Jtpetherick1
Well-Known Member
Do I like the handball law? No.
Is that a penalty under it? Yes.
Is that a penalty under it? Yes.
Run it past me again. Why is that HB?Do I like the handball law? No.
Is that a penalty under it? Yes.
Run it past me again. Why is that HB?
It would be unnatural is the player kept his arms by his side when attempting to block the cross. If you have to consciously move your arms out the way, that’s not a natural movementBecause his arm is in an unnatural position about 90 degrees away from his body?
It would be unnatural is the player kept his arms by his side when attempting to block the cross. If you have to consciously move your arms out the way, that’s not a natural movement
Unnaturally would be suggesting the player did that on purpose i.e he actively thought about doing that which clearly isn’t the caseFine but that's an issue with the law itself - that is handball as he's made his body unnaturally bigger.
Unnaturally would be suggesting the player did that on purpose i.e he actively thought about doing that which clearly isn’t the case
It's only a problem with the Law because it lends itself to this dreadful interpretation. As long as the wording allows me to apply a less damaging interpretation, I'll continue to do so because I care about the game (more than I do, my next promotion)Fine but that's an issue with the law itself - that is handball as he's made his body unnaturally bigger.
I’d personally argue that ‘unnatural movement’ is the same as intent. If it’s natural, your body would just do it without thinking. If it’s unnatural, you’re making movement your body wouldn’t usually do so you’re intentionally making a movement which isn’t normalOh come on - look at the Dier HB vs Newcastle. Annoying call but correct in law - no intent at all.
I’d personally argue that ‘unnatural movement’ is the same as intent. If it’s natural, your body would just do it without thinking. If it’s unnatural, you’re making movement your body wouldn’t usually do so you’re intentionally making a movement which isn’t normal
They weren't and have been very clear that their 'new' interpretation wouldn't have changed the Dier call because the law doesn't remotely allow that. The arm made the body unnaturally bigger - the end. Jamie Carragher getting cross doesn't allow PGMOL to write a whole new law.It's only a problem with the Law because it lends itself to this dreadful interpretation. As long as the wording allows me to apply a less damaging interpretation, I'll continue to do so because I care about the game (more than I do, my next promotion)
BTW, the PGMOL were rueful of the Dier HB, because it was an embarrassing disgrace
Screenshots.... how many times does the folly of that need to be discussed?
How would you make your body unnaturally bigger without intentional movement?But the law doesn't mention 'unnatural movement'.
They weren't and have been very clear that their 'new' interpretation wouldn't have changed the Dier call because the law doesn't remotely allow that. The arm made the body unnaturally bigger - the end. Jamie Carragher getting cross doesn't allow PGMOL to write a whole new law.
Just throwing this out there, the kick takers hands are in the same position, if it rebounded off the defenders leg and hits the kick takers arms, is that handball?
I give upReuters | Breaking International News & Views
Find latest news from every corner of the globe at Reuters.com, your online source for breaking international news coverage.uk.reuters.com