comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reason they don’t do that is everyone would simply hit it at the hand. Like Mane did in CL final, just hit it at Sissokos hand. Penalty
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
I'm absolutely fine with subjectivity. The game can't work properly without it - as you are now seeing.
Deliberate would encompass any action that the player takes to effect the ball with his arm - including sticking your arm out.
Really simple rule and let's be honest, using common sense the vast majority of us would agree with the majority of decisions. Common sense is so very lacking from this discussion.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think generally they were coming to the correct decision most of the time. Sure they might get some wrong, but it's better than this absolute farce.
With the ability to use touchline monitors and the assistance of VAR, I don't think it's entirely necessary as it once was to have such a black and white rule about if it hits your hand its a penalty and as I've said, practically I don't think it would work although people would be able to agree that its a penalty because of the rule and there would be no contesting it like there is now because it really would be that simple. But again, you'd be having 10 penalties a game so what's the point.
My point is, does a player "deliberately" stick his arm out to stop a certain passage of play? Take that word out and its fine. Simply just say, if a player's arm is in a raised/unnatural position to give a disadvantage to the opposition, then its a foul. Easy.
You also have the problem of weak referees who will always favour certain clubs to avoid the inevitable shiete storm that will follow if they give any kind of debatable decision against them.
It absolutely goes on, one week they make a decision and the following week make the exact opposite decision when it involves certain clubs.
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
But it's not easy - because the crazy people running the game have managed to convince some fans that if a player's hand is raised, it's not natural.
Which is complete nonsense.
Just start with a blank sheet of paper and ask yourself what the point of this law is.
I'll tell you; it's because we don't want players using their hand/arm to affect the ball, because of the control that the hand/arm gives you. It's an unfair advantage.
I'll tell you what it isn't: it isn't because we want to stop the ball ricocheting of the arm/hand without any intention whatsoever. Because when that happens, it's no different to the ball hitting someone on the nose.
Of course players use their hand/arm deliberately! Not that often, granted, but why is the lack of frequency a problem?
I know players do use their arms deliberately, but you will never ever be 100% certain if they have or not because the only person who knows if they have is the player himself, that's why it is a subjective matter which causes so much controversy/debate, because how are the referee's meant to determine who has "deliberately" handballed or not.
It is easy if you get it right. Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul. That's about as black and white as you can make it that could work practically within the game. We have the technology to review the decisions now if necessary.
I don't care if you can't know 100%.
I firmly believe that if you and I sat down and watched 100 handball incidents with the 'deliberate' rule, we'd agree on over 90 of them.
"Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul."
That is pretty much what we have now, and it's a complete mess.
I'd also argue... why? What's the value in punishing someone simply because it hit their hand, without them meaning to? How has that improved the game?
And what's the problem with subjectivity anyway?
Most of the laws require it.
Serious foul play... a matter of opinion. Referees have to use their judgement.
Getting rid of subjectivity is a non starter.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
I know players do use their arms deliberately, but you will never ever be 100% certain if they have or not because the only person who knows if they have is the player himself, that's why it is a subjective matter which causes so much controversy/debate, because how are the referee's meant to determine who has "deliberately" handballed or not.
It is easy if you get it right. Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul. That's about as black and white as you can make it that could work practically within the game. We have the technology to review the decisions now if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how other fouls are approached. If a defender slips and in the process brings down an attacker who is through on goal then it is still a foul despite not being deliberate because it unfairly impacts the attacking team.
If you have a shot that hits the outreachedarm of a defender, even if they didn't mean to block the ball, then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal.
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't (or didn't) run on the principle that the ball can't cannon off your hand either.
Forget the law for a minute and just stop to think.
What actual difference is there between me punting a ball at you, you not having time to react, and it hitting your arm vs your face?
In reality there's none.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't (or didn't) run on the principle that the ball can't cannon off your hand either.
Forget the law for a minute and just stop to think.
What actual difference is there between me punting a ball at you, you not having time to react, and it hitting your arm vs your face?
