Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
I have absolutely no problem with the rules, what I object to is the interpretation of the rules by those making the decisions.
Looking at the disallowed goal yesterday none of the criteria stipulated in the rules were met.
1. It IS an offence if a player deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm.
(Definitely not deliberate, even the officials would agree)
2. It IS an offence if a player gains possession/ control after it has touched their hand/arm and then either scores in the opponents' goal or creates a goal scoring opportunity.
(Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball and the deflection did not create a goal scoring opportunity.)
Jesus had to run 2 yards to collect the ball, bring the ball under control, move the ball into an area where he could shoot and then strike the ball past 4 defenders and a goalkeeper. Jesus created the goal scoring opportunity, not Laporte. Now compare that to the goal disallowed last week in the wolves game where the Boly handball fell to the feet of a team mate who did not have to move other than to kick the ball into the net from 3 yards. Therefore a goal scoring opportunity was created by the hand ball.
3. It is NOT USUALLY an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the player's own head or body(including the foot)
Now it is hard to spot but in one of the angles shown it appears that the ball actually takes an initial deflection from Laporte's neck before heading to the arm area.
I have no problem with the rules. If the rules were applied properly then the goal would have stood as a perfectly good goal. VAR was introduced to eradicate mistakes by officials but when a stonewall penalty is not given and a perfectly good goal is chopped off then it is difficult to ignore that there may be an agenda to fuck us over.
Looking at the disallowed goal yesterday none of the criteria stipulated in the rules were met.
1. It IS an offence if a player deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm.
(Definitely not deliberate, even the officials would agree)
2. It IS an offence if a player gains possession/ control after it has touched their hand/arm and then either scores in the opponents' goal or creates a goal scoring opportunity.
(Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball and the deflection did not create a goal scoring opportunity.)
Jesus had to run 2 yards to collect the ball, bring the ball under control, move the ball into an area where he could shoot and then strike the ball past 4 defenders and a goalkeeper. Jesus created the goal scoring opportunity, not Laporte. Now compare that to the goal disallowed last week in the wolves game where the Boly handball fell to the feet of a team mate who did not have to move other than to kick the ball into the net from 3 yards. Therefore a goal scoring opportunity was created by the hand ball.
3. It is NOT USUALLY an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from the player's own head or body(including the foot)
Now it is hard to spot but in one of the angles shown it appears that the ball actually takes an initial deflection from Laporte's neck before heading to the arm area.
I have no problem with the rules. If the rules were applied properly then the goal would have stood as a perfectly good goal. VAR was introduced to eradicate mistakes by officials but when a stonewall penalty is not given and a perfectly good goal is chopped off then it is difficult to ignore that there may be an agenda to fuck us over.