A&H

Sheffield United - Tottenham

Its an awful Law, an awful decision really but probably correct in Law. Mourinho has a frosty interview after calling Kavanagh the Assistant referee and blaming 'the man in the office' (Oliver).....If he speaks what he really thinks he'd be a few quid lighter!!!
 
The Referee Store
Ben448844 said:
I remember reading that the law was changed because it didn't feel right that a goal is scored as a direct consequence of the ball hitting the arm (presumably after the Boly goal v Man City last year when he went for a diving header from about 14 yards out and it hit his arm and went in).

But it clearly doesn't feel right to disallow a perfectly good goal due to the consequences of a foul from the opposition. The law did not need changing. Every time they tinker with the handball law they make it worse for the game and alot worse for the spectator, the majority of which don't know the laws intrinsically (and why should they).

The law should simply be was there a deliberate handball by the offender in the opinion of the on field referee at the time. Absolutely no clarity required and no sentences in law describing arm positions and silhouettes etc. The only thing that can come from an attempt to clarify is further confusion. Was it a deliberate handball or not in the eyes of the referee, the end.
Click to expand...
Is it just PGMOL or is the rest of the world treating "gains possession/control" as "any touch" and "creates a goalscoring opportunity" as "making no difference whatsoever to a goalscoring opportunity"?

A reminder that the explanation for the change was "football does not accept" or "football expects" and we can all see that football does not expect stupid decisions.

A defender could deliberately handle the ball onto an attacker's hand and that would rule out a subsequent goal - with a free kick to the team whose player had deliberately handled. Is this really what football expects?
 
Last edited:
Spurs got punished three times.

1) No goal
2) No Free Kick
3) Player who committed the foul had apparently (someone said on twitter) had already been cautioned.

If that happens in my game and i actually spot the hand ball im bringing that back for the foul.
 
Just seen it
That can only be a fk to Spurs. ( if we accept that as it stands, the Spurs player did handle the ball)
advantage, is when the attacking team are better off to continue playing than they would be to be awarded a fk
The actual advantage signal,,or if you like, lack of it, is not the cast iron be all and end all of the advantage process, its merely the accepted visual to accompany the advantage senario
I.e, advantage can be played in the absence of the arm signal, and, advantage can be recalled ( yes it looks messy but) in the situation where it is signalled yet none accrures.
The Spurs player was fouled, there was no advantage, we go back to the foul.

if that goes against VAR protocol then am sorry but VAR is then in turn going against the laws of the game......
 
bloovee said:
Is it just PGMOL or is the rest of the world treating "gains possession/control" as "any touch" and "creates a goalscoring opportunity" as "making no difference whatsoever to a goalscoring opportunity"?

A reminder that the explanation for the change was "football does not accept" or "football expects" and we can all see that football does not expect stupid decisions.

A defender could deliberately handle the ball onto an attacker's hand and that would rule out a subsequent goal - with a free kick to the team whose played had deliberately handled. Is this really what football expects?
Click to expand...
Just checking the changes for 20/21, and they are still badly drafted.



"• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s
hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
• scores in the opponents’ goal
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

"Clarification that:

• if an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then
goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a
handball offence;
• it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass
or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity."

Dribble? What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
Immediately? How long is that?
How far is some distance?
How many is several?
and/or? Seriously? It can't be both.

Frankly, IFAB are getting worse.
 
bloovee said:
Just checking the changes for 20/21, and they are still badly drafted.



"• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s
hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
• scores in the opponents’ goal
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

"Clarification that:

• if an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then
goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a
handball offence;
• it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass
or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity."

Dribble? What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
Immediately? How long is that?
How far is some distance?
How many is several?
and/or? Seriously? It can't be both.

Frankly, IFAB are getting worse.
Click to expand...
It's reactionary. And I can pinpoint exactly from where.
The amount of times I saw this question in various different places:
If a defender in his own penalty area, accidentally handles the ball, then passes the ball 80 yards up the pitch and his mate scores do I need to award a penalty to the other team?
So ifab have reacted to it but still not drafted it well.
I fear we will need another big re-write in the near future.
 
JamesL said:
It's reactionary. And I can pinpoint exactly from where.
The amount of times I saw this question in various different places:
If a defender in his own penalty area, accidentally handles the ball, then passes the ball 80 yards up the pitch and his mate scores do I need to award a penalty to the other team?
So ifab have reacted to it but still not drafted it well.
I fear we will need another big re-write in the near future.
Click to expand...
For me, I think the law needs to be based on if the accidental handball directly creates the goalscoring opportunity. You'd still disallow both of the goals from last night which I know were a touch controversial, but it would explicitly rule out the much-discussed example you've raised and would be a lot clearer about exactly how far back you should go.
 
