[Football] Hand Ball Rule

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

Weststander said:
Disgraceful decision, Jamie Redknapp summed it up “No common sense”.

At the same time, the Blades player who hacked down Moura, was rewarded for his attempt to spoil a dangerous attack.

Assuming it did hit his arm and not his back, the decision was 100% correct according to the (new) rules about handball.

The new rules are absurd . . . . but what you'd expect to be cooked up at the end of the day after lunch and brandies by a load of carpetbagging committee members who don't really give a shit.

Seasider78 · Jul 3, 2020

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
Has nothing to do with VAR. As doubtless countless other posters have mentioned.

Gettin rid of VAR because of this stupid rule would be like repatriating all Irish on British soild because you find Clinton Morrison a bit irritating.

It has everything to do with VAR because pre VAR that decision would not be picked up the goal would be given and every sane person would look at the replay and think fair enough.

This ‘the letter of the law is just been applied so don’t blame VAR’ viewpoint is really starting to grate as well. Most football fans don’t want perfection they want emotion, the ups the downs the ones you got away with the ones you didn’t. What we have now is people looking up to the screen to see if some faceless bloke in cabin applying the rules with a millimetre is going to ruin the moment you are in.

Sorry VAR is the cause as it now means the rules are applied at a forensic level rather than allowing for common sense to prevail

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

The Wizard said:
Let’s use Dunks handball against Leicester as an example, it wasn’t given after VAR looked at it, despite the fact it looked like a goal bound shot it was quite obviously an accidental hand ball. How is it a striker can have a goal disallowed for what clearly is an accidental handball but a defender can block a shot accidentally with his arm and that’s allowed?

If you’re going to disallow any goal for so much as a brush of the arm, surely you should be replicating that by giving 5 penalties every game for when a player gets a ball smashed at him and blocks it with his upper arm accidentally?

Astonishingly, because this is what the laws dictate. There is a special rule for the attacking team - if a handball occurs and this 'leads to' a goal, even if the handball is demonstrably unintentional, a goal cannot be given. This includes the ball being blasted at a prostrate attacking player from one yard and brushing a finger. On any other occasion the decision of handball is based on position and movement of arm (nuance designed to determine whether there was 'intent'). With regard to the latter the ref can, if he wants, exercise his judgement. With respect to the former, all goals will be VAR checked and if there is any 'handball' involved by the attacking team this will result in 'no goal, handball'.

These are the rules and they are stupid rules that must (and will) be changed - probably to something equally idiotic.

The nefarious role played by VAR here is this. VAR offers new technology. It was introduced and rightly so to check for wrond decisions, incidents unseen by officials. What happens? Some GOONS think 'oh, we could also use it to do X'. Ah, but if we do that we will have to change the laws. So laws change. This is technology affecting regulations. Even that is OK, provided the changes are sensible. These simply ain't.

Anyway we have had this conversation before, and people are coming out with the same old bollocks, blaming VAR rather than the goons in the EPL who write the laws and the goons in black who 'interpret' them :shrug:

Look up 'luddites'.....

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

Seasider78 said:
It has everything to do with VAR because pre VAR that decision would not be picked up the goal would be given and every sane person would look at the replay and think fair enough.

This ‘the letter of the law is just been applied so don’t blame VAR’ viewpoint is really starting to grate as well. Most football fans don’t want perfection they want emotion, the ups the downs the ones you got away with the ones you didn’t. What we have now is people looking up to the screen to see if some faceless bloke in cabin applying the rules with a millimetre is going to ruin the moment you are in.

Sorry VAR is the cause as it now means the rules are applied at a forensic level rather than allowing for common sense to prevail

I have anticipated your view above.

The handball and offside rules need to be changed. Offside should be clear blue daylight. VAR decisions should be taken in 20 seconds or the decision should be left to the judgement of the referee. Simple.

To argue against VAR is to argue against the breathalyser and the speed camera. :shrug:

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

Seasider78 said:
It has everything to do with VAR because pre VAR that decision would not be picked up the goal would be given and every sane person would look at the replay and think fair enough.

This ‘the letter of the law is just been applied so don’t blame VAR’ viewpoint is really starting to grate as well. Most football fans don’t want perfection they want emotion, the ups the downs the ones you got away with the ones you didn’t. What we have now is people looking up to the screen to see if some faceless bloke in cabin applying the rules with a millimetre is going to ruin the moment you are in.

