Wolves 2-3 West Brom: Verdict Thread

[Tony Towner]

Plus if you are running, arms will naturally take it in turns to go in front of the body to the side. Which is why the Kilman one was cobblers

 

[Haggstone]

If you are standing still you would expect your hands/arms to be down, in line with your hips. If you are stood with your hands in front of your chest, they wouldn't "naturally" be there... Unnatural.

If you are jumping to head the ball your arms/hand would be raised to assist with the leap, about chest height. If you have jumped to head the ball but your hands are above your head and come into contact with the ball, unnatural.
Try jumping without arm leverage but also note where they naturally fall. Try turning and see where your hands naturally fall... If you extend them beyond your natural turn you are expanding your silhouette, not natural.

This is all a basic explanation but the best I can manage

So when players actively put there arms behind there backs (ironically to try and avoid handling the ball, but never the less in a unnatural position) is there another rule that would prevent handball being given should the ball strike an arm?

 

[darlowolf64]

So when players actively put there arms behind there backs (ironically to try and avoid handling the ball, but never the less in a unnatural position) is there another rule that would prevent handball being given should the ball strike an arm?

The Laws are (at the moment, I think) if the ball strikes above the "short sleeve line" it isn't hand ball, a change from if it struck any part of the arm then a penalty could be given. The hand ball Law really is a jumble of ideas which still leaves things open to interpretation by human beings and are, for me, clear as mud.

As for players placing their hands behind their back, yes it's not natural but it means that they can't have hand ball called against them. However it disrupts their balance and ability to block or challenge for the ball

 

[Haggstone]

The Laws are (at the moment, I think) if the ball strikes above the "short sleeve line" it isn't hand ball, a change from if it struck any part of the arm then a penalty could be given. The hand ball Law really is a jumble of ideas which still leaves things open to interpretation by human beings and are, for me, clear as mud.

As for players placing their hands behind their back, yes it's not natural but it means that they can't have hand ball called against them. However it disrupts their balance and ability to block or challenge for the ball

Why can’t they? What caveat in the rule would prevent it being given? I mean it’s highly unlikely that a ball would strike a players arm in that situation of course. Its not impossible either.

P.s I appreciate you taking the time to respond mate.

 

[darlowolf64]

Why can’t they? What caveat in the rule would prevent it being given? I mean it’s highly unlikely that a ball would strike a players arm in that situation of course. Its not impossible either.

P.s I appreciate you taking the time to respond mate.

If you are face on to the attacker with your hands clasped behind your back, there is only the "short sleeve line" visible and so, if the ball strikes your arm it is above the "penalty line". Also the Law includes something like "enlarging your silhouette" which the player clearly hasn't, in fact he has reduced the silhouette

 

[redvictor]

Fans "you couldn't make a bigger fuck up on the handball rule if you tried" The FA "Hold our beers"

 

[VanWolfie]

There are two broad camps among the referees. One is led by David Elleray, now retired but who holds the position of chair of the International committee that makes all the rule changes. He more than anyone is responsible for a lot of today's confusing mess. The rule changes have changed previously good referees, e.g., Michael Oliver, Anthony Taylor, etc., into robotic new law enforcers with the result they no longer have a feel for the game. Mike Riley is Elleray's lietenant in charge of the PGMOL. The other camp, mainly retired officials, tend to be influenced by Keith Hackett but they currently have no power. While I like some of the critique Hackett offers about the current regime, his entourage is not without suspicious supporters, e.g., Halsey, Winter, Rennie, etc. The one referee who seems to be able to rise above all this is Chris Kavenagh. Because Oliver and Taylor, (and Atkinson who is somewhat past his shelf life) have allowed themselves to become slavish victims of the new interpretations. Kavenagh is slowly emerging as the best referee for letting the game flow and for both sides at the end to think they haven't been done by faulty decisions. But he's only one referee. The PL needs about 10 every week for referees to become inconspicuous in their adjudication, abjuring the need to bring out Walton and Gallagher to spread asinine rubbish.

Just as a follow-up. Keith Hackett has called for the suspension of both Lee Mason and Mike Dean. https://punditarena.com/football/daniel-hussey/mike-dean-lee-mason-keith-hackett/
I hope Nuno now gets his £25,000 fine back!