Referees’ Performances | 2024/2025

Chris in London said:
This diagram doesn’t help where, as here, the defender is not facing the ball but his body is at 90degrees to the direction the ball is coming from. Does that not make his body bigger?
Click to expand...
The key is making his body bigger, regardless of relative position to the shot. If he had turned then it wouldn’t have hit his arm
 
Bluearmy said:
The law is different though for a defender. Whether it’s inconsequential to you or not doesnt matter. Whether it should be different for a Defender compared to an attacker is a whole new conversation. However, for a Defender currently, this is what IFAB say,
Click to expand...
So handball then in this instance he made his body bigger
 
Bluearmy said:
The law is different though for a defender. Whether its inconsequential to you or not doesnt matter. Whether it should be different for a Defender compared to an attacker is a whole new conversation. However, for a Defender currently, this is what IFAB say,
Click to expand...
I was speaking from my point of view on the issue. I get that my point of view is the last thing the referees will take into account.
But I will admit I’m not overly familiar with the finite details of the handball rule.

I’ll take you back to Danny Tiatto running from inside his own area and scoring a goal which was disallowed (correctly to the letter of the law) for a player being offside.
The rule was subsequently changed as there was an acceptance the rule had failures.

However, my point in the above instance there was an acknowledgment the rule was not doing what it was designed to do and are often far from perfect.
The rules are reviewed and change consistently and if the rules state that was not a penalty I will argue the rules are wrong. You and others may have differing opinions which I respect but my opinion is if it was correctly ruled out according to the rules, the rule needs changing.

The fact a player can stop a goal with his hand so far away from his torso and not be penalised does not seem correct. An arm in that position to me does not seem natural.

From the rules you shared, and from my perception he made his body unnaturally bigger, as it was about 2 foot from his torso. Therefore it should have been a penalty. However, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
 
cheddar404 said:
He didn't use his hand. His hand was just there. You said it yourself; it hit him. I thought he did try to keep his arms out of the way and that's why they were behind him. How is he supposed to move to block the ball and keep his arm perfectly against the side of his body? It's impossible even to run like that, let alone try and launch yourself to block a shot.
Click to expand...
So you admit his arm was “there” stretched behind his back making his frame bigger you don’t deny that the ball hit his arm so, it was a foul
The issue here is that he put his arms behind his back but made the mistake of turning his body 90° and left his arm trailing Oliver and VAR between them made a huge error in not applying the law
 
Gordyola said:
So handball then in this instance he made his body bigger
Click to expand...
Nope. He tried to do all he could to get his hands out of the way as he was running and trying to black the ball with his body. So clearly not handball according to the laws as they currently stand!!
 
Definitely penalty, you see him look and turn his head, which is the key giveaway, he realises the ball is going behind him (as his momentum of turning is taking him in front of it) and so sticks his hand out behind him to stop it...it was clever the way he made it look sort of accidental, but imo he knew what he was doing
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
Obsession for wanting a penalty if somebody has used their arm to stop the ball going in the net. Is that more entertaining than a goal? A defender keeping it out with their hand/arm? Common sense is judging them individually, where the ball is, where the ball is going and the impact it has had on stopping a goal. The same way they rule a goal out for the slightest "handball" in the build up to goals.
Click to expand...
There only one thing to decide. If he made his body bigger it's a penalty. Even though he may have done it inadvertently he made his body bigger which stopped the shot going on target. Penalty.
 
Micky Blue said:
I was speaking from my point of view on the issue. I get that my point of view is the last thing the referees will take into account.
But I will admit I’m not overly familiar with the finite details of the handball rule.

I’ll take you back to Danny Tiatto running from inside his own area and scoring a goal which was disallowed (correctly to the letter of the law) for a player being offside.
The rule was subsequently changed as there was an acceptance the rule had failures.

However, my point in the above instance there was an acknowledgment the rule was not doing what it was designed to do and are often far from perfect.
The rules are reviewed and change consistently and if the rules state that was not a penalty I will argue the rules are wrong. You and others may have differing opinions which I respect but my opinion is if it was correctly ruled out according to the rules, the rule needs changing.

The fact a player can stop a goal with his hand so far away from his torso and not be penalised does not seem correct. An arm in that position to me does not seem natural.

From the rules you shared, and from my perception he made his body unnaturally bigger, as it was about 2 foot from his torso. Therefore it should have been a penalty. However, I’m happy to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Well you cant look at it from your point of view. It has to be from the law as it is currently (which i provided previously).

Im not disagreeing the rules are potentially wrong, to have different interpretations for an attacker and a defender is ludicrous imo.

Eg, an attacker accidentally handles that leads to a goal and said goal is disallowed / a defender handballs to stop a goal no infringement…. Im with you this doesn't sit right!!

My point was however, that under the current law for a defender in this situation, the correct decision was made.

Whether that law is correct in the first place is a whole different conversation!! But as it is, the ref made the correct decision according to the current laws as it stands!!

Were in danger of heading down a rabbit hole here, so I’ll bow out from here on in!! :)
 
Bluearmy said:
The law is different though for a defender. Whether its inconsequential to you or not doesnt matter. Whether it should be different for a Defender compared to an attacker is a whole new conversation. However, for a Defender currently, this is what IFAB say,
Click to expand...
If a defender punches the ball to save a goal,it's a red.
If an attacker punches the ball in the net ,it's a yellow.
Both are stealing a goal but with different consequences.
 
cheddar404 said:
He didn't use his hand. His hand was just there. You said it yourself; it hit him. I thought he did try to keep his arms out of the way and that's why they were behind him. How is he supposed to move to block the ball and keep his arm perfectly against the side of his body? It's impossible even to run like that, let alone try and launch yourself to block a shot.
Click to expand...

He moved his arm to make himself bigger, a natural instinct & it hit his arm preventing a certain goal. The result of that is his team benefit from that action so a perfect response is a penalty. Why the fucking sympathy? We’d have likely missed it anyway.
 
Bluearmy said:
Nope. He tried to do all he could to get his hands out of the way as he was running and trying to black the ball with his body. So clearly not handball according to the laws as they currently stand!!
Click to expand...
He threw himself in front of the ball to block the shot which he succeeded in doing with an outstretched arm well away from his body. I saw no indication he was trying to get his arm out of the way even if he didn’t handle deliberately. That the outstretched arm was behind rather than in front of him has no relevance. Still can’t understand how that wasn’t a penalty even if it did work out fine for us.
 
deano ou812 said:
Spot on,when I saw it I thought it’s a soft pen,but as you mention his hand slowed it down giving the keeper the chance to save it,if that was a city player it’s 100% given ..
Click to expand...
Ultimately if it had hit our player like that and gone in it would have been disallowed as it hit his hand, so by the same rule if its been stopped from going in by his hand it must be a penalty. Rules just manipulated to get to the outcome required to dick City.
It stresses me that the club don't make a stink about decisions against us and complain about refrees performances against us.
 
Gray said:
For comparison:
View attachment 154401
Click to expand...
Decent example. Both this and the Forrest example shouldn't be penalties imo. Both players (Grealish & Abbott) didn't do anything wrong/deliberate, Grealish was jumping and Abbott running, so arms are not down by their sides as is perfectly normal in these type of actions… The application of the handball law is a mess!!
 
Bluearmy said:
Decent example. Both this and the Forrest example shouldn't be penalties imo. Both players (Grealish & Abbott) didn't do anything wrong/deliberate, Grealish was jumping and Abbott running, so arms are not down by their sides as is perfectly normal in these type of actions… The application of the handball law is a mess!!
Click to expand...
And look how close the Rag player was to Grealish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top