Handball rule

[Clever Fox]

I thought the key word in Handballs was DELIBERATE. How could that hand Ball be called deliberate. It's just crazy from who ever is dictating the VAR rules. 

[fox_favourite]

1 minute ago, Clever Fox said:

I thought the key word in Handballs was DELIBERATE. How could that hand Ball be called deliberate. It's just crazy from who ever is dictating the VAR rules. 

But they'll class it as the attacker gaining an advantage. Stupid, I know, as there is nothing that Nacho man could have done to prevent it, but my guess is why it was disallowed

[Clever Fox]

4 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

That's because it's still a human making the decision. Different people, different opinions and takes on the laws of the game. It shouldn't be, granted, but that's just human nature. 

 

I think unfortunately as the law stands, it was handball. But at the same time so was KDB one that wasn't given...and that was more clear cut. Technology isn't the problem it's the people who use it, as its only as good as the end user. 

 

That's why it should be a  3 or  5 man group making the VAR decisions. Review the Images and hit a button then you get a simple majority and a more accurate decision.  

[fox_favourite]

Just now, Clever Fox said:

That's why it should be a  3 or  5 man group making the VAR decisions. Review the Images and hit a button then you get a simple majority and a more accurate decision.  

Exactly. Why is it only one man? One premier League ref at that? They are making mistakes on the pitch and off it. Needs to be a few people specifically trained on VAR

[everton carr]

8 hours ago, sdb said:

The rule is: all decisions go against Leicester. 

 

That literally has been the rule for months now.

Not too sure about that think back to the Wolves game a few weeks ago

[Clever Fox]

8 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

But they'll class it as the attacker gaining an advantage. Stupid, I know, as there is nothing that Nacho man could have done to prevent it, but my guess is why it was disallowed

Yes I agree, But I it was decided also to favor attacking players, to bring more Goals into the game. Looking at the 2 recent decisions it's very hard to justify either.

[Deeg67]

The rule is the rule. Hate the rule, not the call. They got it right.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Clever Fox said:

Yes I agree, But I it was decided also to favor attacking players, to bring more Goals into the game. Looking at the 2 recent decisions it's very hard to justify either.

 

53 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

The rule is the rule. Hate the rule, not the call. They got it right.

They’ve re written the law to remove any ‘grey areas’. If it touches the arm in the immediate lead up to a goal then it’s case closed .......

 

imagine if that incident happens just in front of the goal and the ball goes in off an arm - no intention but the administrators wanted to ensure that no goal could be scored off an arm under any circumstances  - full stop. 
 

we suffered last night from an anomoly in the law ...... but re writing it to avoid it happening again can’t allow a goal to be scored off the arm as a consequence.............you see the difficulty.  In the end, I think they have to re think this one to allow the referee (inc var) to decide how the contact with the arm came about and it’s actual affect on what followed. 
 

everyone moaned about rice’s one at sheff u but the defender is clearing the ball within the rules and rice’s arm, whilst in a natural position stops the clearance and means he can run on and score.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one like last night so far .....

[Jimothy]

9 hours ago, Matt said:

So people are saying we should have lost 1st game of the season then? Or was that one ok to be disallowed because it worked in our favour.

 

Like it or not to the current rules it was corrected disallowed.

 

Yes we should have lost the game. The rule was brought in after Boly punched the ball in to the net against Man City last season, and as with everything, they've gone too far in trying to prevent that happening again. It's not hard to see the difference between what Boly did against Man City, and what Iheanacho did last, and judge it based on clear intent.

 

It was only the second game of the season where this rule was shown up as ridiculous when Man City had a corner against Spurs. Laporte and a Spurs defender who I've forgotten both go for the ball. The ball goes through a gap between their arms but brushes Laporte's, falls to Jesus who scores, goal ruled out. Had that hit the Spurs defenders arm, no penalty.

 

The goal was rightfully ruled out last night under that law, I accept that, but the law is still shit and needs changing.

[Corky]

5 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

It's a load of utter shit, also get a bit fed up of people absolving VAR of blame in this - this rule was brought in to supplement VAR so it's an issue indirectly caused by VAR.

 

If VAR has done one thing good though it's really exposed some of the absolute amateurs officiating the game. The officials are either corrupt or just astoundingly inept.

How can it be that the second "offence" in an incident is the one penalised? Their defender handballs it yet gets a free-kick 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Ridiculous rule but we were absolutely shit and definitely didn’t deserve to win, regardless of that decision. 

[Carl the Llama]

I'm 100% convinced that if the Nacho incident happened to a Manchester club or Liverpool then they'd rule it 'not clear and obvious'.  1 rule for thee...

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Ridiculous rule but we were absolutely shit and definitely didn’t deserve to win, regardless of that decision. 

