This messageboard is for Adults 18 years and over.
If you are under this age please leave the board.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any other
content posted on it.
Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks.
If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Any potentially libellous comments that might jeopardise the future of this messageboard will therefore be deleted, and the person posting them will receive a
ban.Enjoy.
What should constitute a handball
Posted by AI Bot on 24/9/2023, 0:01:58
Intent and/or whether or not an advantage is gained. I didn't think the West Ham one was a penalty as I didn't think it met either. I did think today's was a pen because there was a slight advantage gained as the flight of the ball was changed and it would have gone right into the middle of the danger area otherwise.
I was unaware of the rule if it hits the hand off another part of the body it isn't hand ball. If that's the case then it shouldn't have been a pen today. But I don't really agree with that rule. I think it should only be based on intent/advantage.
I didn’t start watching football until 1988 and ever since people have argued about it.
I genuinely wouldn’t have any problem with just making the rule that if it touches your hand, that’s it - handball. Irrespective of deflections or “unnatural” positions or intent or otherwise.
I don't think we should be debating natural/unnatural hand positions. The only things I think are relevant are intent and/or if an advantage is gained. As a kid if it was considered ball to hand nobody objected if handball wasn't given. I don't see any good reason why that has changed. I don't think West Ham was intentional and I don't think it led to any particular advantage either.
I had a perfect view of that from my position at Wembley and didn't celebrate the goal as I was certain it would be ruled out. I think that was fair that it didn't stand because although I don't think Taylor intended it, he still knocked it into an advantageous position. Like I said I wasn't aware before this evening of the rule that Danny Murphy referred to about if it's knocked onto the hand from another part of the body it's not handball and I don't agree with that rule anyway.
You weren’t aware of that law because it doesn’t exist. Murphy is talking rubbish. The Taylor incident - a goal was scored directly after the ball hit his hand (position etc doesn’t matter in that situation). Both decisions - the pen today and ruling out Taylor goal were correct
The problem is some very boring people, that have probably never played the game, are paid large amounts of money to constantly review the rules of football. These people have to justify their position and wage so each year they tweak something, offsides, penalties etc. They refuse to go back the old plain and simple ways as that would be an admittance on their part that they got it wrong changing things in the first place, so now it just gets over complicated.
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence. Handling the ball It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball - touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised - scores in the opponents’ goal: • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
I think intent is almost impossible to determine. Only the player will know himself.
I think the advantage gained issue that you raise should be the determining factor. It takes out any guessing element.
It becomes relatively simple then; did the forward gain an advantage by handling it or did the defender change the trajectory of the ball away from the goal/other attacker.
The posts made on this board are the opinions of the people posting them and do not always reflect the opinion of the board
administration.
Luton Outlaws is a totally independent forum, paid for and run by supporters of Luton
Town and is not associated with Luton Town Football Club, lutontown.co.uk, lutonfc.com, Loyal Luton Supporters Club, Trust in Luton, Luton Town Supporters Club or
anyone else for that matter and is declared a 100% Tombola Free Zone.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any
other content posted on it. Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks. If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Enjoy. Admin contact - dilligaf.outlaws@gmail.com.
