[Albion] Premier League 10-12/1/20

[Green Cross Code Man]

Harsh on West Ham?

Sorry, meant the goal should have stood and that it would have been harsh on Sheffield after their performance in the second half.

 

[perseus]

If his arm isn't there, what happens? I only caught a glance at the replay, but it looked like if it doesn't hit Rice's arm it goes away from him and he doesn't get possession. Surely if he has benefited from the handball, it's not really an injustice?

Blatant, prevented larceny, although neither team deserved to win overall.

How did we fail to beat West Ham at home?

 

[Coldeanseagull]

You’ll change your mind when you’ve seen it.

‘Clear and obvious’ is not relevant in this case at all. It’s an absolutely black and white rule. It’s really not down to interpretation nor is it subjective.

The ball hits your arm in scoring or setting up a goal = handball.

There’s literally no confusion whatsoever (apart from people who have not kept up with the rules).

The ruling is clear, it hits your arm and it's handball.

It's a shit rule

 

[dazzer6666]

If it hadn’t hit his hand, it’s very unlikely a goal would have resulted. Harsh, as it wasn’t deliberate, but 100% the correct decision under current laws.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

You’ll change your mind when you’ve seen it.

‘Clear and obvious’ is not relevant in this case at all. It’s an absolutely black and white rule. It’s really not down to interpretation nor is it subjective.

The ball hits your arm in scoring or setting up a goal = handball.

There’s literally no confusion whatsoever (apart from people who have not kept up with the rules).

Its a black and white rule, no doubt about it. But why does that rule exist in the first place? Why was the 'accidental handball' rule removed?

V A R

 

[Gotsmanov]

On the plus side, Maradona's goal would have been disallowed.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

 

[Sheebo]

You’ll change your mind when you’ve seen it.

‘Clear and obvious’ is not relevant in this case at all. It’s an absolutely black and white rule. It’s really not down to interpretation nor is it subjective.

The ball hits your arm in scoring or setting up a goal = handball.

There’s literally no confusion whatsoever (apart from people who have not kept up with the rules).

I admittedly haven’t as I didn’t know this. But because of VAR there is now different handball rules for ‘leading to goals’ and ‘everything else’ - have I understood that right? If so that’s mad isn’t it? Yes if that’s TY e case it sounds like you’re right about the goal being disallowed - but don’t you think that’s mental? VAR shouldn’t change the rules of football.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

You’re saying the new rule is simply ‘if it hits an a it’s handball’? If that’s the case refs and VAR haven’t been following the rules this season. There’s been lots of talk of ‘unnatural positions’ all season. So what’s correct?!

I’m confused. It’s a different rule for if a goal is scored to a normal handball? So a penalty handball is a different rule to a disallowed goal handball?! Wtf?

That is correct yes. The handball rules for defenders and (goal scoring) attackers, are NOT the same. The former requires intent (or at least an unnatural arm position). The latter does not.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

You’re saying the new rule is simply ‘if it hits an a it’s handball’? If that’s the case refs and VAR haven’t been following the rules this season. There’s been lots of talk of ‘unnatural positions’ all season. So what’s correct?!

This highlights the biggest problem. According to the powers that be, they’re both correct.
They’ve created different laws and interpretations for different contexts.

 

[BNthree]

You’re saying the new rule is simply ‘if it hits an a it’s handball’? If that’s the case refs and VAR haven’t been following the rules this season. There’s been lots of talk of ‘unnatural positions’ all season. So what’s correct?!

Both are correct.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49236534

Deliberate handball is still an offence, but accidental handball can also be a free-kick or penalty.

Even if it's a mistake, if the ball goes into the goal off an attacking player's hand, then a free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team.

The same applies if a player gets the ball using his or her arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity. It's also handball if a player's arm is above their shoulders or if their arms have made their body unnaturally bigger.

Controversially, that means that even if a player has their hands behind their back, if they are judged to have made their body bigger, a penalty or free-kick will still be awarded.

 

[Acker79]

Isn't handball supposed to be intentional? I know they've changed it for the purposes of VAR in the last year, but for the previous 100 years haven't we all been satisfied that handball has to be intentional to be penalised?

