The New Handball Law

[Blue Til Death]

People keep copying great tomes of information regarding the handball law etc etc etc, the fact of the matter is, it was a nailed on goal, with VAR or without VAR, the reason the goal was not given was because the pricks reviewing or choosing not to review, are corrupt and are interpreting the law incorrectly to further their agenda.
Nothing I have heard or seen since Saturday has changed my view... It wont be the last either... It fuckin sucks...!

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Agreed. Just as a matter of interest, did you have the same opinion about that Llorente goal?

I do since I’ve properly read the law. Llorente’s goal didn’t directly go in off his arm, as it hit his arm accidentally and then his hip and went in. Therefore it was a fair goal.

 

[caseball]

I've just read the laws again and I have developed two different scenarios - the one that penalised us, Laporte allowing the ball to graze his arm before it bounced down to Jesus to lash home, and Laporte not touching it with a hair on his arm, the ball bouncing down to Jesus who lashed it in with his foot or head but happens to hit his arm on the way in. Does this latter allow the goal.?

The law states something rather equivocally: it is not usually an offence. . .

Hahah, not usually an offence unless it's one of our goals for three points on 95 mins!

They also left another loophole. The ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm.
They should have added the word directly. If a shot goes in off my arm by my side with no movement, it's no goal. OK. What happens if it hits my arm and then hits a teammate on the chest and goes in? I'd say goal because it's not deliberate handball and no control gained. But it's not clear and there'd be howls of protest on twitter if it was given (for City). What happens if hits my arm and goes in off a defender? I'd say goal. But again, I don't think everybody would say that. All for the sake of one little word. There's a right bunch of amateurs and crooks in charge of football.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

If this part of the law said a team gains possession... then fair enough but it doesn't. At the match I was under the impression that any goal that came from an accidental hand ball would be disallowed. However after the Wolves goal and our one it is clear that the law is being wrongly applied.

This narrative that the problem was with the handball rule not the actual decison started this morning. It has been pushed out all day by the Referees group and a lot of media outlets have kept repeating the narrative : "It's not VAR it's the stupid law." Swarbrick and his mates are trying to pass the buck to IFAB (the rule-makers). But the wording in the ruling is clear and refers to a single player. Laporte never had possession or control of the ball so it's not handball. Why has no one phoned up IFAB and asked them? The VAR and the referee got the Jesus goal decison wrong and now they are trying to cover it up. They are trying to make IFAB the scapegoats.

 

[Jacob Smith]

Creating rules that favour defences is a step down the wrong path for football.

England won the Cricket World Cup because of a rule designed to promote exciting cricket, this change of the handball rule will reduce the number of goals scored and therefore reduce the entertainment value

 

[its grim up north]

No chance paul :
And the latest is :

There will be no review of the handball law after Gabriel Jesus' disallowed goal for Manchester City against Tottenham, say football's rule-makers.

A video assistant referee (VAR) review ruled the ball had brushed Aymeric Laporte's arm in the build-up to Jesus' effort in the Premier League game.

The law, amended on 1 June, states any use of the hand which leads to a goal or a chance will be penalised
Law-makers Ifab said one incident would not trigger a review.
Lukas Brud, a spokesperson for the International Football Association Board, added: "The laws are fairly clear. It's more about acceptance and communication rather than saying, 'Oh, now we have to react immediately and change something'.

"We constantly monitor what is happening in football every day. If we feel that something needs to be reviewed, then of course we put it on the agenda, we discuss it with the various bodies of the Ifab, including our panels who also bring comments forward sometimes."
The fuckers have got a nerve.Even they`re saying there`s an Agenda.

 

[its grim up north]

No chance paul :
And the latest is :

There will be no review of the handball law after Gabriel Jesus' disallowed goal for Manchester City against Tottenham, say football's rule-makers.

A video assistant referee (VAR) review ruled the ball had brushed Aymeric Laporte's arm in the build-up to Jesus' effort in the Premier League game.

The law, amended on 1 June, states any use of the hand which leads to a goal or a chance will be penalised.

Law-makers Ifab said one incident would not trigger a review.
Lukas Brud, a spokesperson for the International Football Association Board, added: "The laws are fairly clear. It's more about acceptance and communication rather than saying, 'Oh, now we have to react immediately and change something'.

"We constantly monitor what is happening in football every day. If we feel that something needs to be reviewed, then of course we put it on the agenda, we discuss it with the various bodies of the Ifab, including our panels who also bring comments forward sometimes."
The fuckers have got a nerve.Even they`re saying there`s an Agenda.

Thing is, if Gabby hadn't scored, the ball was cleared, we won it back and scored after several passes, would they still pull it and disallow?

 

[oakiecokie]

Thing is, if Gabby hadn't scored, the ball was cleared, we won it back and scored after several passes, would they still pull it and disallow?

Who knows.I doubt the powers that be don`t know the fucking answer to that.

 

[Paladin]

No chance paul :
And the latest is :

There will be no review of the handball law after Gabriel Jesus' disallowed goal for Manchester City against Tottenham, say football's rule-makers.

A video assistant referee (VAR) review ruled the ball had brushed Aymeric Laporte's arm in the build-up to Jesus' effort in the Premier League game.

The law, amended on 1 June, states any use of the hand which leads to a goal or a chance will be penalised.

Law-makers Ifab said one incident would not trigger a review.
Lukas Brud, a spokesperson for the International Football Association Board, added: "The laws are fairly clear. It's more about acceptance and communication rather than saying, 'Oh, now we have to react immediately and change something'.

"We constantly monitor what is happening in football every day. If we feel that something needs to be reviewed, then of course we put it on the agenda, we discuss it with the various bodies of the Ifab, including our panels who also bring comments forward sometimes."

No it doesn't. It says, and I paraphrase, "If the ball touches a player's hand, and that player gains possession or control of the ball, then goes on to score or create a goal scoring opportunity, then an offence has been committed."

I agree with him in one aspect - the laws are fairly clear. It's just that our VAR official doesn't understand the new law. And based on this quote, neither does the Ifab spokesman, it would appear.

A law that has led to so much confusion, so soon after its introduction, and that needs so much clarification, is a bad law.

 

[Metalartin]

I think this is going to be a rule that is tricky to satisfy everyone on, even if they change it again.

I do think the handball needed changing/clarifying, as I disagree with anyone who says Llorente's handball shouldn't have seen their goal chalked off, had the ref have seen it. He directly benefited from the ball striking his elbow. It made Ederson far more uncertain of which direction the ball would take quite clearly and thus it definitely contributed to the goal. If you see that in real time and a goal comes from it, you shout handball immediately even if accidental, without exception. It should be the same seeing it on a VAR replay, logically thinking.

The difference between Llorente's goal and Jesus' is that it's not clear that Laporte's handball did benefit Jesus but the current rules don't require it to. Was the ball going to reach Jesus? Probably, he may have had to change his position to receive it though. After the ball reaches him, he still had a lot more to do to make space for his shot. Jesus made that goal, not Laporte.

Under VAR, the rules are being applied very literally in a binary manner, which is why rules are being re-written because the old rules were never intended to be used that way. Refs could use common sense to apply the fairest interpretation for each situation. Such as a bundled goal where the arm was used vs a shot blocked at the opposite end. I don't think handballs should be that binary because an advantage being gained would have to be down to human interpretation.

Overall I'm happier never to have goals like Lloronte's allowed, as that's more against the spirit of the game than Jesus' being ruled out for me. Laporte should have been awarded a penalty for the pull on his arm in the first phase anyway(why can't VAR do that?). If that happened, I doubt the handball would have irked as many. It did hit Laporte's arm after all.