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

[Sheebo]

Agree completely. I hate it.

Just correcting people’s misunderstanding of the rules, as they stand - that’s all.

Yeh as I said on this thread I hold my hands up to not knowing them. I’m pleased to know but now feel annoyed at them as they aren’t clear. Just hate VAR either way. Even said it after Kane’s goal was ruled out against us Boxing Day - it’s just ruining the experience.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct, and the IFAB rules don't state that. If you're a ref, reffing a Championship game, where no VAR is available, and you spot an accidental handball in the build up to the goal, and you then allow the goal to stand, then you would be knowingly misapplying the new IFAB rules.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

Thats true. But the rule was only changed to make judging handball easier in VAR situations. The implication is that no VAR, no rule change.

Its just another unintended consequence of VAR that a previously perfectly-good goal has been disallowed (and its not the first this season, but it is the most dramatic)

 

[Sheebo]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct, and the IFAB rules don't state that. If you're a ref, reffing a Championship game, where no VAR is available, and you spot an accidental handball in the build up to the goal, and you then allow the goal to stand, then you would be knowingly misapplying the new IFAB rules.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

Correct - and that’s another example of the FA or whoever only really caring about the premier league. Don’t care that we’re in it now. Used to happen a lot when we were lower leagues eg look after the prem before the others... So yes you’re right but still think it was only changed for VAR coming into the prem purposes and the lower leagues just have to live with the rule change.

Anyway, good use of NSC tonight all - a proper debate and proper football talk with likeminded fans - what it should be for

 

[Acker79]

I think it’s impossible to get the rule right. It’s always going to be down to opinion in a way. As I said, very, very few handballs are ‘deliberate’ and pre meditated as such.

Agreed. I think it applies to many rules in football. Partly because there is no one unified idea of what football should be, or how it should be played so some people will always take issue with aspects of various laws. But also because we want clear, simple, definitive rules, that are consistently applied... until there's an incident where we want some flexibility in the law, a little "common sense", appreciation for the magnitude of a particular game, or the story of a particular game (e.g. the drama of a late equalising goal being disallowed due to a black and white law).

 

[Gotsmanov]

Here's the IFAB explanation on the rule change:

Explanation
Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when ‘non-
deliberate’ handball is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles:
• football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
• football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control
of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a
goal-scoring opportunity

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

 

[Weststander]

Thats true. But the rule was only changed to make judging handball easier in VAR situations. The implication is that no VAR, no rule change.

Its just another unintended consequence of VAR that a previously perfectly-good goal has been disallowed (and its not the first this season, but it is the most dramatic)

As [MENTION=3566]hans kraay fan club[/MENTION] expertly summarised: “It was a clear handball. It didn’t just brush his hand - without stopping it with his hand, he never would have got that ball under control. Rice absolutely knew it as well, despite his ‘wtf’ reaction.”

 

[BN41Albion]

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

Sheff utd fans have been moaning/chanting against bloody var all season, too. What a joke it all is

 

[Super Steve Earle]

I like VAR. I feel comfortable that on the whole it has levelled the playing field to avoid unintentional bias. Entirely right that the West Ham goal was disallowed tonight.

 

[crodonilson]

est Ham boss David Moyes speaking to BBC Sport: "First of all I thought my players were terrific. We didn't deserve to lose.

"It was a good goal. Anybody who has played football or been around the game knows it was a good goal. Declan Rice did really good to break through the middle.

"I'm just telling you it's a really good goal. From my point of view and the people who watch football, the decision is not right.

"I wouldn't say I'm a great fan [of VAR] but we have to come to terms with it. People who have played football know when it's not right and tonight is one of those situations."

 

[perseus]

Having played football don’t you think that’s mental? I didn’t like the ‘official’ handball rule before either and it was never interpreted properly by many refs as it would have caused riots. Ie - ‘deliberate handball’ - very very few handballs are ‘deliberate’. I think it should just be it’s handball if your arm is in an unattractive position and plays the ball. That would be a slightly clearer rule...? Although it’s a very tough one and will never be a rule to please everyone. My head hurts.

I was taught in the sixties it was controlling the ball with your hand that was illegal, deliberate or accidental, hitting the arm was generally not penalised.

