That's equivalent to the debate hereinWhat I'm trying to get at is feasibly a player could head the ball onto his arm and whether it's an offence or not seems to depend on whether it hits a part of his arm that's above shoulder level or below it!
That can't be right so I'm misunderstanding it somehow.
By extending the arm the player is taking a risk, the fact it ricocheted off of his body is neither here nor there when making this decision because of the position of the arm. Whether we agree that it should be an offence is another matter, but as it is written this is as clear as they come.
Not arguing about either penalty. I can understand why they were given and have no argument about the decisions. I actually quite enjoyed Michael Oliver's low profile performance.
We had them rattled and I think we'll rattle a few more cages this season. Marching on together...
It's the position of the arm which makes it a pen. For it not to be a pen, his arm has to be in a position which does not make his body unnaturally bigger.what would have had to have happened for this not to be a pen?
"Unnaturally bigger" is just rubbish. A game worth billions. And this is the best they could do. Really?
Once you have the word 'deliberate' in the offence name then subjectivity is built into the definition. IMO attempting to remove subjectivity the way they are is completely the wrong way to go about it. The foundation for defining this offence creates inconsistencies and no matter how many bandaids we put on it, it will continue to do so.this effort by FIFA is attempting to remove as much subjectivity from handling as it can.
Whilst I don't know what the answer is, I am not sure this would stop any controversy.I have said this before, I think a better way is to redefine the offence altogether. Rather that assessing if it is deliberate, it should assess if the player had the ability to prevent it. And leave that assesment to the referee (ITOOTR). For example in the OP, the defender could have prevented it by not having his arm out like that knowing a shot is coming at his direction. It could have easily hit him directly on the arm without a deflection. The definition should stop defender from taking a chance and hope the ball doesn't hit their arm.
Very little doubt that there was anything wrong with this by current laws. Although it's very possible MO gave this without seeing the deflection, in which case it would be a touch more complex that he will have thought.Ive read two pages on this (36 posts) and i still dont know if this was the correct call by the LOTG.