Probably good value for the draw though.  Should have done more in the other 94 minutes of play nonetheless, can't argue with that.

[Corky]

And, unlike the offside rule this season, the handball rule hasn't been adhered to consistently. Watford have had two (maybe three?) goals against them given when they shouldn't.

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

 

They’ve re written the law to remove any ‘grey areas’. If it touches the arm in the immediate lead up to a goal then it’s case closed .......

 

imagine if that incident happens just in front of the goal and the ball goes in off an arm - no intention but the administrators wanted to ensure that no goal could be scored off an arm under any circumstances  - full stop. 
 

we suffered last night from an anomoly in the law ...... but re writing it to avoid it happening again can’t allow a goal to be scored off the arm as a consequence.............you see the difficulty.  In the end, I think they have to re think this one to allow the referee (inc var) to decide how the contact with the arm came about and it’s actual affect on what followed. 
 

everyone moaned about rice’s one at sheff u but the defender is clearing the ball within the rules and rice’s arm, whilst in a natural position stops the clearance and means he can run on and score.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen one like last night so far .....

I think the word deliberate has to play the biggest part in the decision making. Last night was just a farce of a decision. especially when we didn't even get a free kick for the first offender.

 

I'm sure it will be improved come the Summer but for now it just so wrong.

[Fitbaphile]

At the start of the season, the PL's site summarised the new rule:

"Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.  

It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player. 

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby."

 

Source: https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332

 

So was the Norwich player not close/nearby? 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Fitbaphile said:

At the start of the season, the PL's site summarised the new rule:

"Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.  

It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player. 

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby."

 

Source: https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332

 

So was the Norwich player not close/nearby? 

Not in the case of a goal being scored - in that instance, there is nothing to be discussed. It touches the arm of the attacker=handball .

 

 

[BigGibbo]

This and the offside rule are totally embarrassing for Mike Riley and the EPL in general. Laughing stock around the world at the minute as the only country who've screwed up the implementation of VAR due in part to laws like these and the powers that be seem to just be ignoring it and hoping it works itself out.

[MGLCFC]

Sad that we are bemoaning a VAR ruling. Being 3rd in the league we should have enough to comfortably beat Norwich without having to rely on VAR interpretations. If we turn up and play to our potential VAR shouldn't have been an issue. By the way, whether we agree with rule or not, we all know that the goal was going to be chalked off. Can't really complain as Wolves we're equally mystified at our place when their attempt was disallowed.

[Dan]

5 hours ago, Corky said:

How can it be that the second "offence" in an incident is the one penalised? Their defender handballs it yet gets a free-kick 

How they can get the free kick is beyond any explanation. This shouldn't be happening at this level of football.

[Tom12345]

20 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Afraid it did 

 

the law needs a tweak ...... by the letter of the law, it was attacking handball in the event of a goal .... I think the law will be changed .....

Yeah, but the bloke behind the VAR decision needs to use his judgement and his brain. Rules are there to facilitate football. That was not a good footballing decision. It should never be ruled out for that, especially as the ball hit the defensive player‘s hand first before it then hit Nacho’s - all without intent. Have to look at it in context. It is really an unbelievable decision. Gutted and cannot accept it. This is worst than the penalties not given against Man City and any of the marginal offside calls in the EPL this year. It was a blatant day light robbery.

[Jimothy]

13 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Yeah, but the bloke behind the VAR decision needs to use his judgement and his brain. Rules are there to facilitate football. That was not a good footballing decision. It should never be ruled out for that, especially as the ball hit the defensive player‘s hand first before it then hit Nacho’s - all without intent. Have to look at it in context. It is really an unbelievable decision. Gutted and cannot accept it. This is worst than the penalties not given against Man City and any of the marginal offside calls in the EPL this year. It was a blatant day light robbery.

You're right and wrong. The rule states any contact with an attacking players arm or hand that leads to a goal will see the goal ruled out. Yes the ref and VAR should be allowed to look at it in context, but they can't as the rule doesn't allow it. Under the rule that goal was rightfully ruled out. The rules shit and needs changing, but with that rule in place it was used correctly.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

Yeah, but the bloke behind the VAR decision needs to use his judgement and his brain. Rules are there to facilitate football. That was not a good footballing decision. It should never be ruled out for that, especially as the ball hit the defensive player‘s hand first before it then hit Nacho’s - all without intent. Have to look at it in context. It is really an unbelievable decision. Gutted and cannot accept it.

But the new handball rule around goals has no context applied - it’s a black or white decision ..... No grey areas ......see my post earlier today 

[Strokes]

VAR is killing the game! Even during in this fantastic season, I just feel apathy towards football now.

[Ian Nacho]

I think the stupid handball rule needs to be applied only by the on field referee. If he doesn’t see it, well that’s tough luck.