It seems pretty clear to me that under the rules, the player needs to have gained possession or got the ball under control, and Laporte did neither. The ball after it his arm (if inded it did, and I am still yet to see evidence for that) could have gone anywhere. It certainly wasn't in our possession at that point and neither was it under control.100% correct yet they link the IFAB guidelines from their site. The Premier league have not just summarized they have changed the wording, they have added "accidental" to the creating a goal scoring line, when it simply isn't there on the IFAB guidelines.
IFAB have specifically took the word accidental out and gone out of their way to say the player handling/creating has to have possession/control of the ball, and THEN create a goal scoring opportunity in the Laporte incident.
And then you have another argument entirely whether Jesus had a chance straight from the arm. Jesus had to touch the ball to the side and create the space/opportunity for himself.
What if Jesus beat 4 players and scored, did Laporte still create the opportunity or did Jesus create his own opportunity by beating 4 men?
Far far too many grey areas the way it is written now.
I see what you are saying, but HANDBALL is not on that list. That said, the fact that Oliver didn’t see it (under the current WRONG interpretation we are all fighting against), it who knows if it would have been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR under the current guidelines??
Imprecise language is causing confusion.
Obviously, I haven’t seen Riley’s comments on TV and can only go by what is written in the Laws of the Game, but in your comments, you say Riley said,
The operator can provide them with replays in normal speed or in slow motion.
The handball decision isn’t based on “clear and obvious error.” The Rodri decision was.
It seems pretty clear to me that under the rules, the player needs to have gained possession or got the ball under control, and Laporte did neither. The ball after it his arm (if inded it did, and I am still yet to see evidence for that) could have gone anywhere. It certainly wasn't in our possession at that point and neither was it under control.
Correct, and the way IFAB have written it makes sense. You don't want a player penalized for having no idea it hit his hand , and it was a complete accident, like Boley last week and Laoprte.
The way it is written is to stop the scenario of a player hand balling it, gaining control, then passing/setting up a clear goal scoring chance for a player.
The way the Premier have twisted it, makes no sense and penalizes a complete accidental handball that could have gone anywhere that the player knows nothing about.
To be honest, I think the "accidental" part is a red herring.Correct, and the way IFAB have written it makes sense. You don't want a player penalized for having no idea it hit his hand , and it was a complete accident, like Boley last week and Laoprte.
The way it is written is to stop the scenario of a player hand balling it, gaining control, then passing/setting up a clear goal scoring chance for a player.
The way the Premier have twisted it, makes no sense and penalizes a complete accidental handball that could have gone anywhere that the player knows nothing about.
Yep, still waiting for someone to offer proof. Not one single reverse camera angle.
No one?, anyone?
You are conflating the two things.Here is where i am confused,the goal wasn't a clear and obvious mistake by the bottler but they can still disallow it for handball,why are they looking at it if it has to be clear and obvious? the rules are a nonsense that i don't think they understand either,most of them do not fit together,there are huge grey areas that shouldn't exsist in any system like this