The New Handball Law

[Eds]

I agree, but VAR determined that he did (we assume) and my supposition is based on the same interpretation. I'm not making an argument that the decision was correct, I am pointing out a scenario that could/should occur if the referees maintain their stance that the law was applied correctly.

VAR was wrong in their interpretation. In your scenario a penalty wouldn't be given as this hand ball law only applied to the attacking team and the goal would stand as a goal scoring opportunity wasn't made. It just fell to Ota who lumped it upfield. The whole thing has been turned on its head as nobody imagined the scenario that we had on Saturday and if you look closely a goal scoring chance wasn't made as the ball actually fell nearer a Spurs player who just didn't react quick enough. Gabby then had to control it, open his body and curl it around numerous Spurs defenders plus David Silva. The goal, based on the law, should have stood as there was no justification for it to stand

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

VAR was wrong in their interpretation. In your scenario a penalty wouldn't be given as this hand ball law only applied to the attacking team and the goal would stand as a goal scoring opportunity wasn't made. It just fell to Ota who lumped it upfield. The whole thing has been turned on its head as nobody imagined the scenario that we had on Saturday and if you look closely a goal scoring chance wasn't made as the ball actually fell nearer a Spurs player who just didn't react quick enough. Gabby then had to control it, open his body and curl it around numerous Spurs defenders plus David Silva. The goal, based on the law, should have stood as there was no justification for it to stand

The law doesn't mention the distinction between an attacking or defending player unless it's stated somewhere else, it just says:
It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goal-scoring opportunity
I'm not sure where this idea has come from that the rules say a defender can accidentally handle a ball whereas an attacker can't, unless they're pointing out the fact that VAR will spot the attacker's offence and punish them whereas the same isn't to be said for a defender.

Either way, it's a pig's ear.

 

[LWashington]

No. City's goal was ruled out because a team-mate was deemed to have created a goal scoring opportunity through accidentally handling the ball. If a defender does that and a team-mate clears the ball and it lands to another team-mate who then scores at the other end it is the same thing, a GSO, and the game is restarted with a direct free-kick, only it's in the penalty area so has to be a penalty. There's no caveat in the laws about losing/re-gaining control or possession, phases or time limits, distances the ball has travelled etc.

Imagine this is at the end of the game and the Dippers need to score a goal to win the league so have pushed everyone up for a corner. City are defending, it accidentally comes off Laporte's hand (no penalty), lands to Otamendi who lumps it up field where Jesus latches onto it and scores into the open goal. VAR kicks in as standard, spots the defender's accidental handball so disallows the goal. Game restarts with a penalty to the dippers.

Not sure what would be awarded but that exact scenario you describe happened in 2012 CL semi.
Quality isn't good enough to see exactly which part of Cole it hits chest or chest and arm.

 

[OB1]

I was pretty much paraphrasing there, the laws in full are available on the IFAB or the FA websites. The laws are a lot more in depth and nuanced than the Premier League's simplified version.

I've got a download of the IFAB Laws of the Game - and multiple people have posted the handball law on here. Hence my question. To be pedantic, you are not, as far as I can see, paraphrasing but giving an interpretation that goes against what the official line we are being given is. So I wondered if you had spotted something I've not seen but it seems you have not. So it still seems to me the rule is not as well written as it could be.

 

[LWashington]

The law doesn't mention the distinction between an attacking or defending player unless it's stated somewhere else, it just says:
It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goal-scoring opportunity
I'm not sure where this idea has come from that the rules say a defender can accidentally handle a ball whereas an attacker can't, unless they're pointing out the fact that VAR will spot the attacker's offence and punish them whereas the same isn't to be said for a defender.

Either way, it's a pig's ear.

Yes other people have asked this. Would the goal have stood if Laporte was 5 yards outside the box? On the half way line ? In his own box ? If it was just in the attacking penalty area etc, surely it would say that somewhere.

 

[danielwood5]

I've got a download of the IFAB Laws of the Game - and multiple people have posted the handball law on here. Hence my question. To be pedantic, you are not, as far as I can see, paraphrasing but giving an interpretation that goes against what the official line we are being given is. So I wondered if you had spotted something I've not seen but it seems you have not. So it still seems to me the rule is not as well written as it could be.

That's kind of what I was trying to say, the official line from the Premier League is different to the laws of the game as written and accepted by the FA and IFAB.
They either need to be rewritten in a much clearer way or get the Premier League to use the actual laws as written rather their own simplified for VAR version.

 

[danielwood5]

No. City's goal was ruled out because a team-mate was deemed to have created a goal scoring opportunity through accidentally handling the ball. If a defender does that and a team-mate clears the ball and it lands to another team-mate who then scores at the other end it is the same thing, a GSO, and the game is restarted with a direct free-kick, only it's in the penalty area so has to be a penalty. There's no caveat in the laws about losing/re-gaining control or possession, phases or time limits, distances the ball has travelled etc.

Imagine this is at the end of the game and the Dippers need to score a goal to win the league so have pushed everyone up for a corner. City are defending, it accidentally comes off Laporte's hand (no penalty), lands to Otamendi who lumps it up field where Jesus latches onto it and scores into the open goal. VAR kicks in as standard, spots the defender's accidental handball so disallows the goal. Game restarts with a penalty to the dippers.

I don't think it would restart with a penalty as in this situation the referee has to start looking at all the 'unnatural position' and 'making the body bigger' stuff. It would be a free kick to Littlewoods (I think) but God knows where they would take it from, in the box, at the point that it was picked up, etc, etc.
Obviously if it's a deliberate handball then it is a penalty as usual. One of the new clarifications says that if the players hand/arm is above shoulder level then that counts as deliberate handball, so if the Spurs player had their arm just a little higher last weekend then we would have had a penalty for that if they could have worked out who's arm the ball hit first!

 

[caseball]

It's interesting that a similar thing has in fact happened. If it was say Laporte in his own penalty area. The ball hits his hand/arm, not deliberate so no offence, he then clears it, showing control/possession of the ball, Aguero picks up the clearance, runs on and scores. Laporte has just unarguably created a goalscoring chance. At that point, the non-deliberate handball becomes an offence. The punishment for handball is a direct free kick and since the handball took place in his own penalty area, Laporte has just given away a penalty. He's one unlucky player.

 

[kaz7]

No. City's goal was ruled out because a team-mate was deemed to have created a goal scoring opportunity through accidentally handling the ball. If a defender does that and a team-mate clears the ball and it lands to another team-mate who then scores at the other end it is the same thing, a GSO, and the game is restarted with a direct free-kick, only it's in the penalty area so has to be a penalty. There's no caveat in the laws about losing/re-gaining control or possession, phases or time limits, distances the ball has travelled etc.

Imagine this is at the end of the game and the Dippers need to score a goal to win the league so have pushed everyone up for a corner. City are defending, it accidentally comes off Laporte's hand (no penalty), lands to Otamendi who lumps it up field where Jesus latches onto it and scores into the open goal. VAR kicks in as standard, spots the defender's accidental handball so disallows the goal. Game restarts with a penalty to the dippers.

No the new rule is it's not handball if it accidently touches a defenders arm/hand unless their hands are away from their body,attackers its any contact at all,if it hits the defender in the same way it hit eric then it's no pen in any phase of play,eric didn't create a goal scoring opp,it's not even clear if it hit him or both of them,the handball rules the prem have come up with are not correct,the governing body on VARs rules are not this stupid and by their rules it did not lead to an opp to score because at no time did eric get control of the ball and create the opp

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Copy/pasting the laws doesn't explain your argument against mine.

Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball after it hit his hand. So it was not hand ball.