Handball

[themossman]

What if the ball and hand are moving towards each other at exactly the same velocity?

[PeterWithesShin]

What if it's a ghost hand from one of the players Mings killed?

[lovejoy]

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.

[Ads]

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.

[ADVILLAFAN]

I haven't seen it, but would have awarded a penalty to PSG if I was the ref.

[Ad@m]

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

[Clark W Griswold]

The award was given in favour of Manchester United, presenting them with a clear advantage, therefore the decision was obviously incorrect.

[ChicagoLion]

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.

[Ad@m]

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?

[Lastfootstamper]

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.

[lovejoy]

What is “not short” and “not close”?
This uefa interpretation seems a bit of a turkeys and Christmas situation.

[KRS]

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.

[lovejoy]

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.

[KRS]

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".

[Ad@m]

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