Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: lovejoy on March 07, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
-
After last nights Man Utd match I am now very confused by the handball rule - can someone explain it to me.
What I think I know is that the ball needs to hit your hand and it needs to be deliberate. Referees interpret deliberate as moving your hand towards the ball or your arm being in an unnatural position. This does not mean your arms need to be behind your back.
I'm not clear how a player jumping with his back to the ball and his arms to the side in a natural position (when jumping) would be handball - but it must be as the ref and VAR agreed.
-
The handball rule is the same as any other.
Whatever benefits Man U, goes.
-
I bet Sky Sports are in melt down today, about Man Utd, they will probably have a 3 hour special on Ole and how brilliant he is!
-
I was amazed that penalty was given.
-
It's one of the easier laws to deal with. If, in the opinion of the referee, (and there it is again) a player deliberately handles the ball, the referee shall stop play and award a direct free kick. This, notwithstanding the referee not being afraid of his paymasters and having full knowledge of the laws. As simple as I can make it: Hand moves towards the ball, penalty. Ball to hand, no intent, play on. I don't keep up with the laws of the game as much as I used to or should do but that isn't too hard.
-
This is what I don't understand. Last night the referee made a sound and reasonable decision in the moment. He awarded a corner. No one protested. Suddenly there's a word in his ear and he has a difficult decision to make. VAR is meant to make life easier, surely!
-
Penalty all day ...player turns his back in play and his arm is out making his body bigger .....
Im sure we would say penalty if it happens Sunday for us against SHA
-
I wouldn't, it wasn't a penalty. I'll also be bloody livid if we get one like that given against us.
-
The only people that jump without using their arms for leverage are "punk rockers pogoing" (one for the teenagers).
-
Not a deliberate attempt to play the ball with the hand! Therefore not a penalty imho.
-
Never a penalty.
-
It was, he looked at the ball as he jumped and his arm went wider. Handball but attempting to make it look like it wasn't.
-
I don't understand how you can jump without your arm goings out a bit for balance. Does the handball rules state your arms must be beside your body OR in an unnatural position?
Genuinely confused.
-
The only thing that is clear in this debate is that the rules are still ambiguous and need to be defined. There are still too many grey areas in the rules that are open to interpretation so they need to be redefined to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
-
My old man was on the phone to me first thing this morning moaning about last night's handball incident. It seems to me that these days ball to hand incidents are more often than not classed as a penalty. So they either have to officially state that in the rules or give the refs a collective kick up the arse. The natural or unnatural arm position decision creates an ambiguous grey area for me as it comes down to a matter of opinion.
-
A penalty for me. Don't be a fanny and turn your back.
-
If it's in doubt, which it sounds like it is, shouldn't they stick with the original decision? Did he give the penalty before checking with VAR, or not give it then change his mind after consulting the technology?
-
If it's in doubt, which it sounds like it is, shouldn't they stick with the original decision? Did he give the penalty before checking with VAR, or not give it then change his mind after consulting the technology?
Gave a corner. Only the guy whose shot it was appealed. Never a penalty for me.
-
Ta. I haven't seen it but I am going to stick with my default position that they're jammy ******.
I think the only time they haven't won since the failed Cardiff manager took over is the only one I actually wanted them to win, against Liverpool. The ******.
-
There is a school of thought in refereeing circles where the interpretation is “ gaining an unfair advantage “.
Completely wrong in my opinion but you see this all the time.
-
You turn your back you get everything you deserve.
-
You turn your back you get everything you deserve.
I'm sticking to Matthew 5:38-40.
-
I thought VAR was going to be there for the referee to refer to - ie. so the ref can ask for video assistance if he's not sure about a decision. If VAR can interfere like it did last night it's effectively VAR that's reffing the game. In which case we might as well remove all responsibility from the bloke on the pitch and just have a panel watching on tellies and telling him when to blow his whistle. That way there'll never be any wrong decisions, ever.
-
There is a school of thought in refereeing circles where the interpretation is “ gaining an unfair advantage “.
Completely wrong in my opinion but you see this all the time.
Not trying to be pedantic C L but the terminology is 'seeking to gain an unfair advantage', there's a subtle difference. Gaining an unfair advantage is benefiting from your actions, seeking to gain can be ignored. Every foul in a game can be seen as seeking to gain an unfair advantage if the referee deems the action deliberate, it's only when the incident goes unpunished is it gaining. I understand what you are saying though.
