CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
"Lol I dunno, we're making it up as we go along over here. Good luck lol!:
"Lol I dunno, we're making it up as we go along over here. Good luck lol!:
actually made me chuckle."Lol I dunno, we're making it up as we go along over here. Good luck lol!:
Had it last night in build up to a goal. Totally unintentional. Cue moans and groans from the side that conceded the goal. Problem is if it changes players still wont have a clue...If this happens at grassroots and is spotted by players, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. However, I'd be giving the goal. Pet hate of mine, players arguing for handball because 'they gained an advantage'. And?
Stop hiding behind spirit of the law, someone ask him the question why IFAB expects referees to sacrifice their integrity to pander to 'what football expects'.
this in itself is as rigid as law as you put it though, because there are many scenarios where the ball might go in via a hand that are perfectly legitimate, forgetting the difference of opinion here.Which in football is, you really shouldn't be scoring with your hand.
I think the best policy is (based on everyone's input to this thread), 'if it's not in the book, ignore it'
this in itself is as rigid as law as you put it though, because there are many scenarios where the ball might go in via a hand that are perfectly legitimate, forgetting the difference of opinion here.
They have changed it. They just haven't put it in the book or made it clear to all.What utter nonsense is posted about handball on here, not deliberate even within the so called guidance issued by the powers that be......if they are so intent on realigning our interpretation of handball the solution is simple, change the f%$÷×ng law!
I agree with pretty much every point @Big Cat has made in this whole thread.I knew that at the professional level (based on evidence referenced earlier), a referee would have been expected/guided to disallow this goal
I'm yet to see a response from Elleray, which doesn't reference 'spirit of the game' or 'football expects'
This philosophy is fine, except that we rely upon it to often because the Laws are arguably unclear and frequently subject to unofficial interpretations; which may or may not be disseminated down the chain through FIFA's Member Associations. Many of these spontaneous and transient interpretations don't make it into Law, leaving the media, fans and grass roots referees confused and squabbling
I think the best policy is (based on everyone's input to this thread), 'if it's not in the book, ignore it'
They have changed it. They just haven't put it in the book or made it clear to all.
I'm not disagreeing with you here. My argument earlier in the thread was more to do with HB exepectations from professional referees and I don't give many HB decisions myself if they don't match the criteria for deliberate. The problem with the term deliberate, is it infers a need to be mind readers to determine intent. I think words like careless, avoidable and unsporting are easier to interpret and judgeDeliberate is a very easy word to work with.......
The only reason that confusion reigns is because of baby ass players who whine and moan at decisions they don’t like and the referees who haven’t got enough backbone to stand by unpopular decisions applying the laws as written.
‘Spirit of the game’ is the hiding place of the weak and the inept.
I disagree with this - and as I said before, even before these top--secret directives, I would have called it DHB (personally, I don't think some of the DHB offences in the WC have been all that radical).There is nothing on page 102 of the good book itself which can make this incident an offence .