comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I hate to state things and turn out to be wrong but I just checked and what I copied on here appears to be in the actual rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which bit do you think is in the actual rules as that paragraph you posted isn’t? The rules have already been posted at least once on here. The bit you are referring to in the rules is this bit -
It is usually an offence if a player:
touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level
The key term in that bit being “usually”, which is also why in FIFA’s laws, they go a bit further and explicitly say “position of the hand does not necessarily mean there has been an infringement”
Riley’s already said what interpretation he and the Pl are going with next year so I’m not really sure why you’d think the rules element to it is even debateavle though? Like I said, if you think it should be handball, then that’s absolutely fine.
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
Do Spurs fans honestly think the penalty decided the result of the final. They could still be playing now and Spurs wouldn’t have scored.
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
I know it is, my post had that exact quote from the FA website...
My point was there’s no point discussing what the rule is as I’ve already explained why it’s deliberately written to allow for interpretation and the fact that Riley is choosing that particular interpretation himself shows it is permissible with both the current and the revised laws.
We can continue to debate the interpretation of it, but I already know you think it was a handball and I’ve already said I’m fine with that, you’re perfectly entitled to think that.
I can’t really help with your comprehension of what Riley said. I can’t think of any time where you’d
use the second point after a conjunction like “also” as your main point rather than your supporting argument unless you had some bizarre Yoda type language skills going on.
I do think it’s worth you reading the full article about it though if you really do think that as the vast majority is about the position of the arms.
This bit in particular -
There are still areas of interpretation around the way the new handball has been written — effectively what you consider to be an unnatural position of hands and arms,"
"In this country we have always said — and this is the players and managers saying it to us — that arms are part of the game and as long as you are not trying to extend your body to block a shot then there is more scope so that we don't penalise.“
The state of Sizzle. Has the nerve to call us racist from behind the filter button. Fooking coward.
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got a job thanks, and it's pre-season.
This is now one of teh rules for when a pen/fk is not awarded:
- 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/near.
This describes the Sisokko position, so although a correct determination of the laws at that time, it has been seen as unreasonable that a deflection at close range on to the arm/hand of a player is worthy of a penalty and is thus now unlikely to end in a penalty.
The law sucked. It's slightly better now although its still clearly written by people who never actually played the game
Sign in if you want to comment
So now they are changing VAR handball
Page 10 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 8/7/19
Christ.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I hate to state things and turn out to be wrong but I just checked and what I copied on here appears to be in the actual rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which bit do you think is in the actual rules as that paragraph you posted isn’t? The rules have already been posted at least once on here. The bit you are referring to in the rules is this bit -
It is usually an offence if a player:
touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level
The key term in that bit being “usually”, which is also why in FIFA’s laws, they go a bit further and explicitly say “position of the hand does not necessarily mean there has been an infringement”
Riley’s already said what interpretation he and the Pl are going with next year so I’m not really sure why you’d think the rules element to it is even debateavle though? Like I said, if you think it should be handball, then that’s absolutely fine.
posted on 8/7/19
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
posted on 8/7/19
Do Spurs fans honestly think the penalty decided the result of the final. They could still be playing now and Spurs wouldn’t have scored.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
posted on 8/7/19
I know it is, my post had that exact quote from the FA website...
My point was there’s no point discussing what the rule is as I’ve already explained why it’s deliberately written to allow for interpretation and the fact that Riley is choosing that particular interpretation himself shows it is permissible with both the current and the revised laws.
We can continue to debate the interpretation of it, but I already know you think it was a handball and I’ve already said I’m fine with that, you’re perfectly entitled to think that.
I can’t really help with your comprehension of what Riley said. I can’t think of any time where you’d
use the second point after a conjunction like “also” as your main point rather than your supporting argument unless you had some bizarre Yoda type language skills going on.
I do think it’s worth you reading the full article about it though if you really do think that as the vast majority is about the position of the arms.
posted on 8/7/19
This bit in particular -
There are still areas of interpretation around the way the new handball has been written — effectively what you consider to be an unnatural position of hands and arms,"
"In this country we have always said — and this is the players and managers saying it to us — that arms are part of the game and as long as you are not trying to extend your body to block a shot then there is more scope so that we don't penalise.“
posted on 8/7/19
The state of Sizzle. Has the nerve to call us racist from behind the filter button. Fooking coward.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got a job thanks, and it's pre-season.
posted on 10/7/19
This is now one of teh rules for when a pen/fk is not awarded:
- 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/near.
This describes the Sisokko position, so although a correct determination of the laws at that time, it has been seen as unreasonable that a deflection at close range on to the arm/hand of a player is worthy of a penalty and is thus now unlikely to end in a penalty.
The law sucked. It's slightly better now although its still clearly written by people who never actually played the game
posted on 10/7/19
Obviously
Page 10 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10