-
The rules are painfully simple. Against us - no pen. For us - nailed on.
-
It was, he looked at the ball as he jumped and his arm went wider. Handball but attempting to make it look like it wasn't.
That was my feeling too.
-
You turn your back you get everything you deserve.
I'm sticking to Matthew 5:38-40.
And Isaac said unto Jacob, that thyne turn your back on the ball, then thyne turn your back on the Lord!
Blessed he who faces up to ball.
-
I thought VAR was going to be there for the referee to refer to - ie. so the ref can ask for video assistance if he's not sure about a decision. If VAR can interfere like it did last night it's effectively VAR that's reffing the game. In which case we might as well remove all responsibility from the bloke on the pitch and just have a panel watching on tellies and telling him when to blow his whistle. That way there'll never be any wrong decisions, ever.
I thought it was brought in for the purpose of correcting obvious errors, which the decision to award a corner clearly was not (an obvious error).
-
It was an error. It was a penalty and the referee didn't give it. The decision would have cost Man United a spot in the quarter finals.
VAR vindicated.
-
Why don't they just change the rule so that if it hits the hand it's a penalty, regardless of intent.
-
Haven't FIFA (or maybe UEFA) said that they want to see every contact between the ball and hand given as an infringement, discounting any thought of intent. Or words along those lines. Think I have read this somewhere and the feeling is that refs in Champs League etc are complying with this so they remain in favour. Noticeable that not one English ref is in charge of any of this round of matches.
-
Haven't FIFA (or maybe UEFA) said that they want to see every contact between the ball and hand given as an infringement, discounting any thought of intent. Or words along those lines. Think I have read this somewhere and the feeling is that refs in Champs League etc are complying with this so they remain in favour. Noticeable that not one English ref is in charge of any of this round of matches.
It's a ridiculous premise, you already see players deliberately trying to flick the ball up onto the defenders arm in the box, it will just get worse.
-
Haven't FIFA (or maybe UEFA) said that they want to see every contact between the ball and hand given as an infringement, discounting any thought of intent. Or words along those lines. Think I have read this somewhere and the feeling is that refs in Champs League etc are complying with this so they remain in favour. Noticeable that not one English ref is in charge of any of this round of matches.
I don't think that's quite right. They're trying to "simplify it" by saying that if it hits a player's arm when their body is showing a "natural silhouette" then it's not a penalty. If the arms are outstretched or in the air, then it's a penalty. They want to stop the situation where defenders have to have their arms behind their back in a wall for example.
-
It was an error. It was a penalty and the referee didn't give it. The decision would have cost Man United a spot in the quarter finals.
VAR vindicated.
Except it wasn't a penalty and the referee was right not to give it. The decision actually did cost PSG a spot in the quarter finals.
VAR hasn't helped at all, as evidenced by the polarised opinions. It's all still down to the interpretation of one man, as it always was.
-
I haven't seen it but I am going to stick with my default position that they're jammy c***s.
My initial reaction were those last few words. My loathing of Man U had began to lessen over the last few seasons as they'd been (by their standards) going through a rough patch given the sort of results they were achieving. Incidents such as this one brings it back in line. Not once did I hear any commentator, pundit or other say they were extremely lucky or more to the point cd's correct description. Now, the failed Cardiff manager is the messiah. Please, please, please let him get the job so it all turns to shit.
-
You turn your back you get everything you deserve.
I'm sticking to Matthew 5:38-40.
And Isaac said unto Jacob, that thyne turn your back on the ball, then thyne turn your back on the Lord!
Blessed he who faces up to ball.
Remembering to cover thyne goolies.
-
It was an error. It was a penalty and the referee didn't give it. The decision would have cost Man United a spot in the quarter finals.
VAR vindicated.
Except it wasn't a penalty and the referee was right not to give it. The decision actually did cost PSG a spot in the quarter finals.
VAR hasn't helped at all, as evidenced by the polarised opinions. It's all still down to the interpretation of one man, as it always was.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it contradicts the rules. The referee ought to give consideration to a players silhouette for whether the hand was being used to make him bigger, while other factors such as distance from ball etc are considered.
He turns his back, the fanny, and leaps. As a consequence of trying to balance, his arm moves out towards the ball.
It's a soft penalty, but a penalty and he only has himself to blame for turning his back. Never dangle your foot and never turn your back.
-
There is a school of thought in refereeing circles where the interpretation is “ gaining an unfair advantage “.
