In the interests of being thankful for God's gifts, can I offer the following prayer.

[IUFG]

His arm was by his side. I'd be furious if that was given against us (which I'd fully expect it to)

the law states something like - it is handball if the player deliberately touches the ball with the hand/arm.

he moved his entire body towards the ball. the ball hit his arm.

[redgunamo]

Can we also ask him to find the real Martin Odegaard and not this flailing imposter?

I want our captain back

Did you notice the short kerfuffle about returning him to the ranks, in favour of Dec

[WES]

the law states something like - it is handball if the player deliberately touches the ball with the hand/arm.

he moved his entire body towards the ball. the ball hit his arm.

Yes, this is the point. If he moved his body farther to his left it hits his chest. If he moved it less far to his left, it misses him.

He looked at the ball and then moved his body and arm into just the position where it hit his arm.

Pen

[Peter]

Yes, this is the point. If he moved his body farther to his left it hits his chest. If he moved it less far to his left, it misses him.

He looked at the ball and then moved his body and arm into just the position where it hit his arm.

Pen

He asked the ref whether it would be a penalty if his arm was by his side. The ref said no.

It was. And it was given. I don't think it was a penalty.

[Peter]

Talking of absolutely dreadful football, I watched the Leeds v Everton game last night.

The radio this morning was how well Leeds played. Not Everton still being ****e.

Apparently the pelanty has divided opinion. Nailed on pelanty for me. Tucked his arm in then motioned it (and his body) towards the ball, ball hits arm on way to goal

I'd love those Scousers to get relegated in their first season in their new stadium...

At half time, Everton had an expected goals of 0.0. 😀😀

Not sure I've ever seen that before.

[Peter]

Yes, this is the point. If he moved his body farther to his left it hits his chest. If he moved it less far to his left, it misses him.

He looked at the ball and then moved his body and arm into just the position where it hit his arm.

Pen

I love the way you say 'he moved his body and arm' as though he could have chosen to move one without the other

What happened to the shirt sleeve rule? In fact, what happened to the 'we are not going to give trivial handballs' guidance? As usual, they say one thing and do the other. Ref gave it, VAR wouldn't overturn it.

For me, unbelievably harsh. What this is effectively saying is that he has to get out of the way of the ball.

[Peter]

Did you notice the short kerfuffle about returning him to the ranks, in favour of Dec

Yes, sparked by a former captain, I believe.....

I don't think the armband makes much difference. You are looking for leadership on the pitch and that doesn't need to come from the captain. Gabriel and Rice are very effective as leaders on the pitch regardless of who is captain.

[WES]

I love the way you say 'he moved his body and arm' as though he could have chosen to move one without the other

What happened to the shirt sleeve rule? In fact, what happened to the 'we are not going to give trivial handballs' guidance? As usual, they say one thing and do the other. Ref gave it, VAR wouldn't overturn it.

For me, unbelievably harsh. What this is effectively saying is that he has to get out of the way of the ball.

No, it says you can't deliberately block it with your arm even if your arm is right next to your body.

If the ball had been hit so hard that he had no time to get out of the way and it hit his arm which was right next to his body, no pen.

In this case the ball was deflected and moving slowly and he deliberately moved in front of it such that it hit his arm. Stupid.

And a pen.

[Peter]

No, it says you can't deliberately block it with you arm even if your arm is right next to your body.

If the ball had been hit so hard that he had no time to get out of the way and it hit his arm which was right next to his body, no pen.

In this case the ball was deflected and moving slowly and he deliberately moved in front of it such that it hit his arm. Stupid.

And a pen.

Right. So to avoid a penalty he should have got out of the way.....? Or if he had stood still and it hit him in exactly the same way, that wouldn't have been a penalty?

His arm was as tucked in to his chest as it is possible to be. Where else could he possibly have put it?

[WES]

Right. So to avoid a penalty he should have got out of the way.....? Or if he had stood still and it hit him in exactly the same way, that wouldn't have been a penalty?

His arm was as tucked in to his chest as it is possible to be. Where else could he possibly have put it?

I suggest you read my previous post which answers your questions. He moved towards the line of the ball and in doing so prevented the ball from getting to the goal by having it hit his arm. Where his arm was does not matter.

Pen. And now I'm bored of this topic.

[Peter]

No, it says you can't deliberately block it with your arm even if your arm is right next to your body.

If the ball had been hit so hard that he had no time to get out of the way and it hit his arm which was right next to his body, no pen.

In this case the ball was deflected and moving slowly and he deliberately moved in front of it such that it hit his arm. Stupid.

And a pen.

From the BBC:

"The law, which is detailed on the Football Association's website, goes on to explain that "a player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player's body movement for that specific situation".

But this is where it becomes murky.

Before last season, the handball law was actually relaxed slightly. Players were told by the Premier League they do not have to move with their arms rigidly by their sides or behind their backs.

The position of their arm or hand will be judged purely in relation to the movement of their body"

His arm is as unobtrusive as he can make it in relation to the movement of his body, a movement which is entirely justified by the specific situation- the desire to block the shot.

However, I have looked at it again and it does hit his arm lower down than I thought. I still think it is harsh, but a 50/50 rather than a disgrace.

He is unlucky though. Had he got out of the way, the shot was going straight at the keeper

[redgunamo]

I love the way you say 'he moved his body and arm' as though he could have chosen to move one without the other

What happened to the shirt sleeve rule? In fact, what happened to the 'we are not going to give trivial handballs' guidance? As usual, they say one thing and do the other. Ref gave it, VAR wouldn't overturn it.

For me, unbelievably harsh. What this is effectively saying is that he has to get out of the way of the ball.

Either that or he can actually address the ball properly, like a footballer.

You're a batsman, you know very well; either you can allow the ball to bash you on the back of the head or you can actually PLAY cricket. You know, with your bat.

[redgunamo]

Yes, sparked by a former captain, I believe.....

I don't think the armband makes much difference. You are looking for leadership on the pitch and that doesn't need to come from the captain. Gabriel and Rice are very effective as leaders on the pitch regardless of who is captain.

Yes, the topic does come up from time to time, doesn't it, when the team is not hitting expected heights. The feeling is that the armband empowers some individuals and subdues others; the skipper's form might be suffering as a result. Adams would always want somebody like Rice; they are of the same football school (in a manner of speaking) and all that entails.

We cannot say that it really doesn't matter yet behave as though it very much does matter. If it helps ? and therefore the team then it's one more thing to consider.

[Peter]

Either that or he can actually address the ball properly, like a footballer.

You're a batsman, you know very well; either you can allow the ball to bash you on the back of the head or you can actually PLAY cricket. You know, with your bat.

Or you can duck.

Don't be fooled into thinking you can make me play a shot when I don't have to.

[Peter]

Yes, the topic does come up from time to time, doesn't it, when the team is not hitting expected heights. The feeling is that the armband empowers some individuals and subdues others; the skipper's form might be suffering as a result. Adams would always want somebody like Rice; they are of the same football school (in a manner of speaking) and all that entails.

We cannot say that it really doesn't matter yet behave as though it very much does matter. If it helps ? and therefore the team then it's one more thing to consider.

That amazon series didn't tell us much but it did show us that Xhaka was clearly the leader in that dressing room. The guy everyone respected. An armband doesn't change that.

Odegaard is the leader of the press and is supposed to be the fulcrum of possession. The heart of the team, with and without the ball. If I thought the captaincy was distracting him I'd take it off him in a flash. I really don't believe that is the problem.