[Albion] The handball penalty

[S'hampton Seagull]

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!)

That's the issue, people are answering based on having seen the replays, not what the initial reaction was. My first thought was pen, but having seen it back, you have to agree the ref / VAR got the decision correct.

 

[JBizzle]

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.

This is the key part here, and for me at least makes it less confusing. The on field decision is key

1. The ref gave the Wolves one because, even though it hit his arm, his arm was way above his head and the ref decided that it was unnatural positioning so VAR didn't intervene.
2. The ref didn't give the Brighton one because it came off his knee and his arm was level with his stomach and fairly close in and wasn't deemed unnatural positioning.

In both cases the ref made a decision and VARs job it to look at it and tell him if what he thought happened was wrong, which they didn't.

Either way, to answer the original post, I thought it was a pen originally, but having seen it again I don't. Taking away my Brighton bias, those aren't the kinds of penalties I want to see given.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I think Handball should go back to being a judgement call for the ref. The aim of the law is stop players deliberately playing the ball with their hand to seek an advantage by either controlling the ball or diverting it away from an opponent. The rules as they stand are confusing and do not really relate to implementing the spirit of the game.

VAR has shown that it is completely inconsistent when ruling on handball. Leave it to the ref, and VAR should only intervene if they can clearly see that ref has missed a blatant attempt to play the ball and then give him the opportunity to view it again on the screen.

All this 'natural position' stuff is subjective, and the "it hit another body part" is already riddled with caveats, it's a mess.

For the record I was screaming for that penalty on Sunday, even on the replay I thought VVD may have raised his hand to prevent the ball passing him, that said on balance I have seen more egregious decisions so with hindsight I'm less upset by that decision.

 

[South Stand Bonfire]

My preference would be to allow the refs discretion to award a penalty

A. For deliberate handball and
B. If in their opinion a players arm/hand was in such a position that handball would not have occurred if the player was in a “natural “ position for the context of play.
Eg Standing in a wall with your arms above you = handball but say trying to block a shot like Dunk did = no handball.

VAR is trying to make all decisions objective which will never be the case in football imo.

 

[m20gull]

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.

This is at the heart of this. It's always possible to disagree about a subjective decision such as "unnatural" arm position. But here the head of PGMOL is staying they implement based on rules that the FA/IFAB changed two years ago. So how are we supposed to know what the laws are?

For the Liverpool one there is no doubt it touched his arm, we can disagree about an unnatural position (though you might have a different view if the ball was played from a different angle), but to deny it because it hit his thigh first makes no sense on the current laws.

 

[wardy wonder land]

.....so flip it, if it was a striker, controls the ball o his thigh - then it hits his hand but still goes on to score - the goal is disallowed ?!

Bring back fre kicks in the penalty area for mass carnage

 

[Bodian]

.....so flip it, if it was a striker, controls the ball o his thigh - then it hits his hand but still goes on to score - the goal is disallowed ?!

Yes.

But if after it hits his hand he immediately passes the ball to someone who scores with a tap-in, that's allowed (see Newcastle's first or second goal v Sheffield).

 

[Spiros]

Rules is rules, so no, not a Pen. Would be great if they could apply the law equally with consistency though. Pigs might fly.

Exactly. If the rules had been applied this way against Luton then they wouldn’t have got their penalty

 

[dsr-burnley]

This is at the heart of this. It's always possible to disagree about a subjective decision such as "unnatural" arm position. But here the head of PGMOL is staying they implement based on rules that the FA/IFAB changed two years ago. So how are we supposed to know what the laws are?

For the Liverpool one there is no doubt it touched his arm, we can disagree about an unnatural position (though you might have a different view if the ball was played from a different angle), but to deny it because it hit his thigh first makes no sense on the current laws.

I think the point about it rebounding off the body therefore not handball, is that firstly there is literally no time for a player to attempt to get his hand out of the way from that deflection, and secondly the reason his arm was there to start with might be because he was getting out of the way of the ball's original path.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

Two problems with the former - one, watching a game where the easiest way to score is to blast the ball and waist/chest height at a defender and chance your (or rather his) arm, is not particularly entertaining football; two, sitting around for VAR to check whether the ball touched a defender's fingernail is going to add yet more VAR time to keep us all bored.

What they should do is sack everyone who has been involved in lawmaking for the last 20 years or so, and reset the laws back to what they were 20 years ago. Then have sensible people, not know-it-alls who reckon the history of football can teach them nothing, carefully look at what needs changing and what (which is most of it) doesn't.

And then they can stop micromanaging referees. Instead of scrutinising every detail so that refs know that they must give free kicks for the "he touched me so I jumped over" foul, let refs just get on with it. Players will soon learn who is more lenient about this sort of thing, who doesn't give free kicks on demand, and so forth, and it will still be the same for both sides. The idea of one ref on the field, two more on VAR, three more at head office marking them after the event, is not leading ot better refereeing. Let's go back to having one man in charge, not a committee.

(And the pundits can stop their witchhunts as well.)

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I thought it was bang on, but there again I also thought in the PENALTY AREA handball was handball regardless of what happened before

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Yeh handball should be given when someone handles deliberately or it hits someone's arm who has deliberately put their arm in a position where it could gain an advantage (to say, block a shot).

VVD shouldn't be handball, because he's not put his arm there to gain an advantage. Neither Dunk's

Come to think of it, not much will be handball. But that's good, let's get on with the game. Why give an 8/10 chance of scoring to a team because it's randomly hit someone just trying to play the game normally.

All this arms down at your side stuff is bollocks

 

[Mr deez]

Yep agree dishing out almost certain goals for mundane incidents is ridiculous already let alone any accidental glance of the hand.

 

[Bozza]

Hand/arm in an unnatural postion was covered in this week's Mic'd Up show on Sky, where they reviewed a penalty that had been awarded, even through the ball initially deflected off the defender's foot before it hit his hand:

Match Officials: Mic'd Up: Refs' chief Howard Webb addresses contentious Premier League decisions

www.skysports.com

 

[RodgerT]

Looked like handball to me but I guess var know more than me . I’m a newbie , moved to Brighton 5 years ago and really like living here . Footie is good too - been a STH for last 3 years .

 

[schmunk]

Two problems with the former - one, watching a game where the easiest way to score is to blast the ball and waist/chest height at a defender and chance your (or rather his) arm, is not particularly entertaining football; two, sitting around for VAR to check whether the ball touched a defender's fingernail is going to add yet more VAR time to keep us all bored.

What they should do is sack everyone who has been involved in lawmaking for the last 20 years or so, and reset the laws back to what they were 20 years ago. Then have sensible people, not know-it-alls who reckon the history of football can teach them nothing, carefully look at what needs changing and what (which is most of it) doesn't.

And then they can stop micromanaging referees. Instead of scrutinising every detail so that refs know that they must give free kicks for the "he touched me so I jumped over" foul, let refs just get on with it. Players will soon learn who is more lenient about this sort of thing, who doesn't give free kicks on demand, and so forth, and it will still be the same for both sides. The idea of one ref on the field, two more on VAR, three more at head office marking them after the event, is not leading ot better refereeing. Let's go back to having one man in charge, not a committee.

(And the pundits can stop their witchhunts as well.)

Jumpers for goalposts?