Sorry VAR is the cause as it now means the rules are applied at a forensic level rather than allowing for common sense to prevail

I agree with you that VAR is not being used properly. But it can be fixed. As I have also commented elsewhere, I think hat refs are happy for long decisions as they don't like VAR (it takes away their status) and are consciously or subconsciously sabotaging it.

I have offered suggestions on how this could easily be fixed.

Meanwhile the shitness of its implementation and the 'bin VAR' luddite voice creates a bit of controversy and talking points for the telly and radio (and NSC) so everyone is a winner!

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

I am also getting annoyed about VAR. I am getting very annoyed with those who take the following stance:

Imagine the laws could be fixed so that they make sense. Then VAR decisions would make sense. BUT they take too long. Therefore it would be beter to have wrong decisions made there and then by a referee than a correct decision that takes time and destroys the moment.

Well, I understand the imperative. But as I have said, why not put a 20 second limit on the VAR decision and if it is unclear the whim of the referee stands.

There is a special problem even with this, though. Aside from the handball in the lead up to a goal decision, all other VAR decisions are advisory. The solution is to have a finite number of unequivocal decisions that can be relayed to a ref in 20 seconds of an incident, and meanwhile the game can carry on.

1. Ref, you missed a handball*
2. Ref you missed a foul**
3. Ref you missed an offside***
4. Other stuff****

*A handball needs to be defined properly. That's for another conversation.
**That is a relevant foul where a player got an unfair advantage; if the disadvantaged team score in the meantime you don't pull back play, but you might card a player.
*** If a goal was scored you pull back the play
**** It is not effing rocket science - laws, process

And when something isn't working due to unforseen consequences, bloody well fix it! This is new technology. The ELP move even more slowly over duff laws and process than HMG in their war against Covid-19.

Arthritic Toe · Jul 3, 2020

The Wizard said:
Let’s use Dunks handball against Leicester as an example, it wasn’t given after VAR looked at it, despite the fact it looked like a goal bound shot it was quite obviously an accidental hand ball. How is it a striker can have a goal disallowed for what clearly is an accidental handball but a defender can block a shot accidentally with his arm and that’s allowed?

If you’re going to disallow any goal for so much as a brush of the arm, surely you should be replicating that by giving 5 penalties every game for when a player gets a ball smashed at him and blocks it with his upper arm accidentally?

Yes maybe - again it would take the subjectivity out of it. The only problem with that though is that it would encourage players to deliberately 'aim for the arms' in the penalty area. That would possibly end up being more productive than aiming for the goal and would have a very negative affect on the game.

Arthritic Toe · Jul 3, 2020

Harry Wilson's tackle said:
I have anticipated your view above.

The handball and offside rules need to be changed. Offside should be clear blue daylight. VAR decisions should be taken in 20 seconds or the decision should be left to the judgement of the referee. Simple.

To argue against VAR is to argue against the breathalyser and the speed camera.

Offside with 'clear blue daylight' doesn't change a thing. We would just be having the conversation about there being one inch of clear blue daylight instead of the one inch that the attackers toe is offside currently. And VAR vs breathalysers and the speed cameras is not in any way comparable. The point being that if the ref gets a decision wrong, nobody dies - in fact it enhances the whole football experience i.e. having the opportunity to debate it afterwards.

Harry Wilson's tackle · Jul 3, 2020

Arthritic Toe said:
Offside with 'clear blue daylight' doesn't change a thing. We would just be having the conversation about there being one inch of clear blue daylight instead of the one inch that the attackers toe is offside currently. And VAR vs breathalysers and the speed cameras is not in any way comparable. The point being that if the ref gets a decision wrong, nobody dies - in fact it enhances the whole football experience i.e. having the opportunity to debate it afterwards.

Clear blue daylight does not affect the decision making process but it would feel much better. And using VAR to make the decision must be better that linos's whimsy. I addressed concernes about slowness of decisions elsewhere.

VAR vs breathalysers and speed cameras is EXACTLY comparable. The fact that 'nobody dies' doesn't mean that it is absolutely fine to get important decisions wrong simply in order to maintain the excitement and flow of the game, and the chance to have furious conversations in the pub and on 606 later. However I accept this is a matter of opinion, so we shall just have to agree to disagree :thumbsup:

Incidentally, your post made me smile as it reminded me of the Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galazy (HHTTG) and the bit where the philosophers rose up against the computer Deep Thought that was built to answer the question of life, the universe and everything. In its present configuration VAR is inevitably going to give the answer '42' to some of the questions set. :lolol:

drew · Jul 3, 2020

Here's my two pennies worth.