Completely wrong in my opinion but you see this all the time.
Not trying to be pedantic C L but the terminology is 'seeking to gain an unfair advantage', there's a subtle difference. Gaining an unfair advantage is benefiting from your actions, seeking to gain can be ignored. Every foul in a game can be seen as seeking to gain an unfair advantage if the referee deems the action deliberate, it's only when the incident goes unpunished is it gaining. I understand what you are saying though.
No problem mate, the point is that using this interpretation to handball particularly when ignoring the “ speaking” causes all sorts of problems.
The incident, I can not see how a ref can be sure that is deliberate.
-
Need to keep the arms in the natural position at the side of the body if the arms are away from the side it is deemed an unnatural position it doesn't matter whether you have your back to the play or not. Having said that we see players using their hands and arms unlawfully every week without penalty.
-
Haven't FIFA (or maybe UEFA) said that they want to see every contact between the ball and hand given as an infringement, discounting any thought of intent. Or words along those lines. Think I have read this somewhere and the feeling is that refs in Champs League etc are complying with this so they remain in favour. Noticeable that not one English ref is in charge of any of this round of matches.
It's a ridiculous premise, you already see players deliberately trying to flick the ball up onto the defenders arm in the box, it will just get worse.
They are only changing the rules with regards where teams score a goal because of a handball, not in any other instance.
-
Suppose it helps when Ferguson is the VAR man and Eric his assistant still will take AMA decision like that on Sunday
-
Real time , never a penalty. Ultra slo mo = penalty, as it looked like he had time to use his arms to block. In reality it was never a penalty and ultra slo mo gave the wrong impression. There was no deliberate intent to move his arm to the ball, it was blasted at him (high and wide it looked too).
Classic VAR error. Just like the slightest touch on strikers looking like they’ve been kicked in the air. It’s flawed, but I don’t know the answer.
-
Real time , never a penalty. Ultra slo mo = penalty, as it looked like he had time to use his arms to block. In reality it was never a penalty and ultra slo mo gave the wrong impression. There was no deliberate intent to move his arm to the ball, it was blasted at him (high and wide it looked too).
Classic VAR error. Just like the slightest touch on strikers looking like they’ve been kicked in the air. It’s flawed, but I don’t know the answer.
That's nothing, watch it in ultra ultra slo mo and just behind the handball you can clearly make out Tyrone Mings deliberately stamping on a Reading player's face.
-
From Law 12 Fouls and misconduct. This is specific to handball:
Handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their own penalty area).[1]:36
In determining whether or not a player deliberately handled the ball, the referee has several considerations:
Movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
Distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
Position of the hand ('natural' position versus 'unnatural' position) 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 (considered an extension of the hand)
Hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement (also considered an extension of the hand)[1]:119
If a player commits a direct free kick offence within their own penalty area, a penalty kick is awarded irrespective of the position of the ball, provided the ball is in play.
Hope it helps.
-
Real time , never a penalty. Ultra slo mo = penalty, as it looked like he had time to use his arms to block. In reality it was never a penalty and ultra slo mo gave the wrong impression. There was no deliberate intent to move his arm to the ball, it was blasted at him (high and wide it looked too).
Classic VAR error. Just like the slightest touch on strikers looking like they’ve been kicked in the air. It’s flawed, but I don’t know the answer.
That's nothing, watch it in ultra ultra slo mo and just behind the handball you can clearly make out Tyrone Mings deliberately stamping on a Reading player's face.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine Tyrone Mings deliberately stamping on a Reading player’s face forever” - George Orwell ‘1985.’
-
What if the ball and hand are moving towards each other at exactly the same velocity?
-
What if it's a ghost hand from one of the players Mings killed?
-
Need to keep the arms in the natural position at the side of the body if the arms are away from the side it is deemed an unnatural position it doesn't matter whether you have your back to the play or not. Having said that we see players using their hands and arms unlawfully every week without penalty.
When you jump the natural position for the arms is slightly away from the body, for balance. The unnatural position argument here holds no water.
-
Erm...He's turned his back and he's jumping, so he's in an unnatural position.
The fanny wants popping in a trebuchet. I go fucking spare when some fanny wipe turns their back on a Monday, I bet he got shovellled in the changing room.
-
I haven't seen it, but would have awarded a penalty to PSG if I was the ref.
-
UEFA have explained why it was correct to award the penalty:
But Uefa said the distance the ball covered was "not short" and Kimpembe's arm was "not close" to his body.
