That penalty was a bit f**king harsh, wasn't it? The poor blokes arms were out to cushion his fall.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

There's no way that was deliberate.

[Pokster]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Really. Even at your most contrary, you couldn't argue that a chap who had just lost his footing, was falling, and had the ball blasted at him from 3 yards away handled it eliberately? Surely?

[Pokster]

so whne it hit his hand it was an obvious penalty imo.... no O player really complained and that would have been a free kick 100% of the time outside the area imo

[Pokster]

http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/xmashehe1.gif http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/xmasrubchin1.gif

[Berni]

It was never a penalty in a million, squillion years.

[Brexit = Keine Pumpernickel]

But what a relief to get the 3rd goal :toilet:

[Pokster]

if it hits your arms..... haven't exactly noticed a rush of people (including Olympiakos players) complaining about it

[Pokster]

If you don't think it isn't a pen after this then you obviously don't have a clue

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

'Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position.

So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.'

The potential offender was some 3 yards from the ball. The ball was travelling extremely quickly. The potential offender's arms were in a pefectly natural position to cushion his fall.

It would appear that, according to the laws of the game, you're completely wrong. :shrug:

[Berni]

Although I like the Chimp in the Arsenal blazer and tie.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

It was a penalty because it was for us.

[Berni]

Not that right or wrong are questions of numbers, but still.

[Luis Anaconda]

[Pokster]

would mean that your arms are not in a natural position... a natural position would be while you are standing up and in control of your body... so it would seem to me that you are completely wrong

[Brexit = Keine Pumpernickel]

[Pokster]

so numbers don't seem to back up his reasoning

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

You're a strange man, p http://www.awimb.com/images/smiley_icons/xmashehe1.gif

[Berni]

Be honest, are you just doing this for a bet?

[Pokster]

isn't a "natural" position, no i know i only coach under 10's but i believe even they undcerstand that playing football while standing up is a lot easier and more natural than pretending to be Tom Daley

[Pokster]

not exactly your strongest arguement b

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Are you Ray Wilkins?

This sort of thing isn't allowed?

http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/06/van-persie.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/09/article-2321794-005F863F00000258-731_634x434.jpg

Football is an athletic sport. You're not supposed to just stand around.

[Rich]

strung the referee up by now.

There was a similar incident in the Chelsea v AFCB game at the weekend where Francis slid in and the ball hit him on the forearm. No penalty. Commentators say good decision, Jose says bad decision.

[Pokster]

players who had control of the ball and looking at it, unlike the greek chap who was looking the other way with his arms oustretched.

But i don't expect people who have never played the game at a certain level to understand

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

considering or making reference to the laws of the game in any manner whatsoever.

Fantastic analysis. You think it's a penalty because you don't like players who aren't standing up nicely and looking at the ball. Which is fine, as far as a point of view goes, but it has nothing to do with the game of football and the laws by which it is governed.

[Pokster]

with your feet off the ground while looking the wrong way is not a natural position (especially when you didn't have the ball), so that smashes your natural position reasoning out of the water.

The bloke wasn't in control and had no idea where the ball was as he was just trying to block it anyway he could, it was a penalty!

[Berni]

decision. Unless he thought everyone else thought differently, in which case he'd take up whichever position ran contrary to common sense and reason.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

f**king hell. I don't care any more.

'Flying through the air'. f**king hell. You might want to look at a rather more sedentary game, mate. One with simpler laws that even you can understand.

[Berni]

Cheers ref."

Never for one minute did I think anyone would think it was a stonewall penalty.

I underestimated pokster - which I feel bad about. :-(

[Pokster]

[Pokster]

your back up reasoning has more holes in it than swiss cheese

[Pokster]

So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.'

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

your body is entirely out of control; as if, perhaps, the devil has the ability to enter the body through the soles of the feet and take possession of it. This must be what they believe up norf. I understand that the worst thing the devil does is to stop the poor possessee from staring at the ball, for as we know, not looking directly at the football for a fraction of a second is a sending off offence.

[Pokster]

while falling over is the way to play the game

nutters, the pair of you

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Even by your standards, this is some cretinous ****.

Now I am going away. Try not to embarrass yourself any further.

[Pokster]

Even by your standards you have lost it

[Berni]

[Luis Anaconda]

Not telling Pokster that though

[Berni]

As with any decision, you have to ask how we would react if it had been given against us to judge its merits. We'd have been howling if the same penalty had been given against us when we were two up - absof**kinglutely howling

[Alexism - Atheoist]

It has the paucity of a Fox Viewer I must say. Only thing is deliberate use of hand to control the ball, but wtf, there was nothing deliberate about that pen and yet it's given so frequently it's seen as a no-brainer by most.

I'd say that this should be addressed but FIFA has a more compelling thing or two to spend time on.

[2 Strikers?]

were it a cross i would pos still not agree cos I wanted that pen to reduce the risk of having a stroke.

[Alexism - Atheoist]

[Alexism - Atheoist]