comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
The handball law could be very simple.
Deliberate handball only.
What constitutes deliberate? Actually using your hand on the ball or deliberately putting your hands somewhere likely to affect the ball.
Let the referee use common sense and get on with it.
Sadly, a mixture of FIFA/UEFA incompetence and immaturity from people who want the game to be back and white, tick box rules, have meant we now have a total mess of a rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nailed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that would be madness. It is extremely rare a player intentionally handballs it. Also it is extremely subjective. You could put your hand in a position where it’s likely to stop a shot but not actually intentionally handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you read?
That scenario is covered in the second part of my comment.
It’s not madness, it’s common sense and how the rule used to be.
Most people who have played the game at a decent level tend to have this view in my experience.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
The handball law could be very simple.
Deliberate handball only.
What constitutes deliberate? Actually using your hand on the ball or deliberately putting your hands somewhere likely to affect the ball.
Let the referee use common sense and get on with it.
Sadly, a mixture of FIFA/UEFA incompetence and immaturity from people who want the game to be back and white, tick box rules, have meant we now have a total mess of a rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nailed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that would be madness. It is extremely rare a player intentionally handballs it. Also it is extremely subjective. You could put your hand in a position where it’s likely to stop a shot but not actually intentionally handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you read?
That scenario is covered in the second part of my comment.
It’s not madness, it’s common sense and how the rule used to be.
Most people who have played the game at a decent level tend to have this view in my experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It absolutely is madness which is why they have moved further and further away from ‘intentional’. You can’t have players with arms all over the place in the box blocking shots and crosses just because they didn’t intentionally mean to handball. The same way you can’t have players tripping other players in the box just because they don’t intentionally mean to trip them.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody is lying it’s you. Happened to hit him. Wow. It’s the very definition of arm making a movement towards the ball.
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody is lying it’s you. Happened to hit him. Wow. It’s the very definition of arm making a movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if there wasn’t any intent, which you agree with, then what’s wrong with that comment?
You’re tying yourself in knots, as usual.
Stopping a cross or a shot with the hand/arm gives the attacking team an unfair disadvantage - even if unintentional. However, often the punishment of giving a free shot is extreme to the offence.
My solution - unless it is clearly intentional or a DOGSO then give a free kick (taken outside the box). Then the punishment is proportionate to the offence - the attacking team get a chance to continue the attack but the defending team are not over harshly punished.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Stopping a cross or a shot with the hand/arm gives the attacking team an unfair disadvantage - even if unintentional. However, often the punishment of giving a free shot is extreme to the offence.
My solution - unless it is clearly intentional or a DOGSO then give a free kick (taken outside the box). Then the punishment is proportionate to the offence - the attacking team get a chance to continue the attack but the defending team are not over harshly punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sort of opinion completely forgets why we have the law in the first place.
If someone punts the ball at you and it hits you, it doesn’t matter whether it hits you in the arm, the face or the bolllocks… it’s not something that needs to be punished.
The whole point is that we don’t want people using their arms, because they have more control.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the handball law is better now?
That’s a good place to leave it.
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
Make the ball have a corrosive and toxic outer layer and ban heading to stop dementia problems. Players wear short sleeves but also tights. Then if the ball his the skin showing on the arm then it gives the player a nasty burn so players will obviously try to avoid that so no handballs would ever be deliberate. If it did hit the hand then it was clearly an accident as they would never intentionally cause that burning to themselves and possible cancer in the future. Headball rule then follows same as handball rule to protect people's heads in future. Simple solutions. The boots and clothing etc protect against the hazardous ball material. Pretty straight forward.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the handball law is better now?
That’s a good place to leave it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. More importantly I think it’s much easier for referees to judge and for fans to accept decisions.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s funny that you log out to read my comments and then post thinly veiled replies like this.
Trusting?
It’s called common sense and most people who have played the game at a decent level think it’s a pretty essential part of the game.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s funny that you log out to read my comments and then post thinly veiled replies like this.
Trusting?
It’s called common sense and most people who have played the game at a decent level think it’s a pretty essential part of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ
Winston - As much as I think the application of rules by PL refs is poor what do you think the rule should be?
The issue is when you bring in too much subjectivity you get even worse inconsistency. United used to benefit an awful lot from inconsistency, now things are a lot better than they were if not close to being as good as they could be.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
United used to benefit from inconsistency?
If you think that and you think things are better now, then I don’t think it’s worthy adding to what I’ve already said tbh.
club bias is strong with this one
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s quite right.
I think there’s lots that can be improved, particularly with tech.
But yes, generally the objective to remove subjectivity from decision making is a flawed concept that creates more problems than it solves.
And ultimately, it’s borne from people who struggle with the concept of disagreeing with a decision but that the alternative view is valid.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
club bias is strong with this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You support one of the biggest clubs in the world and you go around making out that Man Utd benefit from inconsistency but your club doesn’t?
And then you have the audacity to claim I’m biased?
It’d be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous.