Based on this, it added that "the impact could therefore not be unexpected" and "the defender's body [was made] bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal.
"The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick.
"Given that the referee did not recognise the incident clearly during live play [referred to as serious missed incident in the VAR protocol] an on-field review was conducted."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47495707
-
The award was given in favour of Manchester United, presenting them with a clear advantage, therefore the decision was obviously incorrect.
-
UEFA have explained why it was correct to award the penalty:
But Uefa said the distance the ball covered was "not short" and Kimpembe's arm was "not close" to his body.
Based on this, it added that "the impact could therefore not be unexpected" and "the defender's body [was made] bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal.
"The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick.
"Given that the referee did not recognise the incident clearly during live play [referred to as serious missed incident in the VAR protocol] an on-field review was conducted."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47495707
So we go from “deliberate” to “can not be unexpected”.
There you have it, the Laws written in English and now interpreted in UEFA speak, c***s.
-
They're saying the same aren't they? If a defender intentionally makes his body bigger with the expectation that the ball might hit his arm, that's deliberate isn't it?
-
I know it's not quite the same, but in my career as a shite Sunday morning defender, the only time the ball ever hit my hands or arms was when I meant it. But then I never jumped or turned my back like a big scaredy cat.
-
What is “not short” and “not close”?
This uefa interpretation seems a bit of a turkeys and Christmas situation.
-
Turning his back on the ball was a deliberate action but they are still making the assumption that he deliberately blocked the ball with his arm. The shot was hit at pace about 4-5 yards from the player so I wouldn't class that as "not short" given the real time speed, however the players arm is at least a foot from his body as he turns so agree with the "not close" although it is a natural place for the his arm to be as he turns. The ball hits the outside his elbow/lower arm so there's no dispute that it hit his arm or not but whether that was intentional or not is still contentious...but as has been pointed out, if he'd have fronted the ball without turning his back then this incident wouldn't have happened and the ball would have most likely sailed high and wide. Glad I'm not a referee and the rules need to be better defined to remove any uncertainty.
-
I agree KRS, the point about natural position which is what, I think, the interpretation of the rules currently apply undermines the decision because, as you say, his arm was in a natural position. And, as far as I know, turning your back isn’t against the rules.
-
Yep. It's just the same as when a player slides in to make a block and it hits the arm...it wouldn't be a "natural" position as per rules however the arm would be in a natural position for a sliding challenge. They can't ban sliding, turning your back or any other physical action, so they need to amend the rules to something simple such as "if the ball hits any part of the arm, intentional or not, then it is handball" or at the very least "if the ball hits any part of the arm, intentional or not, and it changes the trajectory or direction of the ball for the advantage of the offenders team then it is handball".
-
They've already approved a rule change to handball next year:
Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental.
So that clears that up then...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/47429316
-
Fuck me. What they are effectively saying is you’ve got to deliberately carry yourself so as to minimise the chance of the ball hitting your arm. Which is absurd.
However many times they reword the rules the ref is basically making a best guess about intent. And nobody bar the player will ever know if it’s the right decision or not. It would be better if they just said that rather than all that bollocks about silhouettes.
-
Another case of them fucking about with something that doesn't need fucking about with if a little common sense is applied, but we all know that common sense and football are never used or thought of in the same sentence. Just a case of Ellery and his ilk sitting around trying to think of ways to justify their phoney-baloney jobs.
-
They've replaced the ambiguous intent aspect with an even more ambiguous player silhouette so it's still open to the refs interpretation which will be dependent on the physical position of the offending player in motion. They've made it clear that any handball by the attacking team that results in a goal or goal scoring chance will be flagged, so why don't they just make the same call for handball situations by the defending team and reduce the punishment to a direct free kick rather than penalty unless there was any doubt of intent in preventing a goal or goal scoring chance in the penalty area. As an example, the PSV incident the other day would have resulted in a free kick rather than a harshly awarded game changing penalty in the final minute.
-
Under these rules Richard Dunne would never concede a penalty considering the size of his silhouette.
-
No one could ever accuse Richard Dunne of having a "natural silhouette"!
-
No one could ever accuse Richard Dunne of having a "natural silhouette"!
In the words of a song from my youth, it's nature's way of telling you something's wrong.
Also, what if the player involved is being followed by a moon shadow? I'm not even going to start in on the Herman's Hermits hit which would only add to the confusion.