[Football] Handball?

[Uh_huh_him]

In regards to Mac's goal, I thought the ruling was if it hits hand/arm after hitting another bodypart first, then that is not handball.
Is my understanding correct?

If so, is it only considered in relation to penalty appeals, and not goals?
If so, that's just plain stupid, isn't it?

If not, why haven't we had an apology for Mac's wrongly overturned goal?

 

[Hugo Rune]

*cough* it's the officials *cough*

The reason given yesterday was that the phase of play had moved on. Yes....to a goal.

Ah yes. Similar to Mitoma’s ruled out goal for offside against Arsenal at the Amex. VAR did a great job for a Big Six spotting that and a great job for Liverpool not worrying about the very clear and obvious handball. I wonder how many seconds long a phase of play is?

 

[Triggaaar]

This was definitely not handball and definitely not a penalty. According to Attwell and Salisbury.View attachment 159851

Obviously that is handball and it's not really fair to speculate that Michael Salisbury thinks it isn't. We should give him the benefit of the doubt, because for all we know he might have just been having a nap.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Ah yes. Similar to Mitoma’s ruled out goal for offside against Arsenal at the Amex. VAR did a great job for a Big Six spotting that and a great job for Liverpool not worrying about the very clear and obvious handball. I wonder how many seconds long a phase of play is?

As long as it takes for the outcome to be . . . . *right*

 

[Beanstalk]

So MacAllister's goal should have stood then.

Probably, though I really noticed live that as soon as it went in that Attwell had his whistle to his mouth and finger to his ear. He immediately went to appease the Spurs defenders who were complaining. Only my opinion but I think he probably thought it was handball but wussed out of making an on-field decision (as he was having a really poor game anyway) to allow Salisbury to give what he always thought was the correct decision (I think you could have given the benefit of the doubt to the refereeing team on this one in isolation but in the context it was farcical and I'm still completely unsure of whether it hit arm or hip).

Very telling he didn't need to go to the screen to get the decision confirmed.

 

[Beanstalk]

I understand Mitoma's, but Trent's was clear and obvious. The ref didn't see it properly, VAR did.

I don't think TAA's was an error under the current laws - "Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence."

The following is from the Premier League regarding IFAB changes to how the law is implemented.

If an attacking player’s accidental handball immediately precedes another player scoring, the goal will now be awarded, when last season it was likely to have been ruled out.

However, a player will still be penalised if he commits an accidental handball immediately before scoring himself.

I think because of the distance between Firpo's touch and it hitting the arm, it is very hard to call it deliberate. I also don't think you can say he makes himself unnaturally bigger - his arm doesn't leave his side or end up in a weird position in relation to his body position. As you can see, it's a subjective, contentious decision and because the ref has applied the above as their interpretation it was never going to be overturned.

It's harsh on Leeds (hahahaha) but actually, in the spirit of the game, we should want the advantage to go to the attacking team. Goals shouldn't be being disallowed for borderline/contentious decisions, they should be being given when there is an element of doubt. It's why despite VAR essentially doing the same thing in both Mitoma and TAA's situation except Darren Cann, who is experienced enough to know better, decided that he should make the decisive call for Mitoma.

 

[Beanstalk]

In regards to Mac's goal, I thought the ruling was if it hits hand/arm after hitting another bodypart first, then that is not handball.
Is my understanding correct?

If so, is it only considered in relation to penalty appeals, and not goals?
If so, that's just plain stupid, isn't it?

If not, why haven't we had an apology for Mac's wrongly overturned goal?

Ruling is as below. If it hits the arm and goes in, it's handball regardless of any other influence. Doesn't matter about deflections any more.

• It is an offence if a player scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

The issue with Ali Mac's deflection is whether it hit his arm or hip. Without better camera angles it's basically impossible to tell and remarkable that Attwell didn't even get called to the screen for it.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Ruling is as below. If it hits the arm and goes in, it's handball regardless of any other influence. Doesn't matter about deflections any more.

• It is an offence if a player scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

The issue with Ali Mac's deflection is whether it hit his arm or hip. Without better camera angles it's basically impossible to tell and typical for VAR decisions concerning Brighton that Attwell didn't even get called to the screen for it.

Corrected.