Oh Winnie, I was replying to a comment not made by you. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Common sense says an attacking team disadvantaged by use of an arm should get some retribution
As someone who played to a certain level before the current rules I know I made myself bigger in the hope the ball would hit my arm "unintentionally " if I couldn't get a legal part of my body to it by making myself "bigger". You didn't have to worry about getting your arms up and/or out because most of the time you would get the benefit of doubt.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s quite right.
I think there’s lots that can be improved, particularly with tech.
But yes, generally the objective to remove subjectivity from decision making is a flawed concept that creates more problems than it solves.
And ultimately, it’s borne from people who struggle with the concept of disagreeing with a decision but that the alternative view is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and this is where we disagree. I think the increased subjectivity is flawed as it relies on different individuals with different opinions who then make different decisions in different games. With the reduced subjectivity we get decisions which are expected from game to game, which of course will still see some errors since individuals are human but will be overall more equal from game to game. It is much easier for players, managers and fans to accept decisions when the subjectivity is reduced.
Also it takes away the chance for referees to use subjectivity to punish teams they have bias for/against whether consciously or subconsciously.
Sign in if you want to comment
The handball rule
Page 3 of 5
posted on 7/3/25
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
The handball law could be very simple.
Deliberate handball only.
What constitutes deliberate? Actually using your hand on the ball or deliberately putting your hands somewhere likely to affect the ball.
Let the referee use common sense and get on with it.
Sadly, a mixture of FIFA/UEFA incompetence and immaturity from people who want the game to be back and white, tick box rules, have meant we now have a total mess of a rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nailed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that would be madness. It is extremely rare a player intentionally handballs it. Also it is extremely subjective. You could put your hand in a position where it’s likely to stop a shot but not actually intentionally handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you read?
That scenario is covered in the second part of my comment.
It’s not madness, it’s common sense and how the rule used to be.
Most people who have played the game at a decent level tend to have this view in my experience.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
The handball law could be very simple.
Deliberate handball only.
What constitutes deliberate? Actually using your hand on the ball or deliberately putting your hands somewhere likely to affect the ball.
Let the referee use common sense and get on with it.
Sadly, a mixture of FIFA/UEFA incompetence and immaturity from people who want the game to be back and white, tick box rules, have meant we now have a total mess of a rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nailed it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that would be madness. It is extremely rare a player intentionally handballs it. Also it is extremely subjective. You could put your hand in a position where it’s likely to stop a shot but not actually intentionally handball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you read?
That scenario is covered in the second part of my comment.
It’s not madness, it’s common sense and how the rule used to be.
Most people who have played the game at a decent level tend to have this view in my experience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It absolutely is madness which is why they have moved further and further away from ‘intentional’. You can’t have players with arms all over the place in the box blocking shots and crosses just because they didn’t intentionally mean to handball. The same way you can’t have players tripping other players in the box just because they don’t intentionally mean to trip them.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody is lying it’s you. Happened to hit him. Wow. It’s the very definition of arm making a movement towards the ball.
posted on 7/3/25
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR, if you don’t even know the meaning of words then you’ll struggle with this one.
He didn’t literally punch it, and you’re wrong.
The reason that matters is intent is rather critical here, and the language you’re using absolutely implies intent.
What actually happened is he jumped, the ball came across and hit him as he jumped. There was no suggestion that he meant to do it at all and it was merely a coming together of the ball and his hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it’s certainly not my intention to imply that he intentionally punched it, I was just trying to describe the action he made in relation to the ball. I think that actions makes it a penalty, intentional or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t use the word punch then.
It makes it a penalty under the current laws but why you think punishing a player because the ball happened to hit him while jumping is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It didn’t happen to hit him, his arm made a punching movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is factually incorrect.
The ball was moving, just as he was. It happened to hit him.
He wasn’t moving his arm to the ball. He was moving it upwards with his body while jumping.
You’re outright lying about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If anybody is lying it’s you. Happened to hit him. Wow. It’s the very definition of arm making a movement towards the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if there wasn’t any intent, which you agree with, then what’s wrong with that comment?
You’re tying yourself in knots, as usual.
posted on 7/3/25
Stopping a cross or a shot with the hand/arm gives the attacking team an unfair disadvantage - even if unintentional. However, often the punishment of giving a free shot is extreme to the offence.
My solution - unless it is clearly intentional or a DOGSO then give a free kick (taken outside the box). Then the punishment is proportionate to the offence - the attacking team get a chance to continue the attack but the defending team are not over harshly punished.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Stopping a cross or a shot with the hand/arm gives the attacking team an unfair disadvantage - even if unintentional. However, often the punishment of giving a free shot is extreme to the offence.
My solution - unless it is clearly intentional or a DOGSO then give a free kick (taken outside the box). Then the punishment is proportionate to the offence - the attacking team get a chance to continue the attack but the defending team are not over harshly punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This sort of opinion completely forgets why we have the law in the first place.
If someone punts the ball at you and it hits you, it doesn’t matter whether it hits you in the arm, the face or the bolllocks… it’s not something that needs to be punished.
