Clever Fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 The Two Hand Ball incidents were both hand Balls in the modern interpretation of the laws. Why one was given and the other not is a mystery which Var should have to answer. I haven't seen any replays of the the Ederson Iheanacho incident. But my thoughts during the game were that it was a very brave peace of Goal Keeping. He done what he had to do to prevent a Goal. I also considered would Kasper have done the same, I very much doubt it, And that's the difference between good Goalkeepers and the very best.
st albans fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Given that the ref didn’t give the KDB handball, the VAR can only give it if it’s a clear and obvious error - we have several members on here who feel it isn’t a pen - hence it’s not a clear and obvious error not to award it. Assuming those giving their opinions are sound of mind and understand the laws of the game, I think it conclusively shows it’s not a stonewall error by the VAR. I haven’t seen anyone defending praets use of his arm as being defendable - hence the VAR was correct to give that. I happen to think KDB was a clear pen for the reasons stated earlier - however, this thread is proof that the VAR was probably right. If tierney gives it then it isn’t reversed meaning that the on field call is paramount.
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Just now, joachim1965 said: If you don't want to have the ball twatted at you from 10 yards then don't stand in the wall. That's the whole point of a wall, to block the ball, but NOT with your hands, as has been said earlier, either get out if the way or head it. This is the most dumbest ****ing shit arguement ever. What do you think they do at Manchester City training. Pep: Right lads, we need to organise a defence from set pieces, so we need a wall, so what I need is 5 lads fine being hit flush in the face with a leather ball at 70 mph, so blocking out your natural instinct to stop that is key Mendy: but the rules of the game state we can protect our face boss Pep: Yeah **** that the internet is full of uppty ***** with their own opinions and they are more important than the actual rules of football. Otamendi: I agree boss, I’ll take one for the team. Pep: **** that as well it’s not that important we will just stick pretty boy Kev on the end of it and hope for the best.
January47 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Again on the institutionised theme why on Sky’s coverage was the only guest pundit a former Man City player. Again this then skews all the analysis towards them.
st albans fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 2 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: This is the most dumbest ****ing shit arguement ever. What do you think they do at Manchester City training. Pep: Right lads, we need to organise a defence from set pieces, so we need a wall, so what I need is 5 lads fine being hit flush in the face with a leather ball at 70 mph, so blocking out your natural instinct to stop that is key Mendy: but the rules of the game state we can protect our face boss Pep: Yeah **** that the internet is full of uppty ***** with their own opinions and they are more important than the actual rules of football. Otamendi: I agree boss, I’ll take one for the team. Pep: **** that as well it’s not that important we will just stick pretty boy Kev on the end of it and hope for the best. Not many are disagreeing that if the ball is headed straight at your chops then you can put your hands up to protect your face .....BUT if the outcome is that the ball strikes your hand and that hand is no longer in front of your face because you’ve turned sideways then the consequences are that it’s handball ...........otherwise every block can be done with hands in front of the face on the basis that it might happen and those hands then make your silhouette larger ....... it’s the laws of the game I believe .....
Manwell Pablo Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 5 minutes ago, January47 said: Again on the institutionised theme why on Sky’s coverage was the only guest pundit a former Man City player. Again this then skews all the analysis towards them. Yep totally bias was Micah Richards, didn’t question a single thing the ref gave. FFS I am done sorry i’ll see you all Friday.
joachim1965 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 13 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: This is the most dumbest ****ing shit arguement ever. What do you think they do at Manchester City training. Pep: Right lads, we need to organise a defence from set pieces, so we need a wall, so what I need is 5 lads fine being hit flush in the face with a leather ball at 70 mph, so blocking out your natural instinct to stop that is key Mendy: but the rules of the game state we can protect our face boss Pep: Yeah **** that the internet is full of uppty ***** with their own opinions and they are more important than the actual rules of football. Otamendi: I agree boss, I’ll take one for the team. Pep: **** that as well it’s not that important we will just stick pretty boy Kev on the end of it and hope for the best. Are you pissed?
