I don’t believe Dier did anything than move naturally. I certainly don’t believe he placed his arm in a particular position with a view to trying to affect the ball.
If you believe otherwise then that’s your prerogative.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I don’t believe Dier did anything than move naturally. I certainly don’t believe he placed his arm in a particular position with a view to trying to affect the ball.
If you believe otherwise then that’s your prerogative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact the same thing happend 2 minutes before proves he knew what he was doing but the first time round he got away with it somehow.
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 minutes ago
For me, it’s really quite straightforward.
Deliberate handball and nothing else.
In what way is it helping the game by punishing players for the ball just hitting them? If a ball hits you and you’ve done nothing to instigate it, then it doesn’t matter if it hits your arm, leg or arrsehole - it’s the same effect.
Poster above makes a good point re: consistency.
Part of the problem is too many people are not mature enough to deal with a difference of opinion. This is partly why they’re trying to makes these rules black and white; to remove the subjectivity from it.
Let the referees make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referees are making decisions Winston, just the wrong ones. They do not know their own rule. Yesterday Dier had his back to the ball, so could not see the ball. And the rule clearly says if a player cannot see the ball, then no handball should be awarded. Very simple refs need to brush up on the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the rules about seeing the ball. Stop repeating this lie.
Go back to the common sense delibrate/accidental ruling.
Edinspur got his first paragraph right, people want consistency but then they don't seem to like the outcome of it. For decades there has been moaning about all the big teams getting the key decisions most of the time and how unfair it is and that it is because refs are swayed by the home crowd and the fact that it is United/Liverpool/Arsenal. This change seems to be making things far more consistent and fair but now people don't like it.
When people say they want consistency, what they really mean is that they want every decision to be the one they agree with.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
When people say they want consistency, what they really mean is that they want every decision to be the one they agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally yes. If we take club bias out then if somebody thinks incident A was a penalty, and incident B is near-identical then it stands to reason they will think that is a penalty. If one is given and the other isn't then you have to look at the differences in the incident. If there don't appear to be any main difference except for an assumption on intent (because only the defender will actually know it) then it seems unfair and continues the narrative that only teams x and y get these decisions most of the time.
Fact is that refs, like all people, have unconscious biases. Giving less room for interpretation can help counter these biases, because it becomes more straightforward to evidence that the law has been broken.
It does seem like there are being far more penalties being given than usual, and if this is unintended by the lawmakers then I'm sure they will review it at some point.
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 minutes ago
For me, it’s really quite straightforward.
Deliberate handball and nothing else.
In what way is it helping the game by punishing players for the ball just hitting them? If a ball hits you and you’ve done nothing to instigate it, then it doesn’t matter if it hits your arm, leg or arrsehole - it’s the same effect.
Poster above makes a good point re: consistency.
Part of the problem is too many people are not mature enough to deal with a difference of opinion. This is partly why they’re trying to makes these rules black and white; to remove the subjectivity from it.
Let the referees make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referees are making decisions Winston, just the wrong ones. They do not know their own rule. Yesterday Dier had his back to the ball, so could not see the ball. And the rule clearly says if a player cannot see the ball, then no handball should be awarded. Very simple refs need to brush up on the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy is absolutely wrong on this.
Blatantly so.
The new handball rule make no mention of intent or ability to "see the ball". In fact the new rule thinks that taking out any mention of intent in the old rule is an improvement.
Refer to Rule 12 in....
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Refereeing/02/60/67/07/2606707_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Sandy, get your damned facts right, old boy.
Yes, let’s absolutely ruin the laws and the game just so an apparent subconscious bias can be done away with.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
Yes, let’s absolutely ruin the laws and the game just so an apparent subconscious bias can be done away with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if fans and teams were unhappy with those biases negatively affecting their team then it seems like an obvious thing to try and do, no?
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the PL is simply being brought into line with other major European leagues. If it goes wrong I'm fairly sure it was be changed again, but it remains to be seen whether the lawmakers believe it is "ruining the game" and despite the threats I have seen, my personal opinion is that the vast majority of said fans will not actually.stop watching.
