Chris Foy - Should Have Gone To Specsavers

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="drurys testamonials V 15"]

[quote user="Yellow Messiah"][/quote]

 

This happened for a couple for their corners. Where''s the Snakepit when you need them?

[/quote]

Yeah I did see this. Absolutely shocking. [:O]

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

However, the key decisions for the linesman are ball out of play and offside. So how on earth are they supposed to do it? Answer... they cannot. Instead they are trying to look along the line, spot handballs/ shirt pulling, be aware of the last man , oh and decide whether a player is active ? Really? All at once? and from the same angle? Are these feckers superman or something?

 

[/quote]I noticed the same eagle eyed linesman today several times looking towards Foy to see which way to award a throw in. This particular behaviour is very common, it''s the most fundamental part of their job and a good percentage of linesmen can''t even decide who last touched a ball inches away from them without guidance from a ref often 30 yards away.A large part of the problem with referees is the problem with the linesmen.

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

However, the key decisions for the linesman are ball out of play and offside. So how on earth are they supposed to do it? Answer... they cannot. Instead they are trying to look along the line, spot handballs/ shirt pulling, be aware of the last man , oh and decide whether a player is active ? Really? All at once? and from the same angle? Are these feckers superman or something?

  [/quote]

I noticed the same eagle eyed linesman today several times looking towards Foy to see which way to award a throw in. This particular behaviour is very common, it''s the most fundamental part of their job and a good percentage of linesmen can''t even decide who last touched a ball inches away from them without guidance from a ref often 30 yards away.

A large part of the problem with referees is the problem with the linesmen.
[/quote]

Ah yes.

The old ''I''m not going to flag until you point which way the throw is going, so that we all go the same way'' ploy!

[First Wazzock 902]

Just to add some balance to this, and not be accused of wearing the green and yellow glasses. I felt Holt was a very lucky boy to stay on the pitch, for his two footed challenge. Full marks to the Sunderland keeper because I''m pretty sure had he made more of a meal of it Holty would have seen red too.

Again poor reffing, but this time and possibly for the only time in the game something went our way.

[CJ 0]

Well another game and once again the referee and his assistants give us nothing. Holt did not go in two footed either and simply went for the ball with one foot hence it spilled out, indeed not convinced keeper had it in both hands when he went for it so could have been good challenge . I remember with Chris Woods in goal exactly the same challenge made by a Coventry forward at Coventry and ref played on and they scored with Chris still lying on ground injured.As for rest of game we certainly AGAIN did not get rub of green. Bunn was questionable as clearly hits chest then onto bottom of arm I suspect given because he was keeper and last man rather than was seen clearly by referee. To me the decision on Bassong is ridiculous on several counts . First the Sunderland player is offside and comes back to attempt to get the ball and hassle Bassong so SHOULD have been flagged as offside and using that to advantage rather that avoiding active play which he needed to do (That is definition of interfering player who is offside he must not try to get involved at all in that phase of play) . Bassong clearly chests ball and it touches arm due to miscontrol and there is clearly no threat to goal. Just a typical weak assistant responding to home fans appeal not thinking.AND THEN to cap it all a good cross clearly stopped a yard inside box in front of assistant by upraised arm given outside box so clearly seen and when appeals went up he was still standing in box for Gods sake!I sometimes wonder if the FA do not make it worse by not giving the officials more flexibility, clearly for example Bassong gains no advantage from his accidental "handball" and no real threat on goal and same with offsides should  stop being so prescriptive. 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Having just seen the incidents only the Rose handball decision was obviously a mistake, and even with that the Norwich players are not screaming for a penalty. There is a bit of pointing but it doesn''t seem as if we were convinced in the moment that it was in the area.

With the Bunn red card it does look as if the ball touches his right arm. Under those circumstances if a goalie comes out of the area and handles the all, even if it is accidental, but in doing so denies a forward a goal-scoring chance (which is what happened here) then the referee doesn''t have much choice. In practice the goalie loses the "accidental" defence. Very similar to the Andy Dibble sending off when we played Stockport in the last regular-season game in the play-off year.