The whole point is that we don’t want people using their arms, because they have more control.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the handball law is better now?
That’s a good place to leave it.
posted on 7/3/25
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
posted on 7/3/25
Make the ball have a corrosive and toxic outer layer and ban heading to stop dementia problems. Players wear short sleeves but also tights. Then if the ball his the skin showing on the arm then it gives the player a nasty burn so players will obviously try to avoid that so no handballs would ever be deliberate. If it did hit the hand then it was clearly an accident as they would never intentionally cause that burning to themselves and possible cancer in the future. Headball rule then follows same as handball rule to protect people's heads in future. Simple solutions. The boots and clothing etc protect against the hazardous ball material. Pretty straight forward.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
TOOR, you’ve lost the plot.
I literally said that if a player puts their arms in a position where they’re deliberately trying to affect the ball, then it would be classed as handball.
So your scenario is covered.
It’s not madness. The rule has been made worse. Much worse. Largely because of people like you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I think it has made it better and took away the subjectivity that referees often struggled with. It’s much easier for them now to make a decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the handball law is better now?
That’s a good place to leave it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. More importantly I think it’s much easier for referees to judge and for fans to accept decisions.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
posted on 7/3/25
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s funny that you log out to read my comments and then post thinly veiled replies like this.
Trusting?
It’s called common sense and most people who have played the game at a decent level think it’s a pretty essential part of the game.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 36 seconds ago
As long as it's applied equally to all clubs then it's not too bad.
They had to change the rules after John Terry realised that you could pull starfish shapes in order to block shots provided you were close enough to the ball for it to be deemed you couldn't get your hands out of the way (after it had been kicked, ignoring the comedy shapes you were pulling to be in a situation where a ball was heading towards your hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, this. People who talk about intentional/unintentional tend to be very naive and trusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s funny that you log out to read my comments and then post thinly veiled replies like this.
Trusting?
It’s called common sense and most people who have played the game at a decent level think it’s a pretty essential part of the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DJ
Winston - As much as I think the application of rules by PL refs is poor what do you think the rule should be?
The issue is when you bring in too much subjectivity you get even worse inconsistency. United used to benefit an awful lot from inconsistency, now things are a lot better than they were if not close to being as good as they could be.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
posted on 7/3/25
United used to benefit from inconsistency?
If you think that and you think things are better now, then I don’t think it’s worthy adding to what I’ve already said tbh.
posted on 7/3/25
club bias is strong with this one
posted on 7/3/25
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s quite right.
I think there’s lots that can be improved, particularly with tech.
But yes, generally the objective to remove subjectivity from decision making is a flawed concept that creates more problems than it solves.
And ultimately, it’s borne from people who struggle with the concept of disagreeing with a decision but that the alternative view is valid.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
club bias is strong with this one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You support one of the biggest clubs in the world and you go around making out that Man Utd benefit from inconsistency but your club doesn’t?
And then you have the audacity to claim I’m biased?
It’d be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous.
posted on 7/3/25
Oh Winnie, I was replying to a comment not made by you. The world doesn't revolve around you.
Common sense says an attacking team disadvantaged by use of an arm should get some retribution
As someone who played to a certain level before the current rules I know I made myself bigger in the hope the ball would hit my arm "unintentionally " if I couldn't get a legal part of my body to it by making myself "bigger". You didn't have to worry about getting your arms up and/or out because most of the time you would get the benefit of doubt.
posted on 7/3/25
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yes, TOOR, that’s true.
But subjectivity is part of what makes football the game it is.
I fundamentally oppose people who bleat on about consistency when what they really mean is that they want the referee to make the decision they agree with every time.
The game will never be easy to referee and should always require interpretation and subjectivity.
The idea that the game has been improved by punishing players are just making a tackle or jumping for the ball and the ball hits them is madness, particularly given the severity of the punishment - an almost certain goal.
What really grates is the rule makers talking about a natural position.
What’s facking natural about trying to make a tackle with your arms behind your back? Idiots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely understand your view. Your view in most things is to avoid changing things, allow the referee to make the calls according to his opinion etc. My view is that we should make as many changes as possible where it takes away the opinion of the referee and makes it clear what decision the referee should make. Within reason of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that’s quite right.
I think there’s lots that can be improved, particularly with tech.
But yes, generally the objective to remove subjectivity from decision making is a flawed concept that creates more problems than it solves.
And ultimately, it’s borne from people who struggle with the concept of disagreeing with a decision but that the alternative view is valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and this is where we disagree. I think the increased subjectivity is flawed as it relies on different individuals with different opinions who then make different decisions in different games. With the reduced subjectivity we get decisions which are expected from game to game, which of course will still see some errors since individuals are human but will be overall more equal from game to game. It is much easier for players, managers and fans to accept decisions when the subjectivity is reduced.
Also it takes away the chance for referees to use subjectivity to punish teams they have bias for/against whether consciously or subconsciously.
Page 3 of 5