have a free shot at goal, provided the player plays for Manchester United and the game is being played at Old Trafford.
[/quote]

Ha,brilliant.What a shocker that was.I don''t think Spurs would have won the game but that ''goal'' was an outrage.Did the lineo bottle it?

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]Personally, I think this ''ball to hand'' rule is a bit fuzzy. If Ward were stood on the goal line and the same thing happened, you would have to say it was a pen. He would have prevented a goal with his hand if intentional or not, so it would have to be a pen. I think a change in direction or effect on the play should also be factored in regardless of intent

By what you have just said then, it should NOT have been a penalty. There were no Cardiff players who were denied getting the ball in this instance.

Thats right Waz. There was no advantage to Ward or Norwich and that should be an important factor in making a judgement where a player is clearly not intentionally handling the ball.[/quote]Yep thats something I completely agree with. I dislike seeing game-changing penalties awarded for fouls or offences that in no way stopped a goalscoring opportunity. But again its tough because if that was outside the area it would have been given as a free-kick all day long.Personally I can see reasons for it to have been given, and reasons for it not to be given. Unfortunaetly we were on the wrong end of this one.

[Heresyourfathersgun 0]

If you watch the clip, Ward moves his hand to where the ball hit it, in an attempt to get it out of the way. I don''t think the movement was intentionally to play the ball, but the result is the ref sees movement of the hand and contact with the ball.

 

He''s then entitled to conclude the handball was deliberate.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I''m as partisan as any Norwich fan and I was at the game. I''ve learnt in life that your first gut reaction to a situation will normally be the right one. As soon as the incident happened I though that was a penalty!

 

As regards to Norwich getting hard done well at the end of the day we were beaten by a better side and we threatened much less in the 2nd half than what we did in the 1st half. Yes the penalty was harsh on us but it was the correct decision. And anyway I thought Cardiff should of had another penalty late on in the game when Crofts blatantly handled the ball in the box but I think the ref thought after giving one he couldn''t give another!

 

End of the day we could of played better but we wern''t that bad and we were playing a team that were the best I''ve seen so far and look nailed onto go up!

[Barclaybred 0]

Adams on FM 95.10 says it wasnt a pen!