The New Handball Law

  • Thread starter Deleted member 77198
  • Start date
hypothetical question: if the ball accidentally hits a defenders arm in the penalty area then its no penalty, if the ball deflects onto an opponents arm from the initial accidental handball but no goal is scored then the game carries on, but if it results in a goal then what? I know there is a few things need to happen in this scenario but what if? They have opened up a whole can of worms with this, there was always interpretation for accidental or not but now there are different kinds of handballs for attacking and defending, this can't be right, just like black and white offsides the same must apply to handballs, now i'n not saying i agree with that scenario too but it will lead to refereeing inconsistencies otherwise.
 
hypothetical question: if the ball accidentally hits a defenders arm in the penalty area then its no penalty, if the ball deflects onto an opponents arm from the initial accidental handball but no goal is scored then the game carries on, but if it results in a goal then what? I know there is a few things need to happen in this scenario but what if? They have opened up a whole can of worms with this, there was always interpretation for accidental or not but now there are different kinds of handballs for attacking and defending, this can't be right, just like black and white offsides the same must apply to handballs, now i'n not saying i agree with that scenario too but it will lead to refereeing inconsistencies otherwise.
I think the goal is chalked off
 
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.
Don`t shoot the messenger.
 
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?

id say it wouldn't have been disallowed cause it was a completely different phase of play - the two phases being split by the opposition (even momentarily) gaining possession to clear it
 
The Boly goal for Wolves last year is obviously the best example of a goal which should be disallowed for handball. Neves cross was going wide until the ball hit Boly on the arm and went in.
 
At least they could apply the fucking thing correctly whilst it's here.

Laporte did not 'create a goalscoring chance' but the ****s are hiding behind it to pretend it was a correct decision.

No he didn't. He also didn't gain possession or a major advantage for City.

Laporte's contact with the ball produced, IMO, a loose ball. Jesus had plenty of work to do to score. Maybe the VAR people freeze framed the action and measured whether Gabby was nearer to where it landed than a Spurs player but to my eye it looked like Gabby got to it first because he anticipated it best and reacted most quickly.

Laporte's contact probably put the ball closer to Gabby than it would have been but there's too many if's and and's to say a clear and obvious error occurred or that a handball offence occurred.

The new law is not a good one. Making clear you cannot score with your arm is fine i.e. put the ball in the net with it but accidental handball in any other instance should not be an offence.
 
The Boly goal for Wolves last year is obviously the best example of a goal which should be disallowed for handball. Neves cross was going wide until the ball hit Boly on the arm and went in.

True but I think that was a case of the officials missing something rather than a problem with the rules.

Llorente's goal against us being allowed to stand may have been a case for a rule clarification but we got a stupid, poorly worded - it would seem - rule change.
 
but accidental handball in any other instance should not be an offence.

Just made this point in the VAR thread , this crazy rule only applies to the attacking player would you believe. Both KDB and Gundogan referred to this post match.
I cannot get my head around that one bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OB1
So basically, if you think the ball has brushed your arm in the opposition penalty area you might as well kick the ball out of play because no goal can ever come of it.
Can anyone explain what is supposed to happen here?

I know we know this is ludicrous but this is ludicrous.
 
So basically, if you think the ball has brushed your arm in the opposition penalty area you might as well kick the ball out of play because no goal can ever come of it.
Can anyone explain what is supposed to happen here?

I know we know this is ludicrous but this is ludicrous.
Only if you are an attacker .
If you are a defender you can skill fully brush your arm against the ball to deflect its path away from any danger safe in the knowledge that it is not hand ball and it will never be reviewed and nobody will be any the wiser.

Fuckin barmy rule.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.