[Albion] Taylor already ignoring new guidelines

[Uh_huh_him]

I am trying to be pragmatic and not whingy

The handball did deny a potential opportunity but his hand was in a totally natural position when falling. Dunk last week was obviously a deliberate handball as he has eyes in his back, apparently No consistency at all but we are used to being on the wrong end of that, live with it

I don't think the laws identify "a natural position", I thought it was about making your body bigger?
I think the natural position argument is just pundit speak.

if a player is diving in to stop a ball, they aren't in control of their body.
I don't see why a defender should be allowed an advantage just because the attacking team has exposed their defence and is in a strong attacking position.
Yesterday's offence benefited the defending team far more than Dunk's did.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

I don't think the laws identify "a natural position", I thought it was about making your body bigger?
I think the natural position argument is just pundit speak.

if a player is diving in to stop a ball, they aren't in control of their body.
I don't see why a defender should be allowed an advantage just because the attacking team has exposed their defence and is in a strong attacking position.
Yesterday's offence benefited the defending team far more than Dunk's did.

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
• scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

It is in the laws of the game.

Taylor’s interpretation is correct to be honest. It was incorrect when it was given against Dunk for the same action.

 

[chrisg]

‘By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball’

So don’t slide in. As yesterday sliding in and blocking a cross with his hand,
Man City game today- I haven’t seen it, but sounded the same slide in and attempt to block a cross and a penalty

 

[Bodian]

‘By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball’

So don’t slide in. As yesterday sliding in and blocking a cross with his hand,
Man City game today- I haven’t seen it, but sounded the same slide in and attempt to block a cross and a penalty

https://spider.dubzcdn.co/storage/videos/e188aa.mp4?_=1

Video here.

 

[ChickenBaltiPie]

Surprised no one has mentioned it, but what had me RAGING so many times I lost count was the number of times the numpty got in the way of our players. I’ve nev seen anything like it! It was making me CRAZY!! He just kept on doing it over and over and didn’t seem to learn/adapt/adjust.

 

[Machiavelli]

The foul on Pervis was a clear penalty. Poor performance although not terrible.
A goal at that point would have made it interesting.

This is the good ol' ref-bashing thread, given extra venom because we lost.
I think we had a good shout for the Pervis penalty, but it wasn't clear. What may have swung it against us was the way Pervis went down, way too theatrical.

 

[tigertim68]

Stopwatch works fine. I stopped it for all of that. Surprised me too as I thought he’d underestimated the first hal

 

[tigertim68]

Just listened to Talksport reckoned we should of had at least 2 penalties

 

[Machiavelli]

That to me was very similar to the pen that City got today -- it's not comparable to the Dunk one vs Luton because of the distance. FWIW, I don't think the City one or our one yesterday should be penalties. But, then again, I don't understand the hand ball rule for penalties. I don't think too many others do either.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

That to me was very similar to the pen that City got today -- it's not comparable to the Dunk one vs Luton because of the distance. FWIW, I don't think the City one or our one yesterday should be penalties. But, then again, I don't understand the hand ball rule for penalties. I don't think too many others do either.

Mainly because the interpretation is so inconsistent, he definitely made himself bigger yesterday, but was it unnatural, could the defender have slid differently? I didn’t think Pervis was, nor Mitoma, but when I saw Mitoma’s later on TV, I felt it was clear and obvious.

 

[Morvangull]

One decision I was totally confused about, although not really affecting the game was an offside given against us when Areola pushed out a shot to our player near the corner flag. I thought a deliberate touch by an opponent meant not offside

 

[trueblue]

One decision I was totally confused about, although not really affecting the game was an offside given against us when Areola pushed out a shot to our player near the corner flag. I thought a deliberate touch by an opponent meant not offside

Unless they’ve changed it recently, if the ball comes to a player who was offside via the goalkeeper or woodwork that is deemed to be ‘gaining an advantage’.

 

[Bodian]

One decision I was totally confused about, although not really affecting the game was an offside given against us when Areola pushed out a shot to our player near the corner flag. I thought a deliberate touch by an opponent meant not offside

More annoying was why March played it at all - if he'd let it go, we'd have had a corner or throw-in. Or maybe that's why he touched it - we have more chance of scoring after free-kick to the opposition than from our corners!

 

[Coalburner]

Not the ref’s finest game, Paqueta should have been carded and if he’d given the penalty against whoever fouled Pervis in the box, I doubt VAR would have overturned it.

West Ham played the perfect game against us though.

The ref must be on a promise tonight and wanted to get away, added time was nowhere near enough, especially in the first half.

Howard Webb said that he wants players to show respect for referees. Perhaps if referees showed respect for the laws of the game, there would be less controversy

 

[Seagull58]

Howard Webb said that he wants players to show respect for referees. Perhaps if referees showed respect for the laws of the game, there would be less controversy

This is the nub of the problem; the officials are arrogant, incompetent and biassed but they expect players and coaches to show respect.
Taylor's performance yesterday deserved only a P45.

 

[Winker]

Just listened to Talksport reckoned we should of had at least 2 penalties

This, the flattening of Pervis when the defender made no attempt to get the ball and the trip on Mitoma (which I don't remember).

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

One decision I was totally confused about, although not really affecting the game was an offside given against us when Areola pushed out a shot to our player near the corner flag. I thought a deliberate touch by an opponent meant not offside

As was I by the lob back to the West Sham keeper in front of the North Stand which the ref deemed not to be a back pass??