In reality there's none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm allowed to "face" a ball whereas one of the basic principles of the modern game of football is that players cannot handle the ball.
It's never been a basic principle that the ball can't whack against the arm.
And as usual, you're failing to actually grasp the point.
Just try and open your mind up a little bit.
If you were starting from scratch and wanted to make the game 'fair' why would you create a law where if someone boots the ball at you, you're punished if it hits your arm but not your face?
What possible benefit does that do for the game?
Because it's been part of the laws of the game that players are not allowed to use any part of their arms/hands since basically the day football began?
Did you honestly disregard the laws of the game to try and prove a point?
Also agreeing on 90/100 decisions is still not best practice though because you'd want to agree on 100/100, that's one of the reasons why VAR was brought in so that the correct decisions could be reached. If you have too much subjectivity in a decision, how would you ever be "certain" the correct decision is made. There has to be a balance between subjectivity and a black and white rule. You can't have the extreme of "if it hits a players hands its a penalty" because practically that wouldn't work.
Hence why I've suggested, if the ball hits the arm/hand of the opposition player that gives a disadvantage to the opponent, then its a foul.
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
Eh?
It's not part of the laws of the game that if someone boots the ball at you and it hits your arm, then it's a foul.
So I'm not disregarding anything. I'm asking you what the value of punishing people for that is. How does it improve the game?
"You can't have the extreme of "if it hits a players hands its a penalty" because practically that wouldn't work."
That is basically what we have now, though.
I didn't make the rules of football mate, you're about a century too late for that but if you really want to argue that point, write to the FA, UEFA and FIFA if you wish asking what value of punishing people for a ball hitting an arm over a nose is. You're, once again, arguing for the sake of arguing about something. Handball is illegal in football, that is FACT. I don't know why it was, I don't particularly care why it was, but it is.
No its not basically what we have because I'm pretty sure there were 2/3 other handball shouts during the Spurs - Newcastle game that were looked at and it was deemed not a foul, so we aren't anywhere near that actually.
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
What are you going on about?
I was trying to have a decent conversation with you.
"if you wish asking what value of punishing people for a ball hitting an arm over a nose is."
But that isn't the rule and it never has been.
But that's where it's heading - that's my point. We're starting to punish people for the ball hitting their arm, with absolutely no intent.
I'm asking you to stop and ask yourself how that helps the game?
Winston I aren't even going to bother because it will soon become another classic 600 page article of you arguing the toss over absolutely anything and everything you can think. It's not worth my time.
Cue some backchat response about how you've won the argument because I haven't answered you back.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 54 seconds ago
Winston I aren't even going to bother because it will soon become another classic 600 page article of you arguing the toss over absolutely anything and everything you can think. It's not worth my time.
Cue some backchat response about how you've won the argument because I haven't answered you back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
Okay - I was genuinely just trying to have a decent debate.
Not sure why you became personal and insulting, and it's a long long time since any of those silly arguments that you reference.
Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Shame.
There is nothing "decent" about asking me how the ball hitting someone's arm over their nose for whatever reason you said benefits the game, or whatever you were on about. You're literally referencing things that was not needed.
"Why can you block something with your nose and not your arm?" The most irrelevant thing to ever bring up because we are talking about how to improve the actual handball rule, not the principles of how that law does anything to the game. I literally cba going that far into it mate.
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
I'm just trying to explain my view, that's all. Difficult to do on a forum sometimes, would be easier over a beer.
It's not irrelevant - perhaps I've just not explained myself very well. No need to get personal though.
Sign in if you want to comment
How Would You Change the HandBall Rule?
Page 3 of 3
posted on 28/9/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reason they don’t do that is everyone would simply hit it at the hand. Like Mane did in CL final, just hit it at Sissokos hand. Penalty
posted on 28/9/20
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
I'm absolutely fine with subjectivity. The game can't work properly without it - as you are now seeing.
Deliberate would encompass any action that the player takes to effect the ball with his arm - including sticking your arm out.
