posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Disagree that Newcastle are a “very average side”. Don’t rate their keeper today, but the rest of that lineup has plenty quality throughout, and a fantastic striker up top.
Do agree that their equaliser fell into the really harsh category. If that decision’s correct under the current laws then the laws are a joke. The handball literally led directly to a goal. The Dan Burn non-2nd yellow was also a joke.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Austin got MOTM, he looked better than Forster
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 55 minutes ago
I'm with you sandy. A pretty brave performance from a very depleted Spurs.
Felt quite proud of how we battled through adversity. Deserved more and we ain't getting any sort of luck at the mo except bad luck
Proper fans get behind their team when the chips are down. We've seen who puts the knife in when faced with adversity. Said it before. Wouldn't want half the Spurs fans on here in the trenches with me. Cowards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. I said at the beginning of December, when the injuries were starting to really have an impact, not to expect much in the league until the end of January. I have always maintained the cups are the way forward.
Carabou cup in January has come to soon to progress to the final in my opinion. Still won't have anywhere enough players back to face Liverpool. But Europa and FA Cup should still be targets, as hopefully lots of players should he back by February. Should still have enough to get results in the Europa to finish top eight. And Tamworth is gimme. Another easy home tie in the 4th round, and players like Micky, Vicario, Romero, Richarlison, Odobert, Micky Moore should all be back.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
I'm with you sandy. A pretty brave performance from a very depleted Spurs.
Felt quite proud of how we battled through adversity. Deserved more and we ain't getting any sort of luck at the mo except bad luck
Proper fans get behind their team when the chips are down. We've seen who puts the knife in when faced with adversity. Said it before. Wouldn't want half the Spurs fans on here in the trenches with me. Cowards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You certainly wouldn`t want Levy giving out the orders in the trenches, he would give you a rolled up newspaper and a water pistol to go into battle with
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what the rules were at the time - I don’t know.
If I were writing the rules, it’d be entirely based on intent, so no.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the one whereby Luca Moura is fouled then has the ball smashed into him whilst on the ground. We are given an advantage to play on. We score and then the play is brought back for a free kick to the opposing team for a handball?
Make it make sense. Week in week out there are contradictory decisions made in spite of the current rules.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Even the Havertz one earlier in the season was laughable.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the law and the way it implemented is farcical.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the law and the way it implemented is farcical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 hours, 25 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the ref refer to VAR in this situation......a handball leading to a goal?
And if so, why didn't he?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain why we'd have been lucky to have that handball called bythe ref?
And had he done so, the goal could not have stood because play would have stopped at the handball?
Any players are welcome at this stage of the season.
Sign in if you want to comment
Excellent performance today from Spurs
Page 2 of 2
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Disagree that Newcastle are a “very average side”. Don’t rate their keeper today, but the rest of that lineup has plenty quality throughout, and a fantastic striker up top.
Do agree that their equaliser fell into the really harsh category. If that decision’s correct under the current laws then the laws are a joke. The handball literally led directly to a goal. The Dan Burn non-2nd yellow was also a joke.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Austin got MOTM, he looked better than Forster
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 55 minutes ago
I'm with you sandy. A pretty brave performance from a very depleted Spurs.
Felt quite proud of how we battled through adversity. Deserved more and we ain't getting any sort of luck at the mo except bad luck
Proper fans get behind their team when the chips are down. We've seen who puts the knife in when faced with adversity. Said it before. Wouldn't want half the Spurs fans on here in the trenches with me. Cowards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. I said at the beginning of December, when the injuries were starting to really have an impact, not to expect much in the league until the end of January. I have always maintained the cups are the way forward.
Carabou cup in January has come to soon to progress to the final in my opinion. Still won't have anywhere enough players back to face Liverpool. But Europa and FA Cup should still be targets, as hopefully lots of players should he back by February. Should still have enough to get results in the Europa to finish top eight. And Tamworth is gimme. Another easy home tie in the 4th round, and players like Micky, Vicario, Romero, Richarlison, Odobert, Micky Moore should all be back.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
I'm with you sandy. A pretty brave performance from a very depleted Spurs.
Felt quite proud of how we battled through adversity. Deserved more and we ain't getting any sort of luck at the mo except bad luck
Proper fans get behind their team when the chips are down. We've seen who puts the knife in when faced with adversity. Said it before. Wouldn't want half the Spurs fans on here in the trenches with me. Cowards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You certainly wouldn`t want Levy giving out the orders in the trenches, he would give you a rolled up newspaper and a water pistol to go into battle with
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends what the rules were at the time - I don’t know.
If I were writing the rules, it’d be entirely based on intent, so no.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
What’s harsh is disallowing a goal because someone punted a ball and it just happened to hit their hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's harsh is a pass forward upfield hits an arm and goes the other way to an attacker to set up a goal. Intent isn't the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is, actually.
It’s no harsher than it hitting someone on the nose tbh.
I think a lot of people are forgetting why the law exists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it unintentionally hits a strikers hand or arm immediately before a goal, then the goal is disallowed. That's the rule, and it's not about intent.
My point her is that their goal today is effectively the same advantage gained through an unintentional handball, so I think the rules would be fairer if that goal was chalked off. But the goal stood in accordance with the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there’s two debates here. Whether it led to directly to a goal is clearly up for debate.
The suggestion players should be punished for a ball coincidentally hitting them on the arm though, I just don’t see any logic for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the ball that was fired at Sissoko from point blank range and hit him on the arm in the CL final, should not have been a penalty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the one whereby Luca Moura is fouled then has the ball smashed into him whilst on the ground. We are given an advantage to play on. We score and then the play is brought back for a free kick to the opposing team for a handball?
Make it make sense. Week in week out there are contradictory decisions made in spite of the current rules.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
Even the Havertz one earlier in the season was laughable.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the law and the way it implemented is farcical.
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 34 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should it be handball if the ball hits the hand? It’s no different to hitting any other body part, if there’s no intent and no use of the arm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about in the buildup to the goal or Burns? I'm assuming the goal as Burns was a clear handball.
The issue is, the hand is not a part of the body that should be used in football, so if the balls strikes a hand, even unintentionally, and the other teams gains a significant advantage as a result, then I believe the rules should be that play must be stopped and a free kick given.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the ball hits it, he’s not using his hand.
The point of the law is that you have more control with your arms, but that’s not relevant in situations where there’s no intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So why are literally all top defenders now taking stances defending with their arms behind their backs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the law and the way it implemented is farcical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 hours, 25 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the ref refer to VAR in this situation......a handball leading to a goal?
And if so, why didn't he?
posted 1 week, 2 days ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 7 hours, 29 minutes ago
On the handballs - the goal is incredibly annoying, but based on the rules as they stand, I think we'd have been lucky to have it ruled out. The rule is idiotic though as they gained a massive advantage from a handball - intentional or not.
Burn was a clear second yellow and the ref completely bottled it, no other explanation for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain why we'd have been lucky to have that handball called bythe ref?
And had he done so, the goal could not have stood because play would have stopped at the handball?
posted 1 week ago
Any players are welcome at this stage of the season.
Page 2 of 2