I've not read all the previous posts so apologies if I'm repeating what other people have said but even as a City fan, I completely accept that the right decision was made under the new handball protocol. No goal,100% correct.
My issue is with the change to the law itself. I can only assume that this was discussed and brought in following the Boly goal v City last year, where a goal was correctly awarded under last year's law as the ball hit Boly on the hand unintentionally and the goal was scored. 100% correct decision at the time. I can absolutely see why we have a different interpretation of the law when a goal is scored direct from a hand/arm. That doesn't sit well with most people. But why bring it in for build up play in goals like yesterday? IFAB over thinking the issue imo. The old interpretation of intentional handball should apply and the new interpretation only applied if it hits the goalscorers hand/arm
My issue is with the change to the law itself. I can only assume that this was discussed and brought in following the Boly goal v City last year, where a goal was correctly awarded under last year's law as the ball hit Boly on the hand unintentionally and the goal was scored. 100% correct decision at the time. I can absolutely see why we have a different interpretation of the law when a goal is scored direct from a hand/arm. That doesn't sit well with most people. But why bring it in for build up play in goals like yesterday? IFAB over thinking the issue imo. The old interpretation of intentional handball should apply and the new interpretation only applied if it hits the goalscorers hand/arm