As to Bassong, what is he doing having both arms outstretched like that for no good reason? Possibly the Sunderland player should have been flagged for offside - that is not clear from the brief highlights - but the handball is not an obviously bad decision.

[GJP 79]

Pretty obvious that he guessed at the Bunn decision. No idea* how they failed to give the Rose handball, it was the most clear cut of the lot.

 

*Well, the linesman quite clearly let the home crowd tell him what to do for both Bassong and Rose.

[Stig 0]

[quote user="First Wazzock"][quote user="drurys testamonials V 15"]

[quote user="Yellow Messiah"][/quote]

 

This happened for a couple for their corners. Where''s the Snakepit when you need them?

[/quote]

Yeah I did see this. Absolutely shocking. [:O]

[/quote]

Snodgrass did this a bunch of times too, it happens.

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

I would have been reasonably happy with the controversial decisions against us, had he given us the one in our favour - the penalty against Sunderland for handball. These bloody officials are muppets. Despite having only ten men we should have won yesterday. Sunderland were awful and deserve to be relegated.

[hogesar 9,673]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Having just seen the incidents only the Rose handball decision was obviously a mistake, and even with that the Norwich players are not screaming for a penalty. There is a bit of pointing but it doesn''t seem as if we were convinced in the moment that it was in the area.With the Bunn red card it does look as if the ball touches his right arm. Under those circumstances if a goalie comes out of the area and handles the all, even if it is accidental, but in doing so denies a forward a goal-scoring chance (which is what happened here) then the referee doesn''t have much choice. In practice the goalie loses the "accidental" defence. Very similar to the Andy Dibble sending off when we played Stockport in the last regular-season game in the play-off year. As to Bassong, what is he doing having both arms outstretched like that for no good reason? Possibly the Sunderland player should have been flagged for offside - that is not clear from the brief highlights - but the handball is not an obviously bad decision.[/quote]I think it does hit the underside of his right arm. I wouldn''t say that the ball coming into contact with his arm denied a clear goal-scoring opportunity however as the ball had already come into contact with his chest. Even with replays theres some doubt - so how the fuck did a 90 year old man 30 yards away know beyond reasonable doubt that it did hit his arm?As for bassong - the handball is an obvious bad decision because if the linesman can see that he can also see the Sunderland Player coming back from an offside position - if he''s looking at bassong he can clearly see that.And if he can notice Bassong''s hand ball, why can''t he notice Rose''s which is closer?Absolute disgrace in my opinion.

[norfolkchance1 0]

Had the away fans been placed where they were before this season that handball from Rose would have happened right in front of them and the city fans might have influenced the ref more that it was a penalty. I reckon thats part of the reason these clubs with tall stands like them and Newcastle are sticking the away fans so high.

You only need to remember Matthew Etherington at Carrow Road getting sent off for the ball not in the corner quadrant in front of the snakepit to know refs are influenced by the crowd.

[Buncey 1]

I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. Given that the debate is still ongoing, despite super slow-mo''s, as to whether Bunn should have been sent off, then I can''t see how he can make that call (no pun intended). Now before anybody pulls me up and says it was a big clearance by the Sunderland defender, I can say it was. But it was made from the other side of the pitch and Foy was some 30 yards away from that play. How would he have been able to make a call if, hypothetically, one of our players caught the Sunderland player.Further than just this incident, I noticed Foy was well off the pace, and out of position many times throughout the match. And that''s saying something given how slow the game was. This has been a recurring theme throughout the season. I genuinely struggle to see how the refs can make such big calls if they can''t keep up with play and get a good view. This only adds further reason to get video technology into the game.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Hogestar raises a good point, the ball clearly hits Bunn under the arm/side of his chest initially before bouncing onto the underside of his arm, this means that the handball has not denied the goal scoring opportunity, as the ball had already hit his chest regardless. The decision still should have been given but no way was it a sending off when this is taken in to consideration

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[/quote]My apologies GJP, I have seen your post now. Can only agree that he must have guessed.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[/quote]

