Southend 0-2

[spionfox]

If the ball strikes your arm or hand, it's handball, simples.

Strongly disagree. If a ball is struck with some power towards a defenders arm, as long as he isn't moving his arm towards the ball how can it be fair to penalise him

If he is only a few feet away he has no chance at all of getting his arm out of the way.

All that would happen under your suggestion is that attackers would deliberately aim for the arm every time they got close to a defender in the box.

 

[Matt_B]

It is just commentator talk - not that I mentioned ball-to-hand. All the Laws of the Game says is that for handball to be an infringement, it has to be intentional. Movement of the hand towards the ball may (or may not) be something that will suggest to the referee that it was intentional.

I didn't mean to imply you mentioned it, I meant it more as if they just said any contact is handball then it would never need an argument. Even if it isn't intentional or moved towards the ball, if you gain advantage from it then it should be penalised.

 

[bocadillo]

Strongly disagree. If a ball is struck with some power towards a defenders arm, as long as he isn't moving his arm towards the ball how can it be fair to penalise him

That ignores the fact that the defender should be doing everything he can to get his hand/arm out of the way.

All that would happen under your suggestion is that attackers would deliberately aim for the arm every time they got close to a defender in the box.

Many do. It was certainly part of the tools of the trade for Iain Hume.

 

[Matt_B]

Strongly disagree. If a ball is struck with some power towards a defenders arm, as long as he isn't moving his arm towards the ball how can it be fair to penalise him

If he is only a few feet away he has no chance at all of getting his arm out of the way.

All that would happen under your suggestion is that attackers would deliberately aim for the arm every time they got close to a defender in the box.

If I go in for a fair tackle but the player moves at the wrong time and I clatter him it is a freekick, if you gain advantage through an illegal part of the body then it should be the same.#

We will never get consistant refereeing when we have so many subjective and grey areas

 

[bocadillo]

I didn't mean to imply you mentioned it, I meant it more as if they just said any contact is handball then it would never need an argument. Even if it isn't intentional or moved towards the ball, if you gain advantage from it then it should be penalised.

You might think so, but it's not what the Laws say. "Handball-to-advantage" used to be another item of your 'commentator talk'. Not heard it for a while though (perhaps because I hardly ever watch football on TV).

 

[Matt_B]

You might think so, but it's not what the Laws say. "Handball-to-advantage" used to be another item of your 'commentator talk'. Not heard it for a while though (perhaps because I hardly ever watch football on TV).

I know, the law should be changed!

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

I've just read the whole of that thread on the Southend forum.

The biggest load of shite i've ever read in my life. They made it out like another 'Hillsborough' was on the cards. It was nothing like that at all. Yesterday was a huge game for us, and for crying out loud a dozen or so fans got a little over excited and spilled out on to the pitch. Not exactly life threatening is it.

I thought our fans were excellent yesterday, and were in no way as bad as what is being made out on their forum.

 

[spionfox]

That ignores the fact that the defender should be doing everything he can to get his hand/arm out of the way.

In so doing there is a chance that he will not be quick enough and may still be hit by the ball. The fact that his arm was moving (albeit to try and get out of the way) may influence the referee that it was deliberate handball. If he keeps still then it may be adjudged (correctly) as accidental and no foul.

 

[bocadillo]

In so doing there is a chance that he will not be quick enough and may still be hit by the ball. The fact that his arm was moving (albeit to try and get out of the way) may influence the referee that it was deliberate handball. If he keeps still then it may be adjudged (correctly) as accidental and no foul.

On the contrary, if he deliberately keeps his hand/arm still, he is deliberately handling the ball - and therefore the correct decision would be that it was intentional and a free-kick/penalty would be awarded.

 

[spionfox]

On the contrary, if he deliberately keeps his hand/arm still, he is deliberately handling the ball - and therefore the correct decision would be that it was intentional and a free-kick/penalty would be awarded.

Is that the correct ruling for that situation or just your interpretation of it?

And you would still apply that interpretation if the ball was whacked at his arm with force from a couple of yards away? Bearing in mind his arm didn't move?

Would be a very harsh decision to give a foul in those circumstances.

 

[Matt_B]

At the end of the day the deciding factor should be whether it is for or against City.

 

[H T B]

Doesn't matter how "we" interpret the rules, it matters how the ref on the day does.

Also, has been shown many times that the angle you view an incident from can make all the difference. (Ala the Carlisle handball, or not!)

Some days they go your way, some days they don't. One of the reasons we love the game.

 

[bocadillo]

Is that the correct ruling for that situation or just your interpretation of it?

And you would still apply that interpretation if the ball was whacked at his arm with force from a couple of yards away? Bearing in mind his arm didn't move?

Would be a very harsh decision to give a foul in those circumstances.

If the offender deliberately doesn't move his arm, the handball is clearly deliberate. It doesn't need interpretation. A player who is only a couple of yards away may not have time to decide whether or not to move his arm, but that would not stop a referee considering whether or not that arm should have been there in the first place.

Referees are required to take "the distance between the opponent and the ball (the unexpected ball)" into their consideration - but they will also consider whether it is appropriate for a player to have their arms/hands wide of their bodies. If a player has placed his arms wide (as if to block) and the ball hits it, the handball is most likely to be considered deliberate however small the distance is hit from.


Just a reminder though that this has nothing at all to do with the incident that gave rise to this discussion - this was not a ball hit towards the player in question.

 

[WALSHIESTACKLE]

Is that the correct ruling for that situation or just your interpretation of it?

And you would still apply that interpretation if the ball was whacked at his arm with force from a couple of yards away? Bearing in mind his arm didn't move?

Would be a very harsh decision to give a foul in those circumstances.

Surely you would expect a referee to use common sense in that situation. The problem is you very rarely see the words referee and common sense in the same sentence unles it has 'lack of' in between.

 

[bocadillo]

At the end of the day the deciding factor should be whether it is for or against City.

A fact that too often seems to be forgotten.

 

[bocadillo]

Doesn't matter how "we" interpret the rules, it matters how the ref on the day does.

Also, has been shown many times that the angle you view an incident from can make all the difference. (Ala the Carlisle handball, or not!)

Some days they go your way, some days they don't. One of the reasons we love the game.

Very true. And also one of the reasons we hate it.