I've no idea how to post an image from my phone but he doesn't seem to be protecting his face here. Should protecting your face make a handball ok anyway? What happened to putting your head in bravely? http://mobile.qpr.co.uk/news/article/photos-gallery-qpr-tottenham-hotspur-loftus-road-2320379.aspx
Actually, he totally does, considering where the boot would have been coming from (the bottom of a person's leg btw, which started on the ground). The way he has turned his head like also indicates he was trying to protect is face/head. If we're gonna use a static image like that to "prove" things we could also infer from that image that his hands weren't particularly high You can protect yourself in 2 ways. Cover the area, or prevent the object hitting you.
I assume that you're going for this picture, as your link doesn't go directly to it: please log in to view this image That's taken after the ball's hit Bentaleb. You can tell by the position of Charlie Austin's leg, which is clearly kicking him.
If you a putting your hands somewhere without the intention of deliberately handling the ball and the ball hits them then it isn't handball! Handball has to be DELIBERATE!
This isn't entirely true. It's down to the officials to interpret the rules, which are intentionally vague. If a player's making himself big and spreading his arms, then it's often seen as a handball. I don't think that Bentaleb was doing that, especially as the ball would've hit him in the face, had it not his his arm. The ball didn't travel far, Austin's foot was a bit high, he followed through and hit his man and the ball was probably going wide. They are given, but I don't think that it would've been the correct decision in this case. Two calls at home and neither going your way is a bit odd, but refs tend not to give debatable ones, as they get marked down for ****ing them up. Pawson can defend that decision to his assessor.
Sorry to butt in here, but this is incorrect. How do you judge intent? You can't unless it's strikingly obvious a player has denied a shot or goalscoring chance by sticking their hand out to stop the ball. If your hands are in an unnatural position, then it is a penalty. Deliberate or not. I'm not discussing the case in point here as I haven't seen the incident and don't really care enough to have a look, but I'm talking in general here. If your hands are in an unnatural position, intent doesn't really matter. It's a penalty.
To be brutally honest with you, I don't really give a **** what the official website says because penalties have been given for a lot less than the criteria they mention. It can be very difficult to judge if a player intentionally decided to handball it or not and if that is the case, then a very large quantity of the penalties that have been given for handball should not have been given at all. Only the player truly knows if he meant to do it or not. So I'll stick with what I said.
This is where a lot of arguments come from, with fans not knowing or not giving a **** about the official rules of the game they are arguing about. Perhaps you should give a ****? Or watch a sport where you know the rules?
The problem is that the refs are given instructions on how to interpret the Laws of the Game, but we're not privy to that information. They have meetings and are updated on things fairly regularly, with big changes being discussed between seasons. That's why you'll suddenly see things being adjudicated differently or something being clamped down on. Offside seems to change every year, for example.
If you want to have a discussion with me, don't be so condescending. I will say again - If you watch football matches you will see penalties given for a lot less than the criteria they mention. Intent is hard to judge and referees need to make a split-second decision. When it coms to handball, the easiest way to do this is to see if the hand was in an unnatural position. In that situation, whether it's deliberate or not does not matter.
I don't wish to have a discussion with someone that says "i don't give a ****" when talking about the rules of the game. So off you pop
I agree with the way the officials interpret the Laws but they are not vague at all. I've got no idea. But the Laws are very clear and the word 'deliberately' is included.
I agree that is the problem. The solution is to write the Laws properly in the first place so that no interpretation is necessary!
The handball rule is more about common sense than what is actually written in text. The referee has to think logically at the time of the incident. Was it deliberate? No. Did he have time to move his hand? No, the ball was volleyed from 2 yards away. Was the ball going in? No, it was hitting his face. How you still claim that to be a penalty is just farcical in my eyes. If the ball hitting the hand is a straight free kick/ penalty, what's to stop players from deliberately lobbing the ball up at an opponents hand in order to gain a set piece advantage? As for Isla, I've already said his situation was possibly a penalty but his pathetic theatrics of a Tom Daley triple somersault twist didn't help his cause and actually made him a laughing stock rather than something/ someone to be taken seriously. As for the shocking decisions, I've already told you in a previous post - two goal kicks you were given should have been corners and the throw in you were given where it clearly came off of Phillip's leg (he even threw Davies the ball), this on top of a few non-given fouls (which both teams were affected by) and us being awarded a goal kick in the opening minute where Hugo got a finger to Zamora's header onto the bar which should have been a corner for you, resulted in Pawson having a **** day. The second penalty shout he got right, whereas the first I think you should blame Isla for his antics, I reckon that made Pawson believe he was trying too hard to earn the penalty and therefore waved it away.
That was just stupid. Really couldn't understand that one. Not a particularly relevant decision in the overall scheme of the game, but a dumb one to mess up. Both players involved react as if the ball came off the QPR player, so it's pretty obvious what happened. Still gets it wrong.
I agree with you to an extent but there's been a noticeable difference in the ones referees have given this season compared to last. Outside the area it's still a bit of a lottery but apart from the odd howler the referees do appear to be taking into account the time that the player has to react and whether they move their arm towards the ball when it's in the penalty area. We saw it against Chelsea when Vertonghen challenged Oscar and the ball ricocheted back off Oscar and onto Jan's arm which was at the time propping him up on the floor. Mourinho thought it was a penalty of course but funnily enough he didn't when the exact samething happened to one of his players against Liverpool a few weeks later. Neither was given and the law is applied more consistently than ever by referees, in my opinion. Shame the same can't be said of referees and the rest of the laws.
I agree. To the same degree though, just because the ball is in the area, and you are attacking, doesn't give you the right to swing your feet high where they can hit the heads of players. Dangerous play mate. If his arms weren't there he would have a boot square in the face. No foul given either way.