oadby.fox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 12 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: But his arm is out stretched far more and this is why your playing devils advocate because you know that’s the case. Praet, who had an excellent game otherwise, is making himself bigger, De Bruyne is just trying to guard his face, his arms are literally across his face. The two sets of circumstances are talk sport drivel level of if you give that why didn’t you give that let’s stir up a talking point for biased fans to loose their shit over. Your better off arguing the KDB incident in isolation than bringing Praet into it as you totally invalidate any point you are making. But Praet doesn’t have a PhD in maths, how would he know that his arms were stretched out far enough such that the ball would hit them when the ball is travelling at speed? How could he have calculated that? But seriously... I don’t know why you think that talk of both incidents together invalidates the other, we are looking at possible handballs in the penalty area and if, as you say, one is a stonewall peno and the other shouldn’t even be given a second look then we should have good justification for doing so. What I’ve picked up is this: 1.) Praet makes his body bigger by extending his hands/arms “unnaturally”. 2.) The ball hits Praet’s hands/arms. I honestly don’t know how you can avoid saying the same thing about De Bruyne. Clearly 2.) is true of both and so the debate shifts to 1.), are De Bruyne’s arms in an unnatural position? Yes, he is holding them up and nearly catches the ball. Is he making his body bigger? Yes, if he doesn’t raise his arms then the ball takes a different path because it doesn’t hit him. Does he have a claim to “self-defence”? Potentially, but only if without the hands there the ball would’ve hit his face. He clearly got out of the way of the ball and the hands are only protecting the air behind them. Yes, here you can perhaps debate about how he was to know that he would successfully be able to duck out of the way but that should be not be the point of arbitration. If it was then we could ask ourselves the same question about Praet and of many other handball incidents. Ultimately he has ducked out of the way and left his hands extended out in front of his face by some way. Irrespective of whether his intent was to protect himself it should’ve been given as a handball and I’m sure it would’ve been if it was Praet who did it instead. Give both or don’t give either, simple.
whoareyaaa Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 they don't want Leicester to take a European place from the elite it's plain and obvious. The same bloke that VAR'd the Chelsea game who failed to send off a tottenham player (why? because they wanted a tottenham win) The same bloke VAR'd our game didn't give us a clear handball that he gave up the other end (why? because they want us out the top 4) its an absolute joke whats going on at the minute and its getting pretty obvious game by game. Rodgers said something to John Moss when they gave Man City that peno would have loved to have heard what he said as Moss's face was stone cold.
purpleronnie Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Nonsense thread. Big clubs get a decision so let's forget all the times 'smaller' teams got them. No favouritism just biased fans.
joachim1965 Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 2 minutes ago, purpleronnie said: Nonsense thread. Big clubs get a decision so let's forget all the times 'smaller' teams got them. No favouritism just biased fans. I certainly don't think it's a case of institutional cheating but there is something very wrong with VAR and it needs sorting.
Vestan Pance Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 The irony here is you are clearly allowed to 'protect yourself' with a handball, but if your getting double punched in the neck you're offered no protection at all. Just ludicrous.
Vestan Pance Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 31 minutes ago, purpleronnie said: Nonsense thread. Big clubs get a decision so let's forget all the times 'smaller' teams got them. No favouritism just biased fans. No one is suggesting that we forget all decisions for 'smaller' teams, that would be biased and a gross exaggeration.
Dahnsouff Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Let’s not be those who will claim conspiracy when the reasons for focus is driven solely by clicks, by the marketable audience. There seems to be a sliding scale of coverage preference. In yesterday’s game it favoured Man City, but then if they play Man Utd or Liverpool it would be focus on the red teams. Such focus means fans perceive injustice whereas such teams tend to create more and better opportunities. It is to be one of these teams we are striving to become.
Jacnah Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Just a thought - but does Dennis not turn his back in order to protect his face - why else is he doing it. He is In the process of protecting his face and whilst trying to protect himself the ball hits his arm. Completely unintentional just a consequence of body movement. Kev on the other hand raises his arms intentionally.I know that it doesn't have to be intentional to be a pen but i'm just articulating how ridiculous i feel the whole things is. The only thing these debates really tell us is that in making the rules, particularly handball and offside, the rule makers are disappearing up their own backsides.
Guest foxestalkisfullofidiots Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 10 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm Your allowed to protect yourself (face and groin if you look into it further) He’s moved his head and literally has his hands in a cross shield in front of his face facing the ball, the balls been whacked from 10 yards at a high speed. He’s closed his eyes as soon as he thinks it’s going to hit him, It’s all good you sat there with the slow motion replays, unless you’ve been in a wall with some ****er he can strike a ball you’ve got no idea what it is like. If he’s intentionally done that to divert the shot whilst making it look like he’s protecting his face he needs testing to make sure he’s not a descendant of skywalker. it’s clear but even with your best pair of blue tinted spectacles on, it’d be quite something to call it a clear and obvious error. Quite why you’ve all got your tin foil hates on about this when Ederson committed just shy of common assault on Nacho is quite beyond me but there we are. Was listening to Mark Halsey on Talksport on the way home and he said when the referees meet for training at St George’s Park they were always told raising your hands to protect your face is handball, the player has 2 options either head the ball away or move your head out the way then yesterday the PGMOL come out and say it wasn’t a penalty as the “players hands were in a position you would expect to protect your face” the whole handball law is a mess
StanSP Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, foxestalkisfullofidiots said: Was listening to Mark Halsey on Talksport on the way home and he said when the referees meet for training at St George’s Park they were always told raising your hands to protect your face is handball, the player has 2 options either head the ball away or move your head out the way then yesterday the PGMOL come out and say it wasn’t a penalty as the “players hands were in a position you would expect to protect your face” the whole handball law is a mess Halsey should be on BT Sport as well instead of that wetwipe Peter Walton.
