A&H

Leicester v Wolves

The Referee Store
Jtpetherick1 said:
Because his arm is in an unnatural position about 90 degrees away from his body?
Click to expand...
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
 
QuaverRef said:
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
Click to expand...

Fine but that's an issue with the law itself - that is handball as he's made his body unnaturally bigger.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Fine but that's an issue with the law itself - that is handball as he's made his body unnaturally bigger.
Click to expand...
Unnaturally would be suggesting the player did that on purpose i.e he actively thought about doing that which clearly isn’t the case
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Fine but that's an issue with the law itself - that is handball as he's made his body unnaturally bigger.
Click to expand...
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
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
Oh come on - look at the Dier HB vs Newcastle. Annoying call but correct in law - no intent at all.
Click to expand...
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

you can’t unintentionally make an unnatural movement
 
The punishment does not fit the crime.

We've become hockey where any touch with the foot/body is penalised regardless of intent but at least they differ the restart based on intent.
 
QuaverRef said:
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
Click to expand...

But the law doesn't mention 'unnatural movement'.
 
Screenshots.... how many times does the folly of that need to be discussed?
 
Big Cat said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jtpetherick1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
uk.reuters.com

Reuters | 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 uk.reuters.com
I give up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top