Should it have been a penalty for handball?

[Driver8]

No chance. Far too close and wasn't deliberate. He couldn't possibly have moved it out of the way.

The point is they shouldn't have been in the way. He had his arms out to make himself bigger to block the cross. Def penalty in my eyes.

 

[Paris]

Lets do what the Irish FA did in November 2009. Caroline Lucas must demand a replay!

 

[Everest]

Bruno - no. He was running, arms moving as is natural. The ball came from over his shoulder and hit him on the upper arm which was close to his body.

Chambers - yes. He was standing still, arms out and the ball hit him just on the wrist.. Have your arms like that you're asking for trouble

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

"his arms shouldn't be there".

What, on the side of his body? It's hardly like he's doing an Angle of the North impresssion is it.

If your facing up a winger you have your arms slightly out. You may have to change direction if the winger goes left or right. your arms will ALWAYS be in that position. If Chambers stood there with his arms by your side or tucked behind your back you are COMPLETELY unballanced and restricting your ability to move quickly and adapt.

 

[beefypigeon]

Nope. I think all the pen decisions were spot on. Colunga actually aimed at Chambers arm if you watch the slow-mo replay, and if the ref thinks that's a pen then Arsenal should have one in the first half with Bruno (which was probably more of a penalty as he moved his hand towards the ball).

 

[symyjym]

Nope. I think all the pen decisions were spot on. Colunga actually aimed at Chambers arm if you watch the slow-mo replay, and if the ref thinks that's a pen then Arsenal should have one in the first half with Bruno (which was probably more of a penalty as he moved his hand towards the ball).

Yep he did, nice try and worth a go though, but to be fair Chambers spread his arms out to make himself big. I've seen them given.

 

[Triggaaar]

The photo only tells half the story though, it looks bad but by his movement I really don't think it was intentional.

It doesn't have to be intentional if his arms are out.

 

[pasty]

No. Just been watching MOTD and Chambers didn't stand a chance of getting his hand out the way. If similar was given against us, I'd be fuming.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I don't buy this ball to hand. I saw Marcos Painter get sent off, at Leicester, for a second yellow with his hand out at even less of an angle than Chambers. It was also on the halfway line so not preventing a goal threat.
I wish referees were more consistent.

I agree - I think consistency is the issue.

 

[symyjym]

I don't buy this ball to hand. I saw Marcos Painter get sent off, at Leicester, for a second yellow with his hand out at even less of an angle than Chambers. It was also on the halfway line so not preventing a goal threat.
I wish referees were more consistent.

It is a bit of a grey area. I think that a deliberate handball in the box or ones that clearly prevents a goal should be a penalty, but inconclusive ones that stop the flight of the ball should be a free kick.

It is impossible for the ref to know what the player's intentions really are, but Chambers was definately making himself big by spreading his arms out.

 

[Hungry Joe]

I was very close to the incident - clear penalty any day of the week. Anyone who suggests otherwise is Arsene Wenger.

 

[sully]

The flaw to the argument on MOTD was that one of them said if Chambers had been on the goal line, it would have been a penalty. I don't see what his location on the pitch has to do with anything.

Penalty all the way for me.

I believe the rule should be about whether it changes the direction of the ball, regardless of any intention. Bruno had his entire body in the way, so it didn't change where the ball ended up. Chambers, on the other hand.......

 

[pasty]

The flaw to the argument on MOTD was that one of them said if Chambers had been on the goal line, it would have been a penalty. I don't see what his location on the pitch has to do with anything.

That comment confused the hell out of me too.

The simplest way to resolve all the arguments and take the controversy out of it is to change the rule by removing the "intentional" part of it. Make the rule that handball is simply handball, and if that happens to be in the area, then it is a penalty.

Referees are not mind readers, so how the ref was supposed to know whether Chambers or Bruno "meant" to do what they did last night is beyond me.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That comment confused the hell out of me too.

The simplest way to resolve all the arguments and take the controversy out of it is to change the rule by removing the "intentional" part of it. Make the rule that handball is simply handball, and if that happens to be in the area, then it is a penalty.

Referees are not mind readers, so how the ref was supposed to know whether Chambers or Bruno "meant" to do what they did last night is beyond me.

As per hockey. The ball hits your foot - that's a foul. In the area? Penalty corner.

No intent argument. Foot = foul.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

As per hockey. The ball hits your foot - that's a foul. In the area? Penalty corner.

No intent argument. Foot = foul.

Penalty corners, although a key moment, are not as GOOD a goal opportunity that a football penalty kick.

Alexis sanchez, for example, would EASILY have the ability to just DINK the ball onto you hand, no problem at all.

What an EASY way to win a penalty.