Really simple rule and let's be honest, using common sense the vast majority of us would agree with the majority of decisions. Common sense is so very lacking from this discussion.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think generally they were coming to the correct decision most of the time. Sure they might get some wrong, but it's better than this absolute farce.
posted on 28/9/20
With the ability to use touchline monitors and the assistance of VAR, I don't think it's entirely necessary as it once was to have such a black and white rule about if it hits your hand its a penalty and as I've said, practically I don't think it would work although people would be able to agree that its a penalty because of the rule and there would be no contesting it like there is now because it really would be that simple. But again, you'd be having 10 penalties a game so what's the point.
My point is, does a player "deliberately" stick his arm out to stop a certain passage of play? Take that word out and its fine. Simply just say, if a player's arm is in a raised/unnatural position to give a disadvantage to the opposition, then its a foul. Easy.
posted on 28/9/20
You also have the problem of weak referees who will always favour certain clubs to avoid the inevitable shiete storm that will follow if they give any kind of debatable decision against them.
It absolutely goes on, one week they make a decision and the following week make the exact opposite decision when it involves certain clubs.
posted on 28/9/20
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
But it's not easy - because the crazy people running the game have managed to convince some fans that if a player's hand is raised, it's not natural.
Which is complete nonsense.
Just start with a blank sheet of paper and ask yourself what the point of this law is.
I'll tell you; it's because we don't want players using their hand/arm to affect the ball, because of the control that the hand/arm gives you. It's an unfair advantage.
I'll tell you what it isn't: it isn't because we want to stop the ball ricocheting of the arm/hand without any intention whatsoever. Because when that happens, it's no different to the ball hitting someone on the nose.
Of course players use their hand/arm deliberately! Not that often, granted, but why is the lack of frequency a problem?
posted on 28/9/20
I know players do use their arms deliberately, but you will never ever be 100% certain if they have or not because the only person who knows if they have is the player himself, that's why it is a subjective matter which causes so much controversy/debate, because how are the referee's meant to determine who has "deliberately" handballed or not.
It is easy if you get it right. Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul. That's about as black and white as you can make it that could work practically within the game. We have the technology to review the decisions now if necessary.
posted on 28/9/20
I don't care if you can't know 100%.
I firmly believe that if you and I sat down and watched 100 handball incidents with the 'deliberate' rule, we'd agree on over 90 of them.
"Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul."
That is pretty much what we have now, and it's a complete mess.
I'd also argue... why? What's the value in punishing someone simply because it hit their hand, without them meaning to? How has that improved the game?
posted on 28/9/20
And what's the problem with subjectivity anyway?
Most of the laws require it.
Serious foul play... a matter of opinion. Referees have to use their judgement.
Getting rid of subjectivity is a non starter.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
I know players do use their arms deliberately, but you will never ever be 100% certain if they have or not because the only person who knows if they have is the player himself, that's why it is a subjective matter which causes so much controversy/debate, because how are the referee's meant to determine who has "deliberately" handballed or not.
It is easy if you get it right. Like I say, if the ball has struck a players hand/arm that has given a disadvantage to the opponent, then it is a foul. That's about as black and white as you can make it that could work practically within the game. We have the technology to review the decisions now if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how other fouls are approached. If a defender slips and in the process brings down an attacker who is through on goal then it is still a foul despite not being deliberate because it unfairly impacts the attacking team.
If you have a shot that hits the outreachedarm of a defender, even if they didn't mean to block the ball, then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal.
posted on 28/9/20
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
posted on 28/9/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't (or didn't) run on the principle that the ball can't cannon off your hand either.
Forget the law for a minute and just stop to think.
What actual difference is there between me punting a ball at you, you not having time to react, and it hitting your arm vs your face?
In reality there's none.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 17 seconds ago
"then the attacking team has still been unfairly impacted because that shot could have led to a goal"
Why is it unfair if it hits the arm but not unfair if it hits him on the nose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football doesn't run on a basic principal that you cannot use your nose...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't (or didn't) run on the principle that the ball can't cannon off your hand either.