Firstly, this is VAR's first season. As with some of the continental leagues that introduced it a few years ago, there are certainly teething problems however these can be ironed out. So here's what I would do.

1. Hand ball rule. This must be the same for both defending and attacking teams. In other words you amend it so that any handball is an offence so accidental handball when it strikes a defender from a yard away is a free kick or, if in the area, a penalty. Alternatively, accidental handball isn't an offence (my preferred option) so goals like Kane's would stand. (I fail to see how anyone can argue that Moura's touch was deliberate. He was falling to the ground so instinctively stuck out his arms).

2. Advantage rule. This needs to be changed to allow officials to wave play on but if no real advantage materialises, bring play back to the free kick. This should be judged over a longer period (not quite so much as in rugby where it seems to go on for several minutes). 10/15 seconds should be enough. I would also include the scope for a team after being waived on to take a shot and if that misses, bring play back for the free kick. If teams know they have an advantage that will bring play back it might encourage a few ambitious shots/play etc.

3. I don't believe any of the arguments about VAR not getting involved following the failure of GLT in Villa v Sheff Utd. It was a goal situation which the ref and the technology missed. A quick look would have solved the problem. The statements were merely covering their own arse. (much like the comical statements released by both the EPL and PGMOL following Son's sending off for his tackle on Gomez, both of which were rendered wrong when the sending off was rescinded).

4. Probably the most controversial element of VAR is the application of offside. It should still be involved but remove the graphic element. It the VAR official can't tell if a player is offside from a pure visual look at the screen then it isn't offside. That would also save time as well. The ref to clear blue daylight is ridiculous as how do you measure that. Is it a slither of daylight, an inch, two inches etc. It would also mean forwards having a much better advantage than they have ever had before.

5. The referee must make more use of the pitch side monitor. VAR should only guide the ref and if it is a close decision, he should be pitch side checking the monitor at the same time. I would also remove the wording 'clear and obvious' as it causes unnecessary debate. If the ref missed something then he missed something, simple as.

Arthritic Toe · Jul 3, 2020

drew said:
Here's my two pennies worth.

1. Hand ball rule. This must be the same for both defending and attacking teams. In other words you amend it so that any handball is an offence so accidental handball when it strikes a defender from a yard away is a free kick or, if in the area, a penalty. Alternatively, accidental handball isn't an offence (my preferred option) so goals like Kane's would stand. (I fail to see how anyone can argue that Moura's touch was deliberate. He was falling to the ground so instinctively stuck out his arms).

You absolutely can't have the first option as it would completely change the game. Can you imagine - every time an attacking player has the ball in the area, down near the corner flag - he's not going to be looking to cross the ball. Instead, the percentage option would be to try to flick the ball up on to the defenders arm to gain a penalty. It would be an absolute farce.

Super Steve Earle · Jul 3, 2020

Seasider78 said:
It has everything to do with VAR because pre VAR that decision would not be picked up the goal would be given and every sane person would look at the replay and think fair enough.

This ‘the letter of the law is just been applied so don’t blame VAR’ viewpoint is really starting to grate as well. Most football fans don’t want perfection they want emotion, the ups the downs the ones you got away with the ones you didn’t. What we have now is people looking up to the screen to see if some faceless bloke in cabin applying the rules with a millimetre is going to ruin the moment you are in.

Sorry VAR is the cause as it now means the rules are applied at a forensic level rather than allowing for common sense to prevail

I want perfection and emotion. I don't want to be remembering a obvious handball 5 years ago in the Burnley penalty area then they ran up the other end and scored. I want the deep pleasure of a VAR picking up what the idiot officials on the pitch don't see and then putting it right. Common sense prevailing doesn't apply in football, because that usually means giving the likes of Harry Kane the doubt while kicking the Albion in the nuts. I bloody love VAR, controversy and all!

Arthritic Toe · Jul 3, 2020

drew said:
Here's my two pennies worth.

5. The referee must make more use of the pitch side monitor. VAR should only guide the ref and if it is a close decision, he should be pitch side checking the monitor at the same time. I would also remove the wording 'clear and obvious' as it causes unnecessary debate. If the ref missed something then he missed something, simple as.

Why would the ref see anything on the pitch side monitor that they can't see in the VAR studio? This adds nothing at all other than the additional time it takes the ref to jog over there and back. This is just one of those pointless things that the commentators keep going on about, but where the only difference is a psychological one. The audience gets to see a ref looking at a monitor rather than not seeing ref looking at a monitor. It adds nothing to the accuracy of the decision or lack thereof.