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
It didn't need changing. Should be either deliberate or not and the referee uses his discretion to determine which it is. If he misses a deliberate handball then that's when VAR comes in. That is simple enough. Why did it need to be changed?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 4 minutes ago
It didn't need changing. Should be either deliberate or not and the referee uses his discretion to determine which it is. If he misses a deliberate handball then that's when VAR comes in. That is simple enough. Why did it need to be changed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, unless the defender admits it, we never actually know if it was deliberate because only the defender will know if he actually intended it. Therefore VAR wouldn't be able to intervene because they would just end up saying, I think thay was deloverare and the ref woild say I don't think it was.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Winston. Always loves to accuse others of not being able to see his viewpoints and is literally laughing at the idea of something existing when it has been covered in countless academic studies.
That's not what I'm laughing at, welshpool.
It is all very simple, hand ball should only be given when a player has deliberately handled the ball.
90% of the time it is obvious when a player deliberately handles the ball, when a player moves his hand towards the ball, is looking at the ball or has his arm out stretched to try and block the ball.
It is also clear and obvious 90% of the time when a player has not deliberately handled the ball, when he has his back to the ball, has no time to react and get his arm out of the way and is a ricochet at close quarters.
Where it is impossible to ascertain for certain if a hand ball is deliberate or not (the other 10% of instances), then no hand ball should be given.
How fackin hard is it.
As i said theres 2 refs in var now why not add another person and have a vote on subjective decisions this way its more fairer if its a majority vote 2/3 on a subjective decision. Dont even discuss it just make ur decision known within say 20 seconds of watching replays of diff angles and go with the majority vote.
Kinda like boxing use 3 judges
Theres a big issue with refs in football theyre too cowardly, in rugby refs have got balls theyre even mic’d up i remember one rugby ref watching var replay n the var ref telling him one thing n hes heard saying idk wtf u are seeing he clearly touches that and over rules var ref and rightly so.
In football its oh dont wanna make them look stupid its soft as sheite decision but lets not tell him and back him up cause hes soft a sheite himself and couldnt take it. They seem to want protecting all the time.
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* (U3924)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
It is all very simple, hand ball should only be given when a player has deliberately handled the ball.
90% of the time it is obvious when a player deliberately handles the ball, when a player moves his hand towards the ball, is looking at the ball or has his arm out stretched to try and block the ball.
It is also clear and obvious 90% of the time when a player has not deliberately handled the ball, when he has his back to the ball, has no time to react and get his arm out of the way and is a ricochet at close quarters.
Where it is impossible to ascertain for certain if a hand ball is deliberate or not (the other 10% of instances), then no hand ball should be given.
How fackin hard is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a player "deliberately" handle the ball? I'd probably argue and say that 90% of the time, players don't "deliberately" handle the ball. Using the word "deliberately" means that a player is purposely going to handle the ball, which I don't think many do, but I suppose only the players know.
Using the phrase "deliberate handball" is already causing a subjective decision from the referee, because how can you determine who has deliberately handled and who hasn't?
The rule has been changed to make the referee's decision easier because it has taken away a more subjective view with a rule that is more black and white should we say. Yes, it's still up for perception because it depends what the referee deems as an unnatural movement/position from the body, but they will have received a form of training to learn different scenario's as to what is.
It's harsh on the players really and I agree, from a certain point of view, that should never be given as a penalty. I don't even think with the new rules it is a penalty because I'd say Dier's position was natural considering he was in the air at the time really. But I can understand why it is given really.
Tbh, I'd say the only real rule that takes away all subjective decisions and stops all arguments would be, if it hits your hand, its a foul. But then how practical would that be really?
Sign in if you want to comment
How Would You Change the HandBall Rule?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 28/9/20
I don’t believe Dier did anything than move naturally. I certainly don’t believe he placed his arm in a particular position with a view to trying to affect the ball.
If you believe otherwise then that’s your prerogative.
posted on 28/9/20
anything other than*
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
I don’t believe Dier did anything than move naturally. I certainly don’t believe he placed his arm in a particular position with a view to trying to affect the ball.