Forget the law for a minute and just stop to think.
What actual difference is there between me punting a ball at you, you not having time to react, and it hitting your arm vs your face?
In reality there's none.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm allowed to "face" a ball whereas one of the basic principles of the modern game of football is that players cannot handle the ball.
posted on 28/9/20
It's never been a basic principle that the ball can't whack against the arm.
And as usual, you're failing to actually grasp the point.
Just try and open your mind up a little bit.
If you were starting from scratch and wanted to make the game 'fair' why would you create a law where if someone boots the ball at you, you're punished if it hits your arm but not your face?
What possible benefit does that do for the game?
posted on 28/9/20
Because it's been part of the laws of the game that players are not allowed to use any part of their arms/hands since basically the day football began?
Did you honestly disregard the laws of the game to try and prove a point?
Also agreeing on 90/100 decisions is still not best practice though because you'd want to agree on 100/100, that's one of the reasons why VAR was brought in so that the correct decisions could be reached. If you have too much subjectivity in a decision, how would you ever be "certain" the correct decision is made. There has to be a balance between subjectivity and a black and white rule. You can't have the extreme of "if it hits a players hands its a penalty" because practically that wouldn't work.
Hence why I've suggested, if the ball hits the arm/hand of the opposition player that gives a disadvantage to the opponent, then its a foul.
posted on 28/9/20
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
Eh?
It's not part of the laws of the game that if someone boots the ball at you and it hits your arm, then it's a foul.
So I'm not disregarding anything. I'm asking you what the value of punishing people for that is. How does it improve the game?
"You can't have the extreme of "if it hits a players hands its a penalty" because practically that wouldn't work."
That is basically what we have now, though.
posted on 28/9/20
I didn't make the rules of football mate, you're about a century too late for that but if you really want to argue that point, write to the FA, UEFA and FIFA if you wish asking what value of punishing people for a ball hitting an arm over a nose is. You're, once again, arguing for the sake of arguing about something. Handball is illegal in football, that is FACT. I don't know why it was, I don't particularly care why it was, but it is.
No its not basically what we have because I'm pretty sure there were 2/3 other handball shouts during the Spurs - Newcastle game that were looked at and it was deemed not a foul, so we aren't anywhere near that actually.
posted on 28/9/20
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
What are you going on about?
I was trying to have a decent conversation with you.
"if you wish asking what value of punishing people for a ball hitting an arm over a nose is."
But that isn't the rule and it never has been.
But that's where it's heading - that's my point. We're starting to punish people for the ball hitting their arm, with absolutely no intent.
I'm asking you to stop and ask yourself how that helps the game?
posted on 28/9/20
Winston I aren't even going to bother because it will soon become another classic 600 page article of you arguing the toss over absolutely anything and everything you can think. It's not worth my time.
Cue some backchat response about how you've won the argument because I haven't answered you back.
posted on 28/9/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 54 seconds ago
Winston I aren't even going to bother because it will soon become another classic 600 page article of you arguing the toss over absolutely anything and everything you can think. It's not worth my time.
Cue some backchat response about how you've won the argument because I haven't answered you back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow.
Okay - I was genuinely just trying to have a decent debate.
Not sure why you became personal and insulting, and it's a long long time since any of those silly arguments that you reference.
Think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Shame.
posted on 28/9/20
There is nothing "decent" about asking me how the ball hitting someone's arm over their nose for whatever reason you said benefits the game, or whatever you were on about. You're literally referencing things that was not needed.
"Why can you block something with your nose and not your arm?" The most irrelevant thing to ever bring up because we are talking about how to improve the actual handball rule, not the principles of how that law does anything to the game. I literally cba going that far into it mate.
posted on 28/9/20
JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
I'm just trying to explain my view, that's all. Difficult to do on a forum sometimes, would be easier over a beer.
It's not irrelevant - perhaps I've just not explained myself very well. No need to get personal though.
Page 3 of 3