My apologies GJP, I have seen your post now. Can only agree that he must have guessed.
[/quote]

 

Somebody needs to go to Specsavers. The pitch there is 115 yards long, so 57.5 yards from half way line to goal-line. The incident was at least 20 yards out from the goal-line, so if Foy had been 40 yards away he would have had to have been in the other half of the pitch. In fact he is in the Norwich half, some distance beyond the 10-yard diameter centre-circle. So roughly speaking he cannot have been more than about 20 yards away.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[/quote]My apologies GJP, I have seen your post now. Can only agree that he must have guessed.[/quote]

 

Somebody needs to go to Specsavers. The pitch there is 115 yards long, so 57.5 yards from half way line to goal-line. The incident was at least 20 yards out from the goal-line, so if Foy had been 40 yards away he would have had to have been in the other half of the pitch. In fact he is in the Norwich half, some distance beyond the 10-yard diameter centre-circle. So roughly speaking he cannot have been more than about 20 yards away.

[/quote]And somebody needs to do some geometry... Your calculation assumes he is "in line" with the incident Purple. He was infact just over the halfway line (I assume you refer to his position after the incident as he is not in view when the "handball occurs") about 10 to 15 yards from the centre of the pitch. Therefore, if we are to be pedantic we should apply Pythagoras'' theorem, and so the distance would be more than 20 yards and over 30 yards (excuse my poetic license of rounding up to 40). Regardless, the point that GJP and I have made still stands. It would take some fantastic eyesight to determine exactly where the ball hit Bunn not to mention assessing whether Bunn had tried to move his arms (even slightly) from the path of the ball. And of course we should consider if there were players in the way including Danny Graham challenging for the ball. This must all be done in a split second without a replay and will have great determination in affecting the outcome of the match.

[hogesar 9,673]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[/quote]My apologies GJP, I have seen your post now. Can only agree that he must have guessed.[/quote]

 

Somebody needs to go to Specsavers. The pitch there is 115 yards long, so 57.5 yards from half way line to goal-line. The incident was at least 20 yards out from the goal-line, so if Foy had been 40 yards away he would have had to have been in the other half of the pitch. In fact he is in the Norwich half, some distance beyond the 10-yard diameter centre-circle. So roughly speaking he cannot have been more than about 20 yards away.

[/quote]And somebody needs to do some geometry... Your calculation assumes he is "in line" with the incident Purple. He was infact just over the halfway line (I assume you refer to his position after the incident as he is not in view when the "handball occurs") about 10 to 15 yards from the centre of the pitch. Therefore, if we are to be pedantic we should apply Pythagoras'' theorem, and so the distance would be more than 20 yards and over 30 yards (excuse my poetic license of rounding up to 40). Regardless, the point that GJP and I have made still stands. It would take some fantastic eyesight to determine exactly where the ball hit Bunn not to mention assessing whether Bunn had tried to move his arms (even slightly) from the path of the ball. And of course we should consider if there were players in the way including Danny Graham challenging for the ball. This must all be done in a split second without a replay and will have great determination in affecting the outcome of the match.[/quote][Y]

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Yellowbeagle"]The ref of the wigan game has just had a stinker too, looks like the refs are determined to have a major influence on the relegation battle. Terrible for football.[/quote]

Ref''s responsible for a 4 point swing re us and Wigan.
[/quote]

 

One day, someone in the referees association will put down their complementary sandwich, take off their FA Blazer, say no to their Cup Final Tickets and admit that the game has gone away from three officials long ago.

 

As somone once said, to solve a problem, first you have to admit there is one. The fact that yet another game has been ruined by incorrect interpretation of the Laws (the worst for me is actually the missed offside - I can''t believe the lino hasn''t seen Fletcher laying on the ground?) must surely get noticed soon?

[/quote]

 

Couldn''t agree more. And the tired old argument that the refs only get one look where as the rest of us have replays doesn''t hold water anymore. The reason they get one look is because the FA won''t take advantage of the technology that is available to them.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Unlike Rugby Union, tennis, rugby league, cricket, etc. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Or are they past that?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="Fellas"]I''m surprised nobody has mentioned this but Chris Foy was some 40 yards away from the play. [/quote]

That''s what I was getting at earlier when I said he guessed at it.

