Premier League Games | 15/16/17/18 August '25

Stato said:
All the talk of Grealish being given more freedom to attack the middle and then he is pinned on the touchline like he was with us
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me if that'll be the case

Managers know Pep is the best around, so they'll probably just try to use his players in the exact same way.

I hope he does get more freedom and he can show what he can do, whether that's looking good or whether he fails to impress. At least it might stop the endless debate of him not being utilised correctly.
 
LangleyBlue1970 said:
It was tucked as far behind his body that is humanly possible.
Click to expand...

You're obsessed with his arm being tucked/in and have completely ignored the rest, last time I shall try and we will have to agree to disagree.

Do you accept that even with the arm in/tucked if you move your body and therefore your arm as it is attached to the body TOWARDS the ball it's not ball to arm its arm towards ball. If he didn't make that move the ball would have carried on towards the goal.
That is the chance you take when you purposely try to stop the ball rather than just being stood still.
If you're in position before the ball is struck fine if you move into its path of the ball after it's struck that's different.

The handball rule will always cause controversy however you word it.
 
hilts said:
Or not leaning in then it wouldn't have hit his arm, the rule is about not giving a penalty for a ball belted at someone's arm from close range, the ball.wasnt going to hit his arm until.he moved towards it. In affect he saved it with his arm by using.his body.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the rules referencing "a ball belted at someone's arm", though I agree that's part of it

from FA.com

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
I think we're agreed it wasn't deliberate as Tarkowski was trying to put his arm behind his back, so we can rule out line 1

Did he make his body unnaturally bigger, you could argue yes, however the position of his arm WAS a direct consequence of the players body movement, which would then suggest it was not a handball

However, the FA being the FA, they go on to muddy the waters with the last line "By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised"

So it's down to interpretation of the first part of the rule, was his arm in an unnatural position when his body movement is considered. I would say it's not, therefore it's the wrong decision
 
flook said:
There is nothing in the rules referencing "a ball belted at someone's arm", though I agree that's part of it

from FA.com

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
I think we're agreed it wasn't deliberate as Tarkowski was trying to put his arm behind his back, so we can rule out line 1

Did he make his body unnaturally bigger, you could argue yes, however the position of his arm WAS a direct consequence of the players body movement, which would then suggest it was not a handball

However, the FA being the FA, they go on to muddy the waters with the last line "By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised"

So it's down to interpretation of the first part of the rule, was his arm in an unnatural position when his body movement is considered. I would say it's not, therefore it's the wrong decision
Click to expand...

Nah he can't throw his arm out its too obvious so leans towards the ball with his arm in, he knows exactly what he's doing, it's comes under common sense and knowing what the defender is doing.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Don’t care what anybody says there’s no way that’s a penalty.

That said, Everton are shit and will finish bottom 5/6. Lower if they don’t make 3-4 good signings.

Jack must be thinking FFS.
Click to expand...
My ERO is fuming that that was given. Won't be long until defenders are expected to have detachable arms. This kind of nonsense where ball clearly hits arm without the slightest intention of playing it just makes the people wonder WTF the arbitrators of the game are upto.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
My ERO is fuming that that was given. Won't be long until defenders are expected to have detachable arms. This kind of nonsense where ball clearly hits arm without the slightest intention of playing it just makes the people wonder WTF the arbitrators of the game are upto.
Click to expand...

It was not handball, it was the two-tier officials controlling the game
Liverpool gets away with a clear handball vs Palace and a red card in the first game
 
It would be much clearer if the law concentrated on whether there was an advantage gained by the ball coming in contact with the hand/arm. A shot on target deflected wide by an arm in whatever position - free kick / penalty; a shot already going wide deflected wider - corner. Intent or avoidability then only to decide whether and the colour of any card to be issued.
 
flook said:
There is nothing in the rules referencing "a ball belted at someone's arm", though I agree that's part of it

from FA.com

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
I think we're agreed it wasn't deliberate as Tarkowski was trying to put his arm behind his back, so we can rule out line 1
...
Click to expand...
Err no, of course we do not agree.
He makes an active movement to block the ball with a part of his body that causes a penalty. He tried to turn his shoulder in but the ball caught him below the arm pit. He was gambling - and lost. Shite happens.

If that's NOT a pen, players will start using their elbow and even hands with the arm close the body and claim what you do.
 
If you watched that game last night without knowing anything about the two teams you would think Everton had just been promoted and Leeds were the long established premier league club.
 
paulchapo said:
If you watched that game last night without knowing anything about the two teams you would think Everton had just been promoted and Leeds were the long established premier league club.
Click to expand...
Although if you watched the 2nd half and had no clue what level of football they were in yould probably guess division 1.
 
madloaf said:
Although if you watched the 2nd half and had no clue what level of football they were in yould probably guess division 1.
Click to expand...

Yes Leeds had plenty of energy as expected, roared on by a passionate crowd, but lacked firepower. Everton were poor, eleven men behind the ball most of the game. I'm not sure how a team can be one of the longest serving members of the top flight and be so poor.
 
hilts said:
Nah he can't throw his arm out its too obvious so leans towards the ball with his arm in, he knows exactly what he's doing, it's comes under common sense and knowing what the defender is doing.
Click to expand...
OK I show you the rule and you reply with knowledge of what he was thinking, you obviously know best we'll leave it at that
 
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