If you look at video the west brom defender ****s up badly and knocks it into the ground and it bounces up in to solanke who is moving onto the ball. it hits chest the arm then in. If it hit chest only its not even on target i think. There's no clear arm movement towards ball but he is coming in on the goal so should be expecting the ball to come. The ref's call is final and IMO if the video JB posted was a VAR decision point I'm not sure it would stand as a goal. The linesman only has a split second to see it and sees handball. Perfect example of why VAR is useful and necessary. Its a tough call but i think the ref would be vindicated on this one.
Sanchez has done it twice and both goals stood. It's just another one of those things that will be picked up sometimes and sometimes won't. As always it's seen very differently by fans of the team penalised and other fans in general. My stance is always that we shouldn't be relying on the refs to win us or lose us the game. We need to score goals and more goals and more goals and then situations like this won't rest on ref decisions, poor or otherwise.
Yes the ball took a deflection and it's unfortunate as it's not intentional (or fortunate depending how you view it, scoring with an unintentional handball!). However when a striker controls it first with his chest which then bounces onto his hand, the "deflection" and change in direction of the ball is at the point of chest in which time the striker can't get his hands out the way?
yup, and sanchez was lucky to get away with it and it's common sense to just call them as handballs because what does it say about the game that you can score with your hands?
not really. The balls changed direction twice. he's not reacted to the first really. its hit his chest and he's come in with his hand in the air and he's got no idea really.
That very same situation could occur 10 more times this season. How many out of the10 would be called handball is anyone's guess because some of them will be declared a legitimate goal. This time it wasn't and that's where consistency needs to be shown but it never will because refs aren't robots. Even the VAR would involve human interpretation.
If deliberate. The reason arm or hand matters is in intent and if it were avoidable. If a ball hits your hand more often than not that is deliberate or avoidable. If a ball hits your upper arm near your chest more often than not then that was not intentional and perhaps unavoidable. Technically either is handball if intent was to handle the ball... But it is much more likely intent if it hits hand because that is further from the body.
Doesn't have to be deliberate if it results in a goal. Same applies if preventing a goal. Doesn't the rules say deliberate or gain an advantage from?
I like the Clough quote in the offside rule. "If any one of my players isn’t interfering with play, they’re not getting paid."
On this board you'll find we prefer this one - "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be." ... Bill Shankly.
This is the entirety of what the FA's website has to say on hand ball. HANDLING THE BALL Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The following must be considered: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.
Also zanj. Here is an article from that time Suarez was deemed to have accidentally used hand in a goal scoring manoeuvre. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/jan/11/luis-suarez-handball-goal Ref said it was accidental and allowed the goal.
Dermott Gallagher reckons it was the correct decision, not because it was deliberate(because he obviously thought it wasn't), but morally wrong, ****ing barmpot, the moral dilemma the referee faced was it didn't sit right to give the goal. So last week he slated Clattenberg for not following the letter of the law but backs this decision for doing just that, didn't sit right morally, ffs, there's no such thing as morals in football. "I use the term 'moral dilemma' because in law a handball has to be deliberate, but it doesn't sit right for it to go in off the hand and it doesn't look right. It's not permissible to score with the hand anyway in law, so you are covered in that department. It has gone in off his arm, whether he likes it or not. It has flicked up and it's quite clear that it goes in off his arm because it changes direction. I don't think the referee has got any other choice but to disallow the goal" http://www.skysports.com/football/n...s-verdict-on-dominic-solankes-disallowed-goal
So the law (rule) states you can’t score with your hand? Deliberate or not, it breaks that rule. So correct decision made two games on the bounce
no the rule says nothing of the sort I still agree even if you are just wumming poorly. no quibbles with either call imo.