If you believe otherwise then that’s your prerogative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact the same thing happend 2 minutes before proves he knew what he was doing but the first time round he got away with it somehow.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 minutes ago
For me, it’s really quite straightforward.
Deliberate handball and nothing else.
In what way is it helping the game by punishing players for the ball just hitting them? If a ball hits you and you’ve done nothing to instigate it, then it doesn’t matter if it hits your arm, leg or arrsehole - it’s the same effect.
Poster above makes a good point re: consistency.
Part of the problem is too many people are not mature enough to deal with a difference of opinion. This is partly why they’re trying to makes these rules black and white; to remove the subjectivity from it.
Let the referees make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referees are making decisions Winston, just the wrong ones. They do not know their own rule. Yesterday Dier had his back to the ball, so could not see the ball. And the rule clearly says if a player cannot see the ball, then no handball should be awarded. Very simple refs need to brush up on the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in the rules about seeing the ball. Stop repeating this lie.
posted on 28/9/20
Go back to the common sense delibrate/accidental ruling.
posted on 28/9/20
Edinspur got his first paragraph right, people want consistency but then they don't seem to like the outcome of it. For decades there has been moaning about all the big teams getting the key decisions most of the time and how unfair it is and that it is because refs are swayed by the home crowd and the fact that it is United/Liverpool/Arsenal. This change seems to be making things far more consistent and fair but now people don't like it.
posted on 28/9/20
When people say they want consistency, what they really mean is that they want every decision to be the one they agree with.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
When people say they want consistency, what they really mean is that they want every decision to be the one they agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally yes. If we take club bias out then if somebody thinks incident A was a penalty, and incident B is near-identical then it stands to reason they will think that is a penalty. If one is given and the other isn't then you have to look at the differences in the incident. If there don't appear to be any main difference except for an assumption on intent (because only the defender will actually know it) then it seems unfair and continues the narrative that only teams x and y get these decisions most of the time.
Fact is that refs, like all people, have unconscious biases. Giving less room for interpretation can help counter these biases, because it becomes more straightforward to evidence that the law has been broken.
It does seem like there are being far more penalties being given than usual, and if this is unintended by the lawmakers then I'm sure they will review it at some point.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 26 minutes ago
For me, it’s really quite straightforward.
Deliberate handball and nothing else.
In what way is it helping the game by punishing players for the ball just hitting them? If a ball hits you and you’ve done nothing to instigate it, then it doesn’t matter if it hits your arm, leg or arrsehole - it’s the same effect.
Poster above makes a good point re: consistency.
Part of the problem is too many people are not mature enough to deal with a difference of opinion. This is partly why they’re trying to makes these rules black and white; to remove the subjectivity from it.
Let the referees make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referees are making decisions Winston, just the wrong ones. They do not know their own rule. Yesterday Dier had his back to the ball, so could not see the ball. And the rule clearly says if a player cannot see the ball, then no handball should be awarded. Very simple refs need to brush up on the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy is absolutely wrong on this.
Blatantly so.
The new handball rule make no mention of intent or ability to "see the ball". In fact the new rule thinks that taking out any mention of intent in the old rule is an improvement.
Refer to Rule 12 in....
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Refereeing/02/60/67/07/2606707_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Sandy, get your damned facts right, old boy.
posted on 28/9/20
Yes, let’s absolutely ruin the laws and the game just so an apparent subconscious bias can be done away with.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 50 seconds ago
Yes, let’s absolutely ruin the laws and the game just so an apparent subconscious bias can be done away with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if fans and teams were unhappy with those biases negatively affecting their team then it seems like an obvious thing to try and do, no?
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the PL is simply being brought into line with other major European leagues. If it goes wrong I'm fairly sure it was be changed again, but it remains to be seen whether the lawmakers believe it is "ruining the game" and despite the threats I have seen, my personal opinion is that the vast majority of said fans will not actually.stop watching.
posted on 28/9/20
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
posted on 28/9/20
It didn't need changing. Should be either deliberate or not and the referee uses his discretion to determine which it is. If he misses a deliberate handball then that's when VAR comes in. That is simple enough. Why did it need to be changed?
