Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Hand Ball Rule



amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,832
Just seen Spurs goal not allowed because there player was fouled and ball touched his arm when he fell. I know what rule is now but it is a farce. Do people think rule will change next season
 






Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,319
Wasn’t even 100% sure it hit his arm as he rotated quickly but either way that is a total disgrace of a decision and needs changing ASAP. Yet Maguire at old Trafford v us doesn’t get disallowed despite it hitting his arm!
 








Sheebo

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2003
29,319


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
[tweet]1278747285837545474[/tweet]
 






Pogue Mahone

Well-known member
Apr 30, 2011
10,946
Clearly, having disallowed it, the game should have restarted with a free kick to Spurs, as Moura was fouled.

Stupid decision.

Quite funny, though.
 




The Wizard

Well-known member
Jul 2, 2009
18,399
The whole disallowed it it so much as grazes an arm is total and utter rubbish, how can defenders block a goal bound shot accidently with their arm and it be said to be accidental but any touch in an attacking sense is illegal? There’s a clear line between an accidental handball and a deliberate one. Scrap the rule and just use judgement to make the decision.
 




dejavuatbtn

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2010
7,573
Henfield
I like watching football but when someone applies the laws like this I just switch off because the result just isn’t fair or sporting in any way. It’s is tantamount to cheating. Well, that so how I feel about it.
 




Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
I don't say this to argue it was a good decision, just to clarify; it was during the fall, not when it was kicked against his back:

Screenshot 2020-07-02 at 19.51.55.png
 




Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

I believe in Joe Hendry
Oct 4, 2003
12,063
I don't say this to argue it was a good decision, just to clarify; it was during the fall, not when it was kicked against his back:

View attachment 125646

I thought it hit his hand as he fell, but the ref signaled for an advantage to Spurs as their player fell. If there is no advantage because the Spurs player handled surely the game should restart with a free kick to Spurs?
 


NEASTGULL

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2006
1,157
Gateshead
What a daft rule that is – In my opinion, the referee acknowledged the foul by waving advantage, however no advantage was ever possible once the ball is deemed to hit the arm/hand. In view of this that is surely denial of a goal scoring opportunity, so a free kick and red card should have been the decision – It may seem harsh bit if you want to apply the letter of the law you can’t have it both ways!
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,921
Brighton
I thought it hit his hand as he fell, but the ref signaled for an advantage to Spurs as their player fell. If there is no advantage because the Spurs player handled surely the game should restart with a free kick to Spurs?

Nah, There used to be this policy or practice that once the ref has signalled he is playing advantage, he can't bring it back, but I'm sure I've seen them wave, and then realise that there is no advantage so pull it back anyway. But even with that in mind, because play continued enough they were able to get a clear shot away, the advantage was played and it can't come back.

It's frustrating, I think, because of the Man U goal against us (at old trafford) where the ball hit maguire's arm and it's not chalked off. Those defending this decision defend it because that is what the rule is, and how it has been applied, but there is clearly an example of it not being applied.
 


Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

I believe in Joe Hendry
Oct 4, 2003
12,063
What a daft rule that is – In my opinion, the referee acknowledged the foul by waving advantage, however no advantage was ever possible once the ball is deemed to hit the arm/hand. In view of this that is surely denial of a goal scoring opportunity, so a free kick and red card should have been the decision – It may seem harsh bit if you want to apply the letter of the law you can’t have it both ways!

It's a free kick to Spurs for the foul, but its never a red card.

At the moment the Sheff Utd player fouls the Spurs player there is no goal scoring opportunity, so there is no red card offence. Even if there was a goal scoring opportunity a red card is not given if the player is making an attempt to play the ball, which i think the Utd player was doing.

The goal scoring opportunity only comes about after the foul, the first hand ball by the Spurs player and then the Sheff Utd player kicking the ball against the Spurs player when hes on the floor (which may actually be a second hand ball). The game should have been stopped after the first hand ball as there was no advantage at that point and Spurs given a free kick.
 




Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

I believe in Joe Hendry
Oct 4, 2003
12,063
Nah, There used to be this policy or practice that once the ref has signalled he is playing advantage, he can't bring it back, but I'm sure I've seen them wave, and then realise that there is no advantage so pull it back anyway. But even with that in mind, because play continued enough they were able to get a clear shot away, the advantage was played and it can't come back.

It's frustrating, I think, because of the Man U goal against us (at old trafford) where the ball hit maguire's arm and it's not chalked off. Those defending this decision defend it because that is what the rule is, and how it has been applied, but there is clearly an example of it not being applied.

That just defies all logic, even for football. Like you i'm certain I've seen refs play an advantage and then call the game back when its clear there isn't one. It's certainly another rule that should be looked at, along with handball, because the advantage he played for Spurs lasted all of a 10th of a second and was gone the moment the handball happened, that goal was never going to stand. As the handball only happened as the result of a foul it should have been brought back for a free kick to Spurs.

I've looked up the rule (http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-5---the-referee) and it states

ADVANTAGE
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalises the offence if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds

I still think there is scope for the ref to restart with the free kick, because as I said above the advantage was over as soon as the handball happened, which was less than a few seconds after the advantage was played. Spurs have been doubly penalised by this.
 
Last edited:


Super Steve Earle

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
8,928
North of Brighton
As usual, where VAR is concerned, I seem to be in a minority of one. But in my eyes, he clearly reaches for the ball as he falls and since the rule says it's handball, VAR confirms it and the goal is rightly disallowed. I have no problem with the law being correctly applied. I would have a problem if Kane (again) had been allowed to have the goal stand. P.S. I Don't have a problem with the law in question either. As I have said many times before, I believe VAR favours the smaller clubs such as ours as it stops unconscious bias in favour of bigger clubs.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here