The New Handball Law

  • Thread starter Deleted member 77198
  • Start date
Different rules for two outfield players from opposing teams standing shoulder-to-shoulder in the penalty area. F*cking ludicrous.
Its not even that, if it doesn't lead to a goal it isn't an offence so the same handball has two different outcomes depending on what happens after the ‘offence’.
 
Its not even that, if it doesn't lead to a goal it isn't an offence so the same handball has two different outcomes depending on what happens after the ‘offence’.
So what, a defender can accidentally block the ball from going in the goal with his arm, but if an attacker does it, no goal?

I that's the case then it's another rule change after City have been f*cked over.
 
It might have touched LaPorte's arm but none of these things happened:
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
 
So what, a defender can accidentally block the ball from going in the goal with his arm, but if an attacker does it, no goal?

I that's the case then it's another rule change after City have been f*cked over.
I know, but doubt they will change it, or if they do it won’t be just because of yesterday, same rule cost Wolves last week and any change will have to come from IFAB doubt that will happen before next season. Same with offside, the law may change because of VAR but not during the season.
 
I know, but doubt they will change it, or if they do it won’t be just because of yesterday, same rule cost Wolves last week and any change will have to come from IFAB doubt that will happen before next season. Same with offside, the law may change because of VAR but not during the season.
I was thinking more of the CL game last season when their goal was allowed to stand after it went in directly off an arm, then the rule change this season.
 
Lloris was laughing in disbelief and shaking his head. He couldn’t believe it.

Yeah he was absolutely shocked, he had integrity and it was as if he didn't want the goal to be disallowed.

He probably thought, this is unbelievable
 
I was thinking more of the CL game last season when their goal was allowed to stand after it went in directly off an arm, then the rule change this season.
With you now, although the biggest issue with that one was the referee not being shown an angle to even be able to make a decision one way or the other. As for the rule now the only change needed is to allow the ref to review it and decide himself if the accidental handball led to to the goal or not, its obvious to anyone probably even the VAR ref that disallowed it Laporte didn’t. So far we’ve had 2 weeks and it’s cost two teams , can only hope over the season it costs every team unfortunately knowing our current VAR luck it’ll cost other teams when they are already 2 or 3 up. As we should have been yesterday to be fair.
 
It might have touched LaPorte's arm but none of these things happened:
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper


I agree with you as above.

Based on the reading the whole LotG no offense was committed so VAR was incorrect

Further down the original post it describes what happened to LaPorte and it says it is not an offense

YCNMIU - except when City are involved
 
  • [player] gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
It must be this part of the law they used. Others have made the point (@Barcon, Duncan Castles included) that Laporte did not gain possession of the ball, neither did he gain control of the ball. This being the case, the the two following offences can't have happened.

Therefore the VAR referee disallowed the goal based on a flawed interpretation of the laws of the game. Why is this being overlooked?
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.