Seasider78 · Jul 3, 2020

Super Steve Earle said:
I want perfection and emotion. I don't want to be remembering a obvious handball 5 years ago in the Burnley penalty area then they ran up the other end and scored. I want the deep pleasure of a VAR picking up what the idiot officials on the pitch don't see and then putting it right. Common sense prevailing doesn't apply in football, because that usually means giving the likes of Harry Kane the doubt while kicking the Albion in the nuts. I bloody love VAR, controversy and all!

VAR is not a tool that can deliver perfection as it is still largely down to interpretation of the laws and the person who is viewing it. This is why it is flawed.

Emotion is not just about things going right for you all the times the anger at the perceived injustice the relief when you know you have got away with one is all what makes the game what it is. The flaws are the talking points, the pub ammo and what gets us off our seats in the ground jumping for joy or screaming with frustration. Staring at a screen waiting to see what someone in a cabin thinks about what has happened in front of our eyes takes that away.

The instances like you describe were 3-5 times a season events VAR controversy is now a multiple time’s weekly occurrence.

One positive thing VAR has delivered is a reality things were not anywhere near as bad as being portrayed before it’s introduction and sometimes the pursuit of perfection delivers a bigger problem than the one that was trying to be solved.

Pavilionaire · Jul 3, 2020

It seems like there is VAR controversy in every 3 or 4 games, so given it will go down to the wire for 3 or 4 teams chances are VAR could decide whether one team stays up or gets relegated.

Already, that point for Villa vs Sheff Utd is looking massive.

Worried Man Blues · Jul 3, 2020

Offsides are easy to sort. Use the electronic device inbedded in the shirts, simple......I think

METALMICKY · Jul 3, 2020

Seasider78 said:
One positive thing VAR has delivered is a reality things were not anywhere near as bad as being portrayed before it’s introduction and sometimes the pursuit of perfection delivers a bigger problem than the one that was trying to be solved.

Very well summarised. Let's just hope the logical progression is that VAR will kill itself!

Amazing as it seems even now I like to moan that 1991 play off final first goal was not a corner!

drew · Jul 3, 2020

Arthritic Toe said:
Why would the ref see anything on the pitch side monitor that they can't see in the VAR studio? This adds nothing at all other than the additional time it takes the ref to jog over there and back. This is just one of those pointless things that the commentators keep going on about, but where the only difference is a psychological one. The audience gets to see a ref looking at a monitor rather than not seeing ref looking at a monitor. It adds nothing to the accuracy of the decision or lack thereof.

Read my post again. I didn't say every decision but where it is a close call. Onfield ref should have the final say if it's a close call, eg some red cards, possible penalty decisions where it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

Shropshire Seagull · Jul 3, 2020

The Laws of Cricket are well developed and cater for gamesmanship / advantage by using the word "wilful" - yes the official in charge has to decide if the action was wilful but it means the advantage was intentional. Consider the cricket world cup final, Stokes diving to make his ground, ball hits his bat and goes for 4 - deemed not wilful so 4 runs awarded. If Ump had deemed it wilful, Stokes would (on appeal) be given out for Obstructing the Field [Law 37]. I accept that deciding if an act is wilful needs judgement but it's usually very obvious ....

So the Moora incident in football - did it hit his arm? Yes. Was it wilful? No. Therefore any advantage gained must be deemed unintentional and play continues.

Cricket also uses a timeline of events to work out what action is required. The foul on Moora took place before the ball touched his arm, so play should be taken back for the foul as this happened before the handball - I would love to hear the ref's explanation of why this did not happen.

If VAR continues to create these nonsensical outcomes [esp the Villa no-goal], even with the "it evens itself out over time" thinking - it is tying a noose around it's own neck ....

drew · Jul 3, 2020

Seasider78 said:
One positive thing VAR has delivered is a reality things were not anywhere near as bad as being portrayed before it’s introduction and sometimes the pursuit of perfection delivers a bigger problem than the one that was trying to be solved.

I disagree. VAR isn't perfect but it's here because the quality of refereeing had deteriorated. I know the refs are under increased scrutiny so even more reason big decisions are correct. VAR and the rules needs tweaking, not discarding.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Hand Ball Rule

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Well-known member

Well-known member

Harry Wilson's Tackle

Drew

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Drew

Well-known member

Drew

Share this page