[Albion] The handball penalty

[South Stand Bonfire]

I’m going to have to watch a replay of the incident as I was convinced Mitoma was fouled/ taken out as he played the ball into the box. Not seen that mentioned so maybe i was mistaken.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If that's a penalty then we may as well all give up now. Ball was kicked at him from a short distance, going out for a throw and hit his thigh first and bounced up to hit his arm which is where it should be (attached to his body)

I'm all for having some Brighton bias but come on

Sometimes the football will hit an arm. Most footballers don't run around with their arms tucked in. We can freeze frame every single one of those occasions where the ball hits the arm and try and justify a handball but it's really losing the whole idea of the rule/law.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

If that's a penalty then we may as well all give up now. Ball was kicked at him from a short distance, going out for a throw and hit his thigh first and bounced up to hit his arm which is where it should be (attached to his body)

I'm all for having some Brighton bias but come on

Sometimes the football will hit an arm. Most footballers don't run around with their arms tucked in. We can freeze frame every single one of those occasions where the ball hits the arm and try and justify a handball but it's really losing the whole idea of the rule/law.

The proximity argument is used a lot to justify why pens aren't given, but since the concept of deliberate handball has been taken away, in favour of "unnatural position, it isn't really relevant.
In theory defenders could spread their arms out as wide as they like, as long as they get close to the ball.
Which would clearly be a nonsense.

The laws need to be simplified.
There are way too many handball penalties now, IMO.
Take it back to deliberate/hand to ball movement.
Far easier to justify that, than the deflection/proximity, unnatural, assessments we have to look at now.

 

[Hugo Rune]

There is nothing in the current IFAB laws that says it's not a penalty if it hits some other part of the body first. Until someone comes up with a justification of why the Premier League is applying the rule differently then that should be a penalty.

I'm in sympathy with the current rules. If you make your body bigger by having your arm in an unnatural position and the ball hits your arm then that is handball. The intent is in the arm position. I also think this makes the 'proximity' argument irrelevant. If you are allowed to have the ball hit your arm because you're close then you might as well go in like a goalkeeper for a close block.

I can't see why the PL and PGMOL can't just say what law they're applying and at least we would know where we stand.

The way the EPL and PGMOL are going, VAR will need a snickometer soon for most handball shouts to make sure the balls has not ‘touched’ another part of the body first.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

With the rules so complicated as they are , it is no wonder that refs, players , pundits and fans get confused.

 

[spence]

Right call no pen. Came off his thigh first. Var will not give that

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Right call no pen. Came off his thigh first. Var will not give that

Unless your name is Dunk

 

[Bozza]

I'm amazed that half of those in the stadium watching live (which is what the poll is asking) saw the ball strike his leg first.

It felt like the whole ground went up appealing for the penalty.

(Whether it ultimately was or wasn't is irrelevant - I wasn't asking that!)

 

[Jovis]

Interesting quote from Howard Webb on the BBC about a similar incident in the Wolves v Luton game.

“Wolves midfielder Joao Gomes handled in the box when the ball caught his arm which was above his head, but only after it had deflected off his boot.

The decision was upheld by the VAR team and Webb explained the "unnatural position" of the player's arm had "trumped" the fact it came off his boot, as far as the officials were concerned.

"I have some sympathy with the player," Webb said. "But don't forget the onfield decision was penalty."”

What? So basically the fact it came off a part of his body first can be ignored if VAR says so? And if the pen on Sunday had been given onfield, on that basis it would have stood? Confusing.

 

[HeaviestTed]

I just wonder if we had var for maradonna’s goal, would it have been stopped?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I just wonder if we had var for maradonna’s goal, would it have been stopped?

If it was doing it’s job, then of course, he handled it.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I thought it was a penalty, but subsequently having seen the replays didn’t.

However, somebody asked would we/the ref have felt the same if VVD was standing on the goal line?

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting quote from Howard Webb on the BBC about a similar incident in the Wolves v Luton game.

“Wolves midfielder Joao Gomes handled in the box when the ball caught his arm which was above his head, but only after it had deflected off his boot.

The decision was upheld by the VAR team and Webb explained the "unnatural position" of the player's arm had "trumped" the fact it came off his boot, as far as the officials were concerned.

"I have some sympathy with the player," Webb said. "But don't forget the onfield decision was penalty."”

What? So basically the fact it came off a part of his body first can be ignored if VAR says so? And if the pen on Sunday had been given onfield, on that basis it would have stood? Confusing.

only shows how stupid interpretation of "unnatural position" is. if im standing still my arm in teh air might be unnatural. if leaning in for a tackle it's not particularly. claiming a handball from a deflection which blocks ball from going out of the area, seems utterly ludicrous. shouldnt the direction matter as much as natural position of the arm?

then next week a deflection is deemed not a penalty. because of how natural an arm position is, not whether its a deflection? they are making it up as they go and covering poor decicions with pathetic excuses.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Was a penalty under the current laws of the game.

Those laws have been constantly rewritten to fit in with VAR though so no wonder no one knows

Two have been given for it this year in the PL

Your second part is why I have sympathy for officials.

 

[Swegulls]

"Unnatural position", hate that rule. As if it's a "natural position" for a defender to keep his arms/hands behind his back. That's unnatural I would say.

 

[worthingseagull]

the only way to stop this constant debate is say either any ball that touches the hand is handball

or

allow all touches with the hand and obviously we cant do that or evryone will just catch the ball and leg it and we'll all be watching rugby

 

[amexer]

This sums up the madness of the present handball rule that we were hoping a penalty would be awarded.

 

[Triggaaar]

(Whether it ultimately was or wasn't is irrelevant - I wasn't asking that!)

I don't think people liked your question, so they answered the one they wanted (your specific question was in your post, but the poll question didn't mention it)

 

[Triggaaar]

If it was doing it’s job, then of course, he handled it.

I think his point is that VAR seems incapable of doing its job

 

[HeaviestTed]

the only way to stop this constant debate is say either any ball that touches the hand is handball

or

allow all touches with the hand and obviously we cant do that or evryone will just catch the ball and leg it and we'll all be watching rugby

Would that mean we can drink in the stands again?