[/quote]

My apologies GJP, I have seen your post now. Can only agree that he must have guessed.
[/quote]

 

Somebody needs to go to Specsavers. The pitch there is 115 yards long, so 57.5 yards from half way line to goal-line. The incident was at least 20 yards out from the goal-line, so if Foy had been 40 yards away he would have had to have been in the other half of the pitch. In fact he is in the Norwich half, some distance beyond the 10-yard diameter centre-circle. So roughly speaking he cannot have been more than about 20 yards away.

[/quote]

And somebody needs to do some geometry... Your calculation assumes he is "in line" with the incident Purple. He was infact just over the halfway line (I assume you refer to his position after the incident as he is not in view when the "handball occurs") about 10 to 15 yards from the centre of the pitch. Therefore, if we are to be pedantic we should apply Pythagoras'' theorem, and so the distance would be more than 20 yards and over 30 yards (excuse my poetic license of rounding up to 40).

Regardless, the point that GJP and I have made still stands. It would take some fantastic eyesight to determine exactly where the ball hit Bunn not to mention assessing whether Bunn had tried to move his arms (even slightly) from the path of the ball. And of course we should consider if there were players in the way including Danny Graham challenging for the ball. This must all be done in a split second without a replay and will have great determination in affecting the outcome of the match.
[/quote]

 

Fellas, I had factored in the geometry, because Foy is slightly - only slightly - to the right. But I confess I hadn''t taken account of the curvature of the earth, and Foy having to bounce his vision off the stratosphere and back down through the troposphere. I would settle for him being about 25 yards away, which is the distance at which a cricket umpire standing slightly back makes far harder decisions all day long as to whether a ball travelling at 90 mph has grazed the edge of the bat or flicked the glove, not to mention instant geometrical calculations as to whether a ball hitting the pads would have gone on to hit the wicket.

And the hard fact is that Foy got it right. The ball does touch Bunn''s right arm. That may have ben a guess, or he may have seen it right.

[Yellow Wal 314]

I would agree that the ball does, in fact, touch Bunn''s arm. That is not the problem.

The word ''intend'' has been removed from all laws of the game .......... except for handball.

The law is quite clear:

FIFA Laws of the Game 2012-13

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)

Now whether or not the ball touches Bunn''s arm is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether Bunn DELIBERATELY handles the ball. I do not believe he did.

The same can be said for Bassong. Only a fool would DELIBERATELY handle the ball as it is going away from danger, it was simply miscontrolled.

On the Rose penalty incident, I do not know where Foy was but there was no way that the linesman could have been sure where the incident took place as he was looking straight at the player, at right angles to the line. He rightfully in my opinion could not be sure, yes, he could signal for the handball, which he did, but he could not be sure about it being a penalty so he could not give it.

And that is why I believe Mr Foy should not have sent Bunn off - because he could not be sure!

[First Wazzock 902]

And that is why I believe Mr Foy should not have sent Bunn off - because he could not be sure!

That is it in a nut shell YW

[First Wazzock 902]

Now the next question is...

What are the powers that be - who deal with match officials - going to do with Foy and the Lino (sorry assistant ref) who can''t see when a player is inside the penalty area when he handles the ball?

 

It always seems to me that Foy has got something seriously against us when it comes to the big decisions. So it would be wonderful if he (or the lino) could explain how he arrived at the wrong decision on a blatantly obvious handball in the penalty area. It wasn''t even a close decision for goodness sake.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

Yellow Wall, you are right that it in theory has to be deliberate handball for a penalty. Ie, hands/arms to ball. But if a player has his hands/arms where they shouldn''t be, and the ball strikes them, and that gives the player an advantage, by way of blocking a shot or cross, or controlling a ball, then that tends - rightly in my view - to be regarded as deliberate. The player, particularly in trying to block a cross or shot, has deliberately made themselves as big an obstacle as possible by outstretching the arms.

