Leicester v Wolves

[Jtpetherick1]

Just throwing this out there, the kick takers hands are in the same position, if it rebounded off the defenders leg and hits the kick takers arms, is that handball?

Yes because they're also making the body bigger?

 

[Big Cat]

That's talking about a change in the law and doesn't once say that the new interpretation would have saved Dier, it would (as your article says) save Lindelof.

Read it

 

[Wolf_Ref]

i cannot comment as I am biased. But I have just about stopped crying.

 

[QuaverRef]

Yes because they're also making the body bigger?

There is absolutely no way you’re giving that has handball. Have a word

 

[Jtpetherick1]

How would you make your body unnaturally bigger without intentional movement?

But now you're attempting to second guess the law. It doesn't talk about intent at all because referees hated that subjectivity.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Read it

I have. What should I be looking for?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

i cannot comment as I am biased. But I have just about stopped crying.

What about that one?

 

[Jtpetherick1]

There is absolutely no way you’re giving that has handball. Have a word

Ah so now you want to ignore the handball law totally.

 

[QuaverRef]

Ah so now you want to ignore the handball law totally.

Come off it. If that rebounds into the attackers hand off the defenders leg, nobody is giving hand ball ... well, apart from you apparently

 

[Wolf_Ref]

What about that one?

Well - that one was as stonewall as it gets.

my take on the handball interpretation is that as long as it’s consistent, fine. And more goals are a good thing!

 

[es1]

Well - that one was as stonewall as it gets.

my take on the handball interpretation is that as long as it’s consistent, fine. And more goals are a good thing!

Disagree on that. More deserved goals are a good thing, that's not the way it seems to be at the moment

 

[Wolf_Ref]

Disagree on that. More deserved goals are a good thing, that's not the way it seems to be at the moment

I totally know where you’re coming from, however last season when every contact with hand disallowed goals, I prefer that it is a more-level playing field now for both attacker and defender.

 

[Big Cat]

Come off it. If that rebounds into the attackers hand off the defenders leg, nobody is giving hand ball ... well, apart from you apparently

Apart from anything else, AT's (OFR) first view of the incident was in 'slow motion'. Why is that allowed to happen? We all know that the defender's hand was extended as part of his natural motion. If IFAB want to continue giving the game a good kicking, why don't they say 'any contact with the ball is an offence'? At least then, players would be left in no doubt that they have to run/waddle like penguins

 

[RustyRef]

That is a clear penalty under the current law, even with the tweaked PGMOL interpretation. I don't like the law as it is stands, but there can't be a doubt that is handling as things stand.

 

[Jtpetherick1]

That is a clear penalty under the current law, even with the tweaked PGMOL interpretation. I don't like the