PDA

View Full Version : Couple of points, if yuou give Kos' as hand ball, then the clearance that hit the



Pokster
10-03-2016, 07:55 AM
Burnley player on the arm would aslo be hand ball... neither were deliberate.

The 2 mins added time, is a miuimum of 2 minutes, so the ginger haired clogger can trot on about that as well.


No chip pissing from me

redgunamo
10-03-2016, 10:04 AM
Burnley player on the arm would aslo be hand ball... neither were deliberate.

The 2 mins added time, is a miuimum of 2 minutes, so the ginger haired clogger can trot on about that as well.


No chip pissing from me

You're a ref; why not just have zero tolerance to the ball touching any part of a player's arm or hand (except keepers in their area, of course)? Would simplify the thing enormously, imo.

Pokster
10-03-2016, 10:08 AM
You're a ref; why not just have zero tolerance to the ball touching any part of a player's arm or hand (except keepers in their area, of course)? Would simplify the thing enormously, imo.

Yes and no, would simplyfy it but then you would just get players trying to win hand balls rather than score imho

redgunamo
10-03-2016, 10:15 AM
Yes and no, would simplyfy it but then you would just get players trying to win hand balls rather than score imho

Yeah, I suppose. Fair enough.

Brentwood
10-03-2016, 10:19 AM
Burnley player on the arm would aslo be hand ball... neither were deliberate.

The 2 mins added time, is a miuimum of 2 minutes, so the ginger haired clogger can trot on about that as well.


No chip pissing from me

Good point this. Exactly what I thought when i watched the highlights this morning. Ironic that the Burnley fans where sarcastically shouting handball and then their semi legitimate shout was drowned out

7sisters
10-03-2016, 10:24 AM
I suppose when the handball in question was a deflection of sorts, then the arms could be considered non active, much like that deflected beach ball goal conceded by the scousers a few seasons back. :shrug:

Burney
10-03-2016, 10:43 AM
I suppose when the handball in question was a deflection of sorts, then the arms could be considered non active, much like that deflected beach ball goal conceded by the scousers a few seasons back. :shrug:

I think it's fair to accept that most humans have arms and that it is not always possible to get them out of the way of an object pinged at you at speed. You can't penalise people for anatomy and the laws of motion.

Ash
10-03-2016, 10:53 AM
I think it's fair to accept that most humans have arms and that it is not always possible to get them out of the way of an object pinged at you at speed. You can't penalise people for anatomy and the laws of motion.

I think the rules should consider this in two dimensions. First, was it deliberate, and second, was any advantage gained? If someone accidently punches the ball in the net, the goal shouldn't stand, and the player shouldn't be punished. As it stands though the goal was probably legit.

Likewise, if someone accidently handles a ball that is heading for an empty goal, a pelanty could be given without punishing the player.

redgunamo
10-03-2016, 10:58 AM
I think it's fair to accept that most humans have arms and that it is not always possible to get them out of the way of an object pinged at you at speed. You can't penalise people for anatomy and the laws of motion.

The punishment is a free-kick and/or a card, not hanging :shrug:

The player is merely being penalised for not getting his movements organised better, just like gloving a snorter behind.

redgunamo
10-03-2016, 11:02 AM
I think the rules should consider this in two dimensions. First, was it deliberate, and second, was any advantage gained? If someone accidently punches the ball in the net, the goal shouldn't stand, and the player shouldn't be punished. As it stands though the goal was probably legit.

Likewise, if someone accidently handles a ball that is heading for an empty goal, a pelanty could be given without punishing the player.

In a game where handling the ball is illegal, obviously you've gained an advantage, even if merely by being the only outfield player "allowed" to do this.

I don't think intent should matter.

Viva Prat Vegas
10-03-2016, 11:04 AM
The player is merely being penalised for not getting his movements organised better, just like gloving a snorter behind.

I have brilliant movements

I have a bowl of All Bran at 6am so I do not get penalised

Tony C
10-03-2016, 11:06 AM
IMO it was past the 2 minutes but refs always allow a couple of seconds extra when a side is attacking, it wasn't offside, Koscielny's shot was going into the top corner and if you don't think so then even bats see better than you and even though the ball hit his hands it was unintentional....he had no control of it...his hands where already in that goofy arse position when he kicked the ball and there was no time to get them out the way especially when he was in mid fkin air.

for me...the big talking point is that we actually executed a short corner routine...f uck me....has to qualify as one of Wengers get me out of jail trick plays....completely bamboozled the Burnley centrehalves.

Ash
10-03-2016, 11:49 AM
IMO it was past the 2 minutes but refs always allow a couple of seconds extra when a side is attacking, it wasn't offside, Koscielny's shot was going into the top corner and if you don't think so then even bats see better than you and even though the ball hit his hands it was unintentional....he had no control of it...his hands where already in that goofy arse position when he kicked the ball and there was no time to get them out the way especially when he was in mid fkin air.

for me...the big talking point is that we actually executed a short corner routine...f uck me....has to qualify as one of Wengers get me out of jail trick plays....completely bamboozled the Burnley centrehalves.

Whatever happened to the understanding of "minimum of two minutes"?

I thought Kosh's shot was going into the top corner ... of the stand.

redgunamo
10-03-2016, 11:50 AM
I have brilliant movements

I have a bowl of All Bran at 6am so I do not get penalised

That sounds fair, I think.

PSRB
10-03-2016, 12:23 PM
You're a ref; why not just have zero tolerance to the ball touching any part of a player's arm or hand (except keepers in their area, of course)? Would simplify the thing enormously, imo.

Agree, it was either a goal and no penalty or a no goal and a penalty under the current nonsense. I'm sure handball used to be handball regardless of accident or not