A&H

Mark Clattenburg - Arsenal vs Hull

A Freethinker said:
What about accidental handball inside the area by a defender?
Click to expand...
I edited my post to include that, but I guess you must have missed it!

Basically, I'm proposing that the existing law stays in place, with the only addition being that a goal can be disallowed with a IDFK if an accidental handball was used by the attacking team in the buildup (as per Sanchez). Everything else stays the same.
 
The Referee Store
But why only penalise attackers for accidental? Surely we are advised for off sides to give the benefit of the doubt to the striker so why not with an accidental handball? And if we give a dfk for intentional/deliberate/pre mediated (covering all the bases here) why not a IDFK against a defender if we do for the attacker?
 
A Freethinker said:
Playing devils advocate here what happens when defenders catch on to the fact that they can jump about in the box arms all over the show and more than likely will only get an indirect freekick awarded against them? Plus a lot of players jump with their backs to a player to block a shot if their arms are out then it's a free pass so to speak!
Click to expand...

Referees would still be able to give deliberate handball, using same criteria and sanctions as now.
 
A Freethinker said:
But why only penalise attackers for accidental? Surely we are advised for off sides to give the benefit of the doubt to the striker so why not with an accidental handball? And if we give a dfk for intentional/deliberate/pre mediated (covering all the bases here) why not a IDFK against a defender if we do for the attacker?
Click to expand...
Because the only purpose of this is to stop goals being scored with accidental hand use, because that strikes most people as inherently unfair. There's no need to extrapolate it further.

Ice hockey uses a similar (but different) principal I believe - it's perfectly legal for the puck to be controlled with a skate, but scoring a goal with one is considered unfair. I'm proposing that it's perfectly legal for the ball to accidentally hit the arm (as it currently is), but that it's unfair if that generates an advantage that leads to a goal. And by only giving an IFK and no card, we're not blaming the attacker - just saying that it's not fair from him to profit from it.
 
GraemeS said:
Because the only purpose of this is to stop goals being scored with accidental hand use, because that strikes most people as inherently unfair. There's no need to extrapolate it further.

Ice hockey uses a similar (but different) principal I believe - it's perfectly legal for the puck to be controlled with a skate, but scoring a goal with one is considered unfair. I'm proposing that it's perfectly legal for the ball to accidentally hit the arm (as it currently is), but that it's unfair if that generates an advantage that leads to a goal. And by only giving an IFK and no card, we're not blaming the attacker - just saying that it's not fair from him to profit from it.
Click to expand...

Don't agree Graeme - defenders can still gain a significant "unfair" advantage from non deliberate handball, don't you think?
 
What happens when an ice skater scores an og off his skates? What happens when a defender accidentally knocks the ball into the net of his hand...what's the difference in? I see what you are trying to get at but if a defender accidentally hits the ball with his hand then there should a foul/sanction as well. Or a simply a rule which says if the ball is played by the hand/arm anywhere on the pitch it is an indirect freekick...inside the penalty area unless DOGSO then it is deemed to be the same i.e. indirect freekick
 
I think an indirect free kick anywhere on the pitch if the referee deems it accidental and it results in a clear advantage to the offending player/team.

if a player is waving his hands around then any contact would be difficult to see as anything other than deliberate.

At the vets game I mentioned in an earlier post, an attacker was hit on the hands whilst protecting his Crown Jewels following a shocking clearance from a defender. The handball was clear but certainly could not be called deliberate under any of the considerations listed. That he was able to benefit from the situation, he was able to advance on goal and score, seems unfair: leaving me to explain the law.

Plenty of laws have changed over the years to the benefit of the players and game as a whole. (Back pass law being one, offside law another)
 
There is just nothing wrong with the law as it stands......and if that means there are one or two goals scored off an accidental handball every season so what.....
 
Jesus....all these people who are supposed to understand and enforce the LOTG pandering to the moronic perceptions and interpretations of the LOTG by the tedious & vacuous players and pundits........

No wonder Clattenburg's buggered off.......
 
Padfoot calm yourself down, don't go insulting posters for simply chewing the fat.

Talking about changes that might make our lives easier does not equal abandoning the laws or pandering to anyone. I don't believe the handball law will change, but it's fun to work out how it could. Did you never circle the toys in the Littlewoods catalogue before Christmas?

Anyway, there is a long history of the game adapting to the environment. Cash talks and it will change if the pressure from clubs and the PL gets too much to resist. Fact of life.
 
Padfoot said:
Jesus....all these people who are supposed to understand and enforce the LOTG pandering to the moronic perceptions and interpretations of the LOTG by the tedious & vacuous players and pundits........

No wonder Clattenburg's buggered off.......
Click to expand...
Jesus ****ing christ. Grow up. Just because it's in the current laws doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about or discussing alternative solutions. The LOTG aren't perfect - you only need to read the threads when the new version came out to see that many people on here have reservations about various aspects.

This thread's been perfectly civil and then you come charging in insulting random forum members again. And why? Because you're a drama queen or because you just like being a ****? Either way, just stop...please...I'm exhausted by it already.
 
