| Law 12 principle 18:00 - Aug 30 with 2864 views | Weekender |
Player handles the ball, then shoots off target. Because the shot itself misses the target, there is no direct or immediate goal from the handball. When the shot then deflects off a defender and into the net, that deflection is treated as a distinct, intervening act by an opposing player, which is enough to break the causal chain between the handball and the goal. The own goal stands.
Had the shot been on target and the deflection merely diverted it into the net rather than away from goal, the causal chain would arguably remain unbroken, and VAR would be more likely to intervene and disallow it for the earlier handball, subject to the referee’s judgement on “immediacy.” |  |
| |  |
| Law 12 principle on 18:02 - Aug 30 with 2386 views | Illinoisblue |
Player handles the ball SHOULD BE THE END OF THE FKING STORY |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:02 - Aug 30 with 2389 views | Blaggers12 |
What if it had then hit a Man Utd player, would that have counted? |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:03 - Aug 30 with 2361 views | Swansea_Blue |
Which is obviously a load of bollox |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:03 - Aug 30 with 2350 views | eirannach_gorm |
It's OK to gain advantage from a hand ball then. |  | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:03 - Aug 30 with 2332 views | iamatractorboy |
It didn't just inadvertently brush his hand though did it, he clearly braces both arms in front of his chest and it hit both hands clearly. That overrides any of this 'goalscorer can't touch the ball with the hand' rule. It is handball, end of story. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:04 - Aug 30 with 2305 views | britbiker |
Stupid rule. If he hadn't handled it he wouldn't have been able to get the shot off this the OG would never of happened |  | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:05 - Aug 30 with 2200 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:03 - Aug 30 by Swansea_Blue |
Which is obviously a load of bollox |
I agree but was just pointing out the rule. Officials got it correct even if the law is daft | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:06 - Aug 30 with 2191 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Whoever agreed to that wording really didn't think it through did they?
How can a shot that is off target that is deflected in not count as having been directly influenced by the shot?
Would they have spent ages deciding whether the initial shot was going in had it appeared to have been hitting the post?
A ridiculous rule. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Law 12 principle on 18:07 - Aug 30 with 2154 views | bluejacko |
So every time you want to shoot after a handball make sure a defender gets a touch | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:07 - Aug 30 with 2144 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:06 - Aug 30 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Whoever agreed to that wording really didn't think it through did they?
How can a shot that is off target that is deflected in not count as having been directly influenced by the shot?
Would they have spent ages deciding whether the initial shot was going in had it appeared to have been hitting the post?
A ridiculous rule. |
100% | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:09 - Aug 30 with 2015 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
If a Town defender does that, VAR gives a penalty.
That in itself shows the level of inconsistency. [Post edited 30 Aug 18:10]
|  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:10 - Aug 30 with 1992 views | redrickstuhaart |
Don't even get to that when the hands are not in natural position | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:12 - Aug 30 with 1933 views | EddyJ |
| Law 12 principle on 18:05 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
I agree but was just pointing out the rule. Officials got it correct even if the law is daft |
No. The on field referee got it wrong. Due to a loophole VAR couldn’t intervene. But the officials got it completely wrong overall. [Post edited 30 Aug 18:16]
| | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:16 - Aug 30 with 1810 views | Chrisd |
Yes, but bottomline the player has clearly handled the ball, the rest of that ridiculous law is meaningless. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:16 - Aug 30 with 1790 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:12 - Aug 30 by EddyJ |
No. The on field referee got it wrong. Due to a loophole VAR couldn’t intervene. But the officials got it completely wrong overall. [Post edited 30 Aug 18:16]
|
Care to show your working? | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:18 - Aug 30 with 1739 views | BlueBirdBlue |
| Law 12 principle on 18:05 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
I agree but was just pointing out the rule. Officials got it correct even if the law is daft |
No. They didn’t.
Because the referee was three yards away and looking at Maguire raising his hands to handball.
At that point getting it right means giving a bloody handball. So the shot is completely irrelevant.
I have no issue getting thumped by a better team. I just hope it’s not from a mistake by us or bad officiating.
We concede from a slip. Then a goal that should never be given. Infuriating as we’d been fantastic for 60 mins that aside. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:19 - Aug 30 with 1676 views | Deano69 |
Ok. So pick the ball up, run with it Rugby style to the opposition box and bounce it off the keeper for an own goal. |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:25 - Aug 30 with 1605 views | EddyJ |
| Law 12 principle on 18:16 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
Care to show your working? |
It was a clear handball. The referee should have awarded us a free kick. He didn’t. The officials got it wrong | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:26 - Aug 30 with 1589 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:18 - Aug 30 by BlueBirdBlue |
No. They didn’t.
Because the referee was three yards away and looking at Maguire raising his hands to handball.
At that point getting it right means giving a bloody handball. So the shot is completely irrelevant.
I have no issue getting thumped by a better team. I just hope it’s not from a mistake by us or bad officiating.
We concede from a slip. Then a goal that should never be given. Infuriating as we’d been fantastic for 60 mins that aside. |
The law says:
No handball, because the arm didn’t move to the ball and wasn’t held out making the body bigger. Arms tucked across the chest are just part of the player’s normal shape, so getting hit there is treated like getting hit anywhere else on the body
Not saying I agree with it, but that’s what the laws say. We may want it to handball and we may want therefore the laws to be different but they are what they are | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:30 - Aug 30 with 1493 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:25 - Aug 30 by EddyJ |
It was a clear handball. The referee should have awarded us a free kick. He didn’t. The officials got it wrong |
That shows no analysis all you’ve done there is say what you want to happen not explained why the interpretation is wrong. I think the laws should say that an advantage gained through handling the ball whether it’s accidental otherwise should lead to a free kick but that’s not what the law say. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:32 - Aug 30 with 1422 views | Crock |
What idiot made that law? |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:37 - Aug 30 with 1282 views | farkenhell |
| Law 12 principle on 18:26 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
The law says:
No handball, because the arm didn’t move to the ball and wasn’t held out making the body bigger. Arms tucked across the chest are just part of the player’s normal shape, so getting hit there is treated like getting hit anywhere else on the body
Not saying I agree with it, but that’s what the laws say. We may want it to handball and we may want therefore the laws to be different but they are what they are |
His arm may not have moved towards the ball, but his hand did. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:37 - Aug 30 with 1265 views | BlueBirdBlue |
| Law 12 principle on 18:26 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
The law says:
No handball, because the arm didn’t move to the ball and wasn’t held out making the body bigger. Arms tucked across the chest are just part of the player’s normal shape, so getting hit there is treated like getting hit anywhere else on the body
Not saying I agree with it, but that’s what the laws say. We may want it to handball and we may want therefore the laws to be different but they are what they are |
Normal shape?
Maybe David Norris should have argued that years back when he did the same. He crossed his arms and lifted them up lol. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:38 - Aug 30 with 1229 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:37 - Aug 30 by BlueBirdBlue |
Normal shape?
Maybe David Norris should have argued that years back when he did the same. He crossed his arms and lifted them up lol. |
The laws actually talk about silhouette so using the words normal shape is probably not particularly clear from me | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:41 - Aug 30 with 1187 views | Tristan90 |
I know that one of the issues with VAR is/was that we don't want it interfering with absolutely everything and there's the whole 'how many phases should we go back' question, but surely - surely - that is so blatantly clear and obvious error that the VAR check shouldn't just be the goal but should also be the build up. If someone's bootlace can be offside two passes before a finish and a goal gets disallowed, why does Maguire's poor finishing allow him to get away with it.
Yes, this is a post that just rewords several other posts but still! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