[Muffles 8]

This is why football is in the officiating mess it''s in, because no two people/referees can agree on different matters.

 

Wazz is a ref and believes that Bunn should not have been sent off, whereas I am also a referee and agree with Foy. Bunn came tearing out of his area, arms raised and stopped the ball. Whats else is the ref going to do? If he''d kept his arms down and gone to head the ball, it wouldn''t be a debate. However he gave the ref enough reasons to make the handball decision, which I would have done in a similar position.

 

It''s the same argument for the Bassong penalty, while replays still cannot confirm concusively whether it hit his arm or not, there was enough there for a decision to be made. I tell players all the time, keep your hands down and away from the ball - then you don''t give me any reason to blow.

 

The Rose handball miss though was shocking - same assistant as gave the Bassong decision too.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Muffles"]

This is why football is in the officiating mess it''s in, because no two people/referees can agree on different matters.

 

Wazz is a ref and believes that Bunn should not have been sent off, whereas I am also a referee and agree with Foy. Bunn came tearing out of his area, arms raised and stopped the ball. Whats else is the ref going to do? If he''d kept his arms down and gone to head the ball, it wouldn''t be a debate. However he gave the ref enough reasons to make the handball decision, which I would have done in a similar position.

 

It''s the same argument for the Bassong penalty, while replays still cannot confirm concusively whether it hit his arm or not, there was enough there for a decision to be made. I tell players all the time, keep your hands down and away from the ball - then you don''t give me any reason to blow.

 

The Rose handball miss though was shocking - same assistant as gave the Bassong decision too.

 

 

[/quote]

 

That is what I have always assumed refs say. As to the Rose handball, it is no more "deliberate" than the Bunn or the Bassong handball. All three are ball to hand/arm, but in all cases the arms are where they it shouldn''t be and block the ball. And in the Rose case the ref blew up, just as he did with Bunn and Bassong. The only difference was he wrongly gave that one outside the box.

[Butterbean_Canary 0]

[quote user="Muffles"]

This is why football is in the officiating mess it''s in, because no two people/referees can agree on different matters.

 

Wazz is a ref and believes that Bunn should not have been sent off, whereas I am also a referee and agree with Foy. Bunn came tearing out of his area, arms raised and stopped the ball. Whats else is the ref going to do? If he''d kept his arms down and gone to head the ball, it wouldn''t be a debate. However he gave the ref enough reasons to make the handball decision, which I would have done in a similar position.

 

It''s the same argument for the Bassong penalty, while replays still cannot confirm concusively whether it hit his arm or not, there was enough there for a decision to be made. I tell players all the time, keep your hands down and away from the ball - then you don''t give me any reason to blow.

 

The Rose handball miss though was shocking - same assistant as gave the Bassong decision too.

 

 

[/quote]

I personally have nothing against Bassong''s hand ball being a penalty if the Sunderland player was not obviously well offside. Had the player not been there then Bassong would have left it for the keeper, simple as.

Had the player not been there I believe it should have been awarded a penalty but he was well offside, should have been a simple lino decision,

For the record I have nothing against the Bunn decision as I am a keeper and when ever I come out for a ball like that I make sure I put my arms behind my back so if it goes anywhere near my arms it will hit my shoulder, his arms should have been nowhere near the ball,

Rose''s handball was also a blatant one that the ref should have given, he is stood on the edge of the box and can/should have clearly seen it was in the box

[Yellow Wal 314]

Purple - Another copy from the 2012-13 Laws of the Game:

Handling the ball

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into

consideration:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)

• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.)

counts as an infringement

• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an

infringement

I do not see, from the above, how the ''offence'' can have been given as Bunn did not have his arms anywhere except in front of his face to protect himself from a possible challenge from Graham and the ball hitting his underarm was accidental.

Muffles: Bassong was penalised because he was not good enough to control the ball in the way he wanted to. The fact it hit his arm is irrelevant as it obviously was not deliberate, it was not an intentional act to handle it. As it was not deliberate it was not a penalty. As an official you should know that unless you are line with the touchline or goal line it is virtually impossible to know whether or not ''all of the ball has crossed all of the line''. So how you expect an official to know exactly where Rose''s handball took place when he is at 90 degrees to the incident and some twenty yards away is beyond me. I fear for teams you officiate.