I don't know if it was that for 100 years, but certainly in recent years, the offence was 'deliberate handling' and had to include, 'in the opinion of the referee' intent. But pundits were never happy with that. Suarez scored a goal for Liverpool (I seem to remember it being against Sunderland) off his arm. People were up in arms (pun not intended, but left in there), couldn't understand why the ref allowed it (iirc, it was on the blindside of the ref, so no idea if he would have allowed it if he'd seen the contact). There was a Newcastle goal (again, I think against Sunderland, poor them), it was crossed in and the forward tried to head it. No one noticed, that he missed it with his head, and it went in off his arm. On goals on Sunday, Kammy was railing against the goal and how, despite the law saying it has to be intentional, it should be disallowed. Just as a couple of examples that spring to mind. (The Kammy one sticks in my mind because it came a week or two after he ranted about refs giving handball penalties for handballs that Kammy didn't think were deliberate and he made a big deal about how it has to be deliberate).

So no, we haven't been satisfied with it, up until now. There have always been calls that it can't just be about intent, they have to take into account how a team benefits from the handling.


This interview with Declan Rice - has a tone of someone dying. FFS, it's a game of football. He didn't think it would be disallowed? Has he been paying any attention this season? It was quite well publicised at the start of the season, all the rule changes with the introduction of VAR, there have been multiple instances of goals being disallowed for non-intentional handballs. Why are people acting like this is something special?

 

[Is it PotG?]

VAR shouldn’t change the rules of football.

VAR hasn't, in this instance..It's the roolz innit?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

On the plus side, Maradona's goal would have been disallowed.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

But he didn't handball it. It was GOD.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What this means is that fans will never be able to go batshit crazy at a goal at the death ever again. One of the best feelings as a fan is getting a last minute goal to pinch a win or rescue a point, that moment in time. VAR is stealing those precious moments.

 

[redoubtable seagull]

Importantly that keeps West Ham below us on 22 points.

 

[Sheebo]

VAR hasn't, in this instance..It's the roolz innit?

But my understanding is the rules were changed for VAR’s introduction?

I’m not disagreeing with anyone on this thread - I’m literally holding my hands up and admitting I didn’t know these new rules and asking to be educated clearly!

 

[BN41Albion]

Sheffield United have won 8 (eight) games out of 22 and find themselves in 5th. If we'd been better in front of goal in some of our games then we could very easily be in their position considering performances.

 

[Seasider78]

What this means is that fans will never be able to go batshit crazy at a goal at the death ever again. One of the best feelings as a fans is getting a last minute goal to pinch a win or rescue a point, that moment in time. VAR is stealing those precious moments.

Very much this look at the West Ham end and player celebrations at the end then the gloating by the Sheff United fans as some bloke in a room miles away steals all of that euphoria

The soul is being ripped from the game

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I don't know if it was that for 100 years, but certainly in recent years, the offence was 'deliberate handling' and had to include, 'in the opinion of the referee' intent. But pundits were never happy with that. Suarez scored a goal for Liverpool (I seem to remember it being against Sunderland) off his arm. People were up in arms (pun not intended, but left in there), couldn't understand why the ref allowed it (iirc, it was on the blindside of the ref, so no idea if he would have allowed it if he'd seen the contact). There was a Newcastle goal (again, I think against Sunderland, poor them), it was crossed in and the forward tried to head it. No one noticed, that he missed it with his head, and it went in off his arm. On goals on Sunday, Kammy was railing against the goal and how, despite the law saying it has to be intentional, it should be disallowed. Just as a couple of examples that spring to mind. (The Kammy one sticks in my mind because it came a week or two after he ranted about refs giving handball penalties for handballs that Kammy didn't think were deliberate and he made a big deal about how it has to be deliberate).

So no, we haven't been satisfied with it, up until now. There have always been calls that it can't just be about intent, they have to take into account how a team benefits from the handling.


This interview with Declan Rice - has a tone of someone dying. FFS, it's a game of football. He didn't think it would be disallowed? Has he been paying any attention this season? It was quite well publicised at the start of the season, all the rule changes with the introduction of VAR, there have been multiple instances of goals being disallowed for non-intentional handballs. Why are people acting like this is something special?

Declan Rice said the opposite of what you claim. He actually said he thought it would be disallowed. Early in the interview he said he hadn't realised it was handball as it was the heat of the moment and he was just running through.

 

[Sheebo]

Both are correct.

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/49236534

Deliberate handball is still an offence, but accidental handball can also be a free-kick or penalty.

Even if it's a mistake, if the ball goes into the goal off an attacking player's hand, then a free-kick will be awarded to the opposing team.

The same applies if a player gets the ball using his or her arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity. It's also handball if a player's arm is above their shoulders or if their arms have made their body unnaturally bigger.

Controversially, that means that even if a player has their hands behind their back, if they are judged to have made their body bigger, a penalty or free-kick will still be awarded.

That Man U goal against us at OT most definitely should have been rules out then as it does touch Maguires arm!?