Hand ball

[rodders999]

I love it when there's a handball incident that's not given and then for the next few minutes the opposition fans shout hand ball every time a player touches the ball. That's hilarious.

[augie]

People keep talking about bringing in tv evidence into football and how it will clear up controversial decisions, but for me if they stopped fcuking about with rules (like the handball and offside rules) then it will cut an awful lot of bullshit and confusion from the game - to me a player is either onside or offside and all this "interfering with play" crap only muddies the water and makes the rules subjective rather than crystal clear It is similar (although not as straight forward) for the handball rule - for me handball should only be given if the ref is convinced that it was deliberate, and yes there will still be some fcuked up decisions on this issue, but it will remove this "un-natural position" shit which only complicates things.
Personally I blame the players, managers and media for most of the confusion - these c.unts should know the rules and yet all we see are constant examples of them claiming every accidental handball, and the media then hyping things to suit their own agendas When a guy slides in to block a cross, how the fcuk can he be penalised when the ball strikes his arm as it is along the ground ? That happened this season already and it is a ridiculous decision, but because every ignorant w*nker decides to shout for handball, the weak willed refs will give the decision

[OneBardGooner]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

Totally agree - The ref is supposed to be 100% certain - and there is no way Clattenberg could see it clearly....I know they have to make decisions on things that take place in a split second but unless 100% nailed on it should not be given - That's typical of the kind of luck the the scumfilth are having right now...

[Red Snapper]

Clattenburg completely guessed over that penalty decision. He had no view of it and his lino was on the other side. Next season if the bacon dodgers play City with Clattenberg in charge there is no point in City even tutning up. Two offside goals at the shithole, now this.

[Ed Hunter The Gooner]

SteveO, brilliant interpretation of the rule

Actually, being a football referee myself the rule goes roughly like this. If defenders arm is in un-natural position in that moment when the ball hits the arm it is a penalty. Example, defender has his arms raised up high and ball hits the arm it's a penalty. Or, ball is going to net but hits the arm - penalty. Or, there is clear movement of defenders arm to hit the ball - penalty. There was a penalty against City yesterday as Sterling jumped the ball his elbow raised high and that was clear penalty, no question about it.

The ball can hit the arm clearly but if the arm is in natural position in that exact moment or there is no clear movement of arm to actually trying to make the ball hit it intentionally, then it's not a penalty.

The referee has to make his decision in blitz seconds and the rule is totally shit so it's no wonder they got it wrong sometimes. But I have to say that I'm quite surprised that they get it right most of the times.

He had his back to the player and it hit his side, no way was that a penalty.

Totally agree - The ref is supposed to be 100% certain - and there is no way Clattenberg could see it clearly....I know they have to make decisions on things that take place in a split second but unless 100% nailed on it should not be given - That's typical of the kind of luck the the scumfilth are having right now...

Watched the penalty again and it seems that I was talking from my arse... From this clip from 0.37 it's easy to see that it wasn't a penalty. He turned his back and didn't even see the ball and it seems that the ball didn't even hit his arm... Anyway, clearly not deliberate handball and thus not penalty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUVy0XmgYw4

[Ed Hunter The Gooner]

People keep talking about bringing in tv evidence into football and how it will clear up controversial decisions, but for me if they stopped fcuking about with rules (like the handball and offside rules) then it will cut an awful lot of bullshit and confusion from the game - to me a player is either onside or offside and all this "interfering with play" crap only muddies the water and makes the rules subjective rather than crystal clear It is similar (although not as straight forward) for the handball rule - for me handball should only be given if the ref is convinced that it was deliberate, and yes there will still be some fcuked up decisions on this issue, but it will remove this "un-natural position" shit which only complicates things.
Personally I blame the players, managers and media for most of the confusion - these c.unts should know the rules and yet all we see are constant examples of them claiming every accidental handball, and the media then hyping things to suit their own agendas When a guy slides in to block a cross, how the fcuk can he be penalised when the ball strikes his arm as it is along the ground ? That happened this season already and it is a ridiculous decision, but because every ignorant w*nker decides to shout for handball, the weak willed refs will give the decision

Spot on!

This makes it very difficult for refs to read the game as you need to think all of this and make decisions in seconds. Usually the linos are as good as nothing as they can't see shit from the distance.

[GranadaJoe]

If the ref gives a free kick for hand-ball he has to deem it deliberate right?
So if its deliberate hand-ball it has to be a card yea?
So this means that every free kick given for hand-ball should result in a card being shown by the ref?

Patently didnt happen on at least two occasions yesterday. Free kicks were given for hand-ball without a card being shown.

So is there a rule where the ref can give a free kick for hand-ball without showing a card if it was deemed accidental?

The Laws specifically state that a direct free kick or penalty will normally be considered sufficient and that a yellow or red card will not normally be shown.

You're welcome.

[Blade]

5 handballs Arsenal V Lei no pen.

1 handball Man C v Scum 1 pen.

[armchair]

If the ref gives a free kick for hand-ball he has to deem it deliberate right?
So if its deliberate hand-ball it has to be a card yea?
So this means that every free kick given for hand-ball should result in a card being shown by the ref?

Patently didnt happen on at least two occasions yesterday. Free kicks were given for hand-ball without a card being shown.

So is there a rule where the ref can give a free kick for hand-ball without showing a card if it was deemed accidental?

The Laws specifically state that a direct free kick or penalty will normally be considered sufficient and that a yellow or red card will not normally be shown.

You're welcome.

Link please..............