A Freethinker said:
When writing my reports for disciplinary committee I never write he was dismissed for DOGSO as he was the last man....I write he deliberately ran at and jumped into the player with no intention of playing the ball knocking him over and DOGSO, I immediately dismissed him.
Click to expand...
Very good, but if he hadn't been last man, it wouldn't have been DOGSO, would it? Imagine an appeal (if you could). "Were there other defenders between him and the GK?" "No, he was the last man..." Or " No, there were no other defenders in a position to challenge him". "You mean he was the last man?"

For a "freethinker" you seem remarkably hung up on avoiding a free understanding of what the words in the laws mean. Are you channeling the former poster who objected to the two-word expression "foul throw" in favour of "incorrectly-taken throw in"?

Anyway, I support the idea that "a goal may not be scored if the ball is directed into goal by an attacker's hand or arm; if , ITOOTR, the action is deliberate, the offender must be cautioned, and a DFK awarded, otherwise the game is restarted with a goal kick."
 
Fed up with this post now that MC has had to exile himself to the middle east for allowing that goal to stand..........that's what happens if you cross the boy's in amber and black.......lol
 
Right, for the terminally hard of understanding......

The current laws recognise and allow for the FACT that due to the nature of the game that they govern, there will be occasions when, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, a player may get struck on the hand/arm by the ball......and due to the entirely ACCIDENTAL nature of that contact, the player should not be penalised or otherwise disadvantaged........because in most competitive sports there is always an element of luck and that is part of what makes watching it entertaing.

What you are advocating is to remove that recognition and penalise a player for something over which they have absolutely NO CONTROL, thus removing a huge part of the luck element, pushing the game further into the realms of a clinical, over analysed, over officiated transaction simply to appease the notion that somehow LUCK is a bad thing and should be eradicated from the game.
 
Padfoot said:
Right, for the terminally hard of understanding......

The current laws recognise and allow for the FACT that due to the nature of the game that they govern, there will be occasions when, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, a player may get struck on the hand/arm by the ball......and due to the entirely ACCIDENTAL nature of that contact, the player should not be penalised or otherwise disadvantaged........because in most competitive sports there is always an element of luck and that is part of what makes watching it entertaing.

What you are advocating is to remove that recognition and penalise a player for something over which they have absolutely NO CONTROL, thus removing a huge part of the luck element, pushing the game further into the realms of a clinical, over analysed, over officiated transaction simply to appease the notion that somehow LUCK is a bad thing and should be eradicated from the game.
Click to expand...
What you've done here is expressed an opinion, with arguments to back it up that can be reasoned with and discussed. What you did previously was little more than an insult directed at anyone who dared to suggest (or even hypothetically discuss) anything that contradicted what you think.

Surely you see the difference and why those two statements might get different responses?
 
Padfoot said:
Right, for the terminally hard of understanding......

The current laws recognise and allow for the FACT that due to the nature of the game that they govern, there will be occasions when, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, a player may get struck on the hand/arm by the ball......and due to the entirely ACCIDENTAL nature of that contact, the player should not be penalised or otherwise disadvantaged........because in most competitive sports there is always an element of luck and that is part of what makes watching it entertaing.

What you are advocating is to remove that recognition and penalise a player for something over which they have absolutely NO CONTROL, thus removing a huge part of the luck element, pushing the game further into the realms of a clinical, over analysed, over officiated transaction simply to appease the notion that somehow LUCK is a bad thing and should be eradicated from the game.
Click to expand...

We penalise for lots of ACCIDENTAL offences already.
 
AlexF said:
Difference is that most of THOSE offences are against someone, not just against the ball.
Click to expand...

Padfoot seemed to be saying it was inherently wrong to change the law for handball to penalise an accidental offence, my point is that we do penalise accidental offences already.
 
@Padfoot - enough is enough. Make your point without the abuse please. Warned several times over the last week for belittling other users. It's blatant trolling.

Thread ban and a warning issued.

@GraemeS - while I appreciate you were responding to padfoot, seriously calm it down please if you do not wish to also receive a thread ban and warning.
 
bloovee said:
Very good, but if he hadn't been last man, it wouldn't have been DOGSO, would it? Imagine an appeal (if you could). "Were there other defenders between him and the GK?" "No, he was the last man..." Or " No, there were no other defenders in a position to challenge him". "You mean he was the last man?"

For a "freethinker" you seem remarkably hung up on avoiding a free understanding of what the words in the laws mean. Are you channeling the former poster who objected to the two-word expression "foul throw" in favour of "incorrectly-taken throw in"?

Anyway, I support the idea that "a goal may not be scored if the ball is directed into goal by an attacker's hand or arm; if , ITOOTR, the action is deliberate, the offender must be cautioned, and a DFK awarded, otherwise the game is restarted with a goal kick."
Click to expand...
So there has to be a 'last man' before DOGSO is this a new Law or one you have just made up? Have never ever been questioned as to how many players were between someone dismissed and the goal, maybe you need to be clearer when writing your reports?

Not sure what your second paragraph refers to?

Eh..is that not the law as it stands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top