Butterbean. As also someone who has played in goal quite a few times I would never move my arms away from the front of my body if I felt I was going to be in a challenge with another player front on. I have had a forward''s shoulder hit me in the chest with some force and would not want it again. If you put your arms behind your back as you challenge for such balls I suggest you will, at some stage, be injured and it could be serious. The first rule of goalkeeping is to protect yourself, and that was what Bunn was doing with his arms at head height.

[Butterbean_Canary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Wall"]Purple - Another copy from the 2012-13 Laws of the Game:

Handling the ball

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into

consideration:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)

• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)

• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement

• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.)

counts as an infringement

• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an

infringement

I do not see, from the above, how the ''offence'' can have been given as Bunn did not have his arms anywhere except in front of his face to protect himself from a possible challenge from Graham and the ball hitting his underarm was accidental.

Muffles: Bassong was penalised because he was not good enough to control the ball in the way he wanted to. The fact it hit his arm is irrelevant as it obviously was not deliberate, it was not an intentional act to handle it. As it was not deliberate it was not a penalty. As an official you should know that unless you are line with the touchline or goal line it is virtually impossible to know whether or not ''all of the ball has crossed all of the line''. So how you expect an official to know exactly where Rose''s handball took place when he is at 90 degrees to the incident and some twenty yards away is beyond me. I fear for teams you officiate.

Butterbean. As also someone who has played in goal quite a few times I would never move my arms away from the front of my body if I felt I was going to be in a challenge with another player front on. I have had a forward''s shoulder hit me in the chest with some force and would not want it again. If you put your arms behind your back as you challenge for such balls I suggest you will, at some stage, be injured and it could be serious. The first rule of goalkeeping is to protect yourself, and that was what Bunn was doing with his arms at head height.[/quote]

I don''t believe Danny Graham was anywhere near close enough to Bunn for Bunn to have his arms up to protect himself. Why he never tried to head it I will never know.

I have had elbows, shoulders and even a blatant headbut thrown at my head, chest and hips. Its comes with the job of being a keeper. I''ve been a keeper since I was 8 and I am now 30 so I have seen it all but as soon as I am out of my box I do all I can to keep my arms away from the ball. When I saw it live I straight away thought handball, why else would his hands be up there

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Fellas, I had factored in the geometry, because Foy is slightly - only slightly - to the right. But I confess I hadn''t taken account of the curvature of the earth, and Foy having to bounce his vision off the stratosphere and back down through the troposphere. I would settle for him being about 25 yards away, which is the distance at which a cricket umpire standing slightly back makes far harder decisions all day long as to whether a ball travelling at 90 mph has grazed the edge of the bat or flicked the glove, not to mention instant geometrical calculations as to whether a ball hitting the pads would have gone on to hit the wicket.And the hard fact is that Foy got it right. The ball does touch Bunn''s right arm. That may have ben a guess, or he may have seen it right.

[/quote]Well we will have to agree to disagree Purple because I still don''t agree with your reckoning of Foy''s position. Regardless, I don''t feel there was a need to be facetious (especially so given that you decided to quote the dimensions of the playing field at the Stadium of Light). I would also add that your comparison to cricket is fallacious. But once again it highlights my point, the umpires have the assistance of television officials who assist in making the most difficult of calls.As pointed out my many people on here, and elsewhere a handball must be deliberate. That can be either deliberate through action or through inaction. From the evidence I have seen, Bunn does not move his arm to the ball. I cannot tell if he deliberately did not move his arm out of the path of the ball. As such I have doubts that a deliberate handball has occurred. I however have the benefit of seeing the incident in slow-motion and zoomed in. Mr Foy does not. I do not think Mr Foy could accurately assess if Bunn had deliberately not moved his arms out of the way. And I repeat, as mentioned by many people, that he must have guessed to reach his decision.