JamesL said:
It's reactionary. And I can pinpoint exactly from where.
The amount of times I saw this question in various different places:
If a defender in his own penalty area, accidentally handles the ball, then passes the ball 80 yards up the pitch and his mate scores do I need to award a penalty to the other team?
So ifab have reacted to it but still not drafted it well.
I fear we will need another big re-write in the near future.
Click to expand...
Or in Liverpool v City earlier in the season, deliberate handball. It really does read like they've retrospectively changed the law to fit what happened in that game!

We have LOTG more than twice the length they used to be, and even the clarifications are hopelessly unclear. At the very least they could "clarify" that disallowing a goal for accidental handball does not apply when it is caused by an offence by an opponent.
 
Really don't know why we need more than "in the opinion of the referee deliberately handles the ball" and "scores a goal against their opponent by using the hand or arm".

Then again I was wondering why we reaaallly need a centre circle the other day.
 
Grayson said:
Really don't know why we need more than "in the opinion of the referee deliberately handles the ball" and "scores a goal against their opponent by using the hand or arm".

Then again I was wondering why we reaaallly need a centre circle the other day.
Click to expand...
I think the accidental handball law is a bit pointless without a "creates a goalscoring opportunity" clause to be honest. Otherwise you can have situations where the ball is accidentally handled goalwards, catching out the entire defence, but a last touch suddenly means it wasn't the handball that scored.

You can be super strict on what counts as creating, or you can get rid of the law entirely, but I don't think limiting it to ONLY scoring with an accidental handball quite makes sense.
 
Pretty embarrassed by the call TBF from a SUFC point if view, obviously no intention to HB and a foul too. On many levels it may be correct in law but the law, as others have said is just rubbish! We’ve lost 2 goals and gained 2 goals being scrubbed this season like this so hopefully it’s balanced out now!
Overall I thought the ref had a decent game and Norwood was a very lucky boy in the first half!
 
Grayson said:
Just say you thought it was deliberate :p
Click to expand...
Haha, obviously not! :clown:

I just think it's clear IFAB didn't think through the unintended consequences of adding this into the lawbook, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the same trap when proposing solutions.
 
GraemeS said:
Haha, obviously not! :clown:

I just think it's clear IFAB didn't think through the unintended consequences of adding this into the lawbook, I think we need to be careful not to fall into the same trap when proposing solutions.
Click to expand...
Frankly the members of this forum seem quite capable of envisaging what could go wrong with any "solution".
 
Again the disalowed goal should have stood. It did not create a goal scoring opportunity but a build up to it. A good test, if Kane was pushed on his first touch would you give a DOGSO? Clearly not so how is that a GSO?
 
RustyRef said:
I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I thought the restart following a VAR goal check could only be a goal or a free kick for the offence confirmed by VAR, e.g. IDFK for offside or in this case DFK for handling. I didn't think they could go back to award a free kick, I might be wrong though. Either way, there can't be any argument that disallowing the goal wasn't the correct decision, it has hit his arm and no matter how accidental that was it is a foul in the current laws.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I've never argued against that last sentence.

Dale Johnson has clarified that the PL have told him it was the incorrect restart and Dermot Gallagher said on Sky this morning that play should have restarted with a free-kick to Tottenham.

What I don't really understand is how they missed this part. Michael Oliver has all the angles/replays he needs so surely he should be helping out there. Gallagher suggested on Sky 'the VAR can only tell the referee to disallow the goal and the rest is up to the referee' but that's a ridiculous protocol. If this was a Champions League game the referee would have looked at the pitchside monitor (like with Anthony Taylor in the PSG V Real Madrid game), seen the sequence of events, and presumably restarted with a free-kick to the attacking team as the advantage didn't accrue. The point of not using the pitchside monitors was meant to be to make the decision making process more efficient, not to force a referee into making incorrect decisions because he's only allowed to receive 50% of the informaiotn.
 
onthebrink said:
the referee would have looked at the pitchside monitor
Click to expand...
This sums it up really with how badly it's been handled here. Just needs someone in the caravan to either have a quick look at footage and go "ooh that might be offside, let's work it out", or buzz and go "hold on Chris, you might wanna have a look at this again" AND COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE VIEWERS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top