The New Handball Law

[Kennedy_probably_has]

Can anyone explain what is supposed to happen here?

I know we know this is ludicrous but this is ludicrous.

I just thought of this situation and mentioned it in another thread. It is ridiculous!

 

[TonyM]

When we are 5 up against someone we should test it out for the benefit of everyone. But how the hell you’d coordinate something so ridiculous is a different matter. Could be hilarious. Could end up with us being docked points.

:-)

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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

The folk coming up with this haven't learn the basic elements of Ewing's Law - A game of football within any second of the ninety minutes may have a thousand variables and if one of the variables arises that hasn't been catered for within the LotG then referees and VAR will make it up on the hoof and then sell it afterwards as being painted in jet black when everyone on the planet saw that it was brilliant white!

Swarbrick and the Whistling Wanker Crew, PiGMOL, the FA and the PL can't get to the next set of matches quick enough for some other controversy to bury the butcher's shop window of bollocks from last Saturday. All we are hearing about PiGMOL's interpretation of the new Law is what is gonna happen re players diving. It's all PR bollocks that doesn't pan out on the PL pitches.

 

[danielwood5]

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.

The rule as written by IFAB is in general pretty good.
It makes it so that a goal like Llorente's wouldn't stand as the ball went straight into the net without him gaining any control. It makes it so that the referee doesn't have to work out if it's accidental or not as this is where most of the arguments come from.
It also makes it so that the referee doesn't need to determine if a handball is accidental or not when a player controls the ball and then scores or creates a goal like Henry against Ireland.
It then goes on to say that if a ball hits a player and he doesn't control it then play continues, like it did for Jesus' goal on Saturday.
These all seem like simple and fairly common sense rules, the rules even let the ball accidentally hit defenders arms and not have it be an automatic penalty which again seems to be fine and in the spirit of the game.
The issue becomes more difficult when referees start using the ridiculous watered down version of it that the Premier League seem to be sticking with.
It's almost as if the Premier League has decided that their referees and the fans are too dumb to understand the nuances of the game and they have to make it as simple and black and white as possible while still blaming IFAB for the problems.

 

[toffee balls]

These all seem like simple and fairly common sense rules, the rules even let the ball accidentally hit defenders arms and not have it be an automatic penalty which again seems to be fine and in the spirit of the game.

Apologies as I keep banging this particular drum but this is going to cause mayhem.
Defenders will be able to literally get away with handball (effectively Laporte has been deemed to have handled the ball).
As others have alluded to , I have no problem with zero tolerance on any contact with any part of the hand / arm but you cannot have it both ways.

This is fuckin bonkers.

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

Why would someone specifically put in the wording 'goalscoring chance' ?

Imo, it's pretty obviously for a perfectly good & fair reason; we don't want to see the ball hitting someone on the arm then deflecting to someone stood in front of the keeper, or with an open net, tapping the ball in.

As usual, this bunch of useless fucking wankers are incapable of using common sense & instead interpret it in a 'jobsworth' manner, ignorant pundits fail to read it properly & the authorities fall over backwards trying to pretend it's all correct.

They will end up changing it again, but no guarantee they won't actually make it worse, as they have done since trying to excuse the ludicrous penalty given against Otamendi.

It's all fucked.

 

[danielwood5]

Apologies as I keep banging this particular drum but this is going to cause mayhem.
Defenders will be able to literally get away with handball (effectively Laporte has been deemed to have handled the ball).
As others have alluded to , I have no problem with zero tolerance on any contact with any part of the hand / arm but you cannot have it both ways.

This is fuckin bonkers.

That's the problem with the way this law is being interpreted by the Premier League, the actual laws allow for a ball accidentally hitting a defender or an attacker and there are circumstances where that is acceptable and not handball.
It's just the Premier League that are saying that any touch by an attacker is automatically a handball but accidental handball by defenders is OK. The Premier League have really made a complete mess of this.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I blame the EU....

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

I’ve been umpiring in the local cricket leagues for the last 5 years, and the recent handball farce is not dissimilar to the regulations regarding “warnings” for dangerous beamers, (a waist high delivery that doesn’t bounce) which used to fall under the sole discretion of the match official.

The ECB tried to remove the grey area by classifying all beamers as dangerous, regardless of pace, direction, or proximity to the body.

1st offence: warning

2nd offence: bowler removed from the bowling attack

However, by making the rule more consistent, it also removed any opportunity for common sense, as crap bowling was now treated the same as dangerous bowling.

After a ridiculous season, involving slow bowlers being “warned”, after a crap delivery had just been smashed out of the ground, the ECB reverted to the original discretion of the umpire.

 

[OB1]

The rule as written by IFAB is in general pretty good.
It makes it so that a goal like Llorente's wouldn't stand as the ball went straight into the net without him gaining any control. It makes it so that the referee doesn't have to work out if it's accidental or not as this is where most of the arguments come from.
It also makes it so that the referee doesn't need to determine if a handball is accidental or not when a player controls the ball and then scores or creates a goal like Henry against Ireland.
It then goes on to say that if a ball hits a player and he doesn't control it then play continues, like it did for Jesus' goal on Saturday.
These all seem like simple and fairly common sense rules, the rules even let the ball accidentally hit defenders arms and not have it be an automatic penalty which again seems to be fine and in the spirit of the game.
The issue becomes more difficult when referees start using the ridiculous watered down version of it that the Premier League seem to be sticking with.
It's almost as if the Premier League has decided that their referees and the fans are too dumb to understand the nuances of the game and they have to make it as simple and black and white as possible while still blaming IFAB for the problems.

Where does it say: "that if a ball hits a player and he doesn't control it then play continues"?