 

[Stuart Munday]

They should of changed the rules that if you scored with your arm the goal would be disallowed even if it was accidental. To make any goal invalid if an accidental handball occurs in the build up is rediculous, I mentioned on here weeks ago what happens if the goalkeeper kicks the ball to a winger and the ball bounces and hits his hand, should he run on and cross the ball in or just kick the ball out of play.

 

[big nuts]

They should of changed the rules that if you scored with your arm the goal would be disallowed even if it was accidental. To make any goal invalid if an accidental handball occurs in the build up is rediculous, I mentioned on here weeks ago what happens if the goalkeeper kicks the ball to a winger and the ball bounces and hits his hand, should he run on and cross the ball in or just kick the ball out of play.

No he should carry on and hope they don’t score but instead force a corner or a free kick in a dangerous area. Then VAR won’t penalise the handball. This is how ridiculous the rules are at present.

 

[Stat Brother]

Having just seen it I have no idea why there's a debate.
With or without VAR that's a clear and obvious handball, as he maintained control of the ball with his arm.

The only debate that could arise from this would be if the PL were still refusing VAR and it would be held up as a prime example as to why we should have it.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Having just seen it I have no idea why there's a debate.
With or without VAR that's a clear and obvious handball, as he maintained control of the ball with his arm.

The only debate that could arise from this would be if the PL were still refusing VAR and it would be held up as a prime example as to why we should have it.

The debate is clear, that was an unintentional handball which up until the rule change would have been no problem, and that is how all of us have been brought up playing and watching the game. If you personally like the new rule, fine, but it doesn't sit easy with many of us. If they hadn't scored, it would have been fine. If it was the defender in his own box handling it, it would have been fine. But because snodgrass scored it was penalised. Silly rule

 

[Super Steve Earle]

The debate is clear, that was an unintentional handball which up until the rule change would have been no problem, and that is how all of us have been brought up playing and watching the game. If you personally like the new rule, fine, but it doesn't sit easy with many of us. If they hadn't scored, it would have been fine. If it was the defender in his own box handling it, it would have been fine. But because snodgrass scored it was penalised. Silly rule

Can't agree with you at all. If that goal had been allowed to stand against Albion, I would have been furious.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

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.

I'm now thinking of a situation where the ball accidentally brushes the arm of a defender in his box. Correctly ruled no penalty, not intentional and arms in normal position. The defender hoofs the ball down field where the striker latches on to it and scores. Goal is ruled out because there was a handball in the build up and the referee awards free kick for handball... so it's a penalty after all.....? ?

That would be so completely awesome if it happened. Let's hope its Palace

 

[Stat Brother]

The debate is clear, that was an unintentional handball which up until the rule change would have been no problem, and that is how all of us have been brought up playing and watching the game. If you personally like the new rule, fine, but it doesn't sit easy with many of us. If they hadn't scored, it would have been fine. If it was the defender in his own box handling it, it would have been fine. But because snodgrass scored it was penalised. Silly rule

It would have been a problem because the unintentional handball directly resulted in a goal.

This isnt a "VAR disallowed goal" as the BBC said in their headline.

If it had stood, in the good old days, it would have been a goal as a 'direct result of referee incompetence - we need to get these errors out of the game'.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It would have been a problem because the unintentional handball directly resulted in a goal.

This isnt a "VAR disallowed goal" as the BBC said in their headline.

If it had stood, in the good old days, it would have been a goal as a 'direct result of referee incompetence - we need to get these errors out of the game'.

Have you morphed into triggar? Unintentional handball wasn't an offence as recently at least season

 

[big nuts]

It would have been a problem because the unintentional handball directly resulted in a goal.

This isnt a "VAR disallowed goal" as the BBC said in their headline.

If it had stood, in the good old days, it would have been a goal as a 'direct result of referee incompetence - we need to get these errors out of the game'.

Not really incompetence to not spot a ball hitting the arm from point blank range, with his hands and arms next to his body.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Can't agree with you at all. If that goal had been allowed to stand against Albion, I would have been furious.

Why? The rule was pretty clear that handballs were only penalised if deliberate.

I guess if you've always hated that rule then fair enough, but it was the rule. Now you're happy.