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Spurtle (U1608)
posted 4 minutes ago
It didn't need changing. Should be either deliberate or not and the referee uses his discretion to determine which it is. If he misses a deliberate handball then that's when VAR comes in. That is simple enough. Why did it need to be changed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because, unless the defender admits it, we never actually know if it was deliberate because only the defender will know if he actually intended it. Therefore VAR wouldn't be able to intervene because they would just end up saying, I think thay was deloverare and the ref woild say I don't think it was.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Those biases are a figment of your imagination - there’s no actual evidence to back that up.
But at least we’re now getting to see what a mess this approach looks like. I feel vindicated.
Just a shame the game has to suffer in the mean time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been a lot of studies that show the effect that unconscious bias has, and the fact that it exists in many areas of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor Winston. Always loves to accuse others of not being able to see his viewpoints and is literally laughing at the idea of something existing when it has been covered in countless academic studies.
posted on 28/9/20
That's not what I'm laughing at, welshpool.
posted on 28/9/20
Sure thing Winston
posted on 28/9/20
posted on 28/9/20
It is all very simple, hand ball should only be given when a player has deliberately handled the ball.
90% of the time it is obvious when a player deliberately handles the ball, when a player moves his hand towards the ball, is looking at the ball or has his arm out stretched to try and block the ball.
It is also clear and obvious 90% of the time when a player has not deliberately handled the ball, when he has his back to the ball, has no time to react and get his arm out of the way and is a ricochet at close quarters.
Where it is impossible to ascertain for certain if a hand ball is deliberate or not (the other 10% of instances), then no hand ball should be given.
How fackin hard is it.
posted on 28/9/20
As i said theres 2 refs in var now why not add another person and have a vote on subjective decisions this way its more fairer if its a majority vote 2/3 on a subjective decision. Dont even discuss it just make ur decision known within say 20 seconds of watching replays of diff angles and go with the majority vote.
posted on 28/9/20
Kinda like boxing use 3 judges
posted on 28/9/20
Theres a big issue with refs in football theyre too cowardly, in rugby refs have got balls theyre even mic’d up i remember one rugby ref watching var replay n the var ref telling him one thing n hes heard saying idk wtf u are seeing he clearly touches that and over rules var ref and rightly so.
In football its oh dont wanna make them look stupid its soft as sheite decision but lets not tell him and back him up cause hes soft a sheite himself and couldnt take it. They seem to want protecting all the time.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by ● Billy The Yidd ● 2020* (U3924)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
It is all very simple, hand ball should only be given when a player has deliberately handled the ball.
90% of the time it is obvious when a player deliberately handles the ball, when a player moves his hand towards the ball, is looking at the ball or has his arm out stretched to try and block the ball.
It is also clear and obvious 90% of the time when a player has not deliberately handled the ball, when he has his back to the ball, has no time to react and get his arm out of the way and is a ricochet at close quarters.
Where it is impossible to ascertain for certain if a hand ball is deliberate or not (the other 10% of instances), then no hand ball should be given.
How fackin hard is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does a player "deliberately" handle the ball? I'd probably argue and say that 90% of the time, players don't "deliberately" handle the ball. Using the word "deliberately" means that a player is purposely going to handle the ball, which I don't think many do, but I suppose only the players know.
Using the phrase "deliberate handball" is already causing a subjective decision from the referee, because how can you determine who has deliberately handled and who hasn't?
The rule has been changed to make the referee's decision easier because it has taken away a more subjective view with a rule that is more black and white should we say. Yes, it's still up for perception because it depends what the referee deems as an unnatural movement/position from the body, but they will have received a form of training to learn different scenario's as to what is.
It's harsh on the players really and I agree, from a certain point of view, that should never be given as a penalty. I don't even think with the new rules it is a penalty because I'd say Dier's position was natural considering he was in the air at the time really. But I can understand why it is given really.
Tbh, I'd say the only real rule that takes away all subjective decisions and stops all arguments would be, if it hits your hand, its a foul. But then how practical would that be really?
Page 2 of 3