fuchsntf Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 10 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4524354.stm Your allowed to protect yourself (face and groin if you look into it further) He’s moved his head and literally has his hands in a cross shield in front of his face facing the ball, the balls been whacked from 10 yards at a high speed. He’s closed his eyes as soon as he thinks it’s going to hit him, It’s all good you sat there with the slow motion replays, unless you’ve been in a wall with some ****er he can strike a ball you’ve got no idea what it is like. If he’s intentionally done that to divert the shot whilst making it look like he’s protecting his face he needs testing to make sure he’s not a descendant of skywalker. it’s clear but even with your best pair of blue tinted spectacles on, it’d be quite something to call it a clear and obvious error. Quite why you’ve all got your tin foil hates on about this when Ederson committed just shy of common assault on Nacho is quite beyond me but there we are. The Wall incident,understand where your Coming from but just wait until a defender,crosses his arms,( 1 Protectimg his Crown jewels,the other his face)when a Flat hard ball is put in from the wing.... I actually thought the ref,wasnt Bad yesterday,but needed support,and didnt get it...!! I was a gk,but then gave my all to Rugby... Even when going for a 50/50 ball,one of your Intentions is to make sure,the opposition goes no further... (G.Banks statement)but it depends on how far you stretch those boundaries,before and after contact ( Innocent or deliberate) then Pray On the refs perspective. Amateur or profi,know their intent , both paricipants,in both sports....Refs job is to Call it,then find or from previous Show consistency... Its Not the individual incidents,that frustrates the fans,its the inconsistencies,on decisions through a period ,on the calling-of, interpretation,and perspective. There were discussions from media,pundits,where Refs-spokesman,agree Handball is handball,with exceptions,its those exceptions that the fans opinionate on,depending On their own Bias & perspective of various incidents.....Its what Feeds Football debate... We all individually like to put our own Take On incidents or issues,even I admit with all my wisdom and experience,I Love being sucked into the Inevitable quagmire of Football forum debate & nonsense knowing I am sometimes,spot on,and other times man- overboard flapping.... I hate PC/Laptop games, but foxesforum balances it out... On another tact,maybe our players on both occasions should of got into the refs face,like Man.city players did... PS... All opposition getting hands in the way....Free- kick,or penalty..!!! If any Player wearing a foxes badge,it is the Innocent exception..being Bias is fun....simples..
Crazy Kop Corner Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 It's getting beyond a joke. The Villa debacle and now the handball and the assault on Kelechi. It is absolutely institutional cheating - VAR was brought in to reduce the number of questionable decisisons but all it has highlighted is that those in charge of the game lean hugely in favour of the big clubs as it's in their favour Sky are all over the Chelsea incident yesterday and we're well down the pecking order although there were at least 2 blatent errors by the officals yesterday. It's starting to stink more and more rotten - Get them all out and start again
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 4 minutes ago, pmcla26 said: There isn’t a rule to say you can protect your face. It’s a penalty, we were robbed, Ederson’s was controversial but the KDB one was the stonewall penalty we were missing. There also isn't a rule to say you can protect the area to the side of your face.
Guest foxestalkisfullofidiots Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, StanSP said: Halsey should be on BT Sport as well instead of that wetwipe Peter Walton. No reason why the good experienced referees couldn’t do Stockley Park, the only thing that stops them actually refereeing is fitness, The VAR official who did the Chelsea/Spurs game and our game yesterday only had something like 23 premiere league games under his belt, would take a lot of confidence to overturn a decision by a referee with a lot more experience.
Guest Electric Yetis Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Couldn't they employ ex refs at Stockley Park. Maybe then they wouldn't feel so duty bound to stand by the on field refs decision. Halsey, Webb etc, jesus I'd even prefer Uriah Rennie to the current situation.
TheUltimateWinner Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 1 minute ago, pds said: Couldn't they employ ex refs at Stockley Park. Maybe then they wouldn't feel so duty bound to stand by the on field refs decision. Halsey, Webb etc, jesus I'd even prefer Uriah Rennie to the current situation. Webb is doing a wonderful job as head of refs in the mls. Says a lot when our most internationally recognised refs want nothing to do with the current setup. Same as clattenburg. Meanwhile poor refs such as mike jones get appointed as coaches once they retire. Jobs for the boys?
Hollyfox Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Peter Walton was the BT Sport expert ref, doing the commentary for the Chelsea v Spurs game. The Lo Selso incident, he immediately said that it wasn't dangerous and there was no case to answer. And he's supposed to be an expert 😄
MC Prussian Posted 23 February 2020 Posted 23 February 2020 Why isn't handball applied when the arm (or hand) moves towards the ball and not vice versa? The way the rule is implemented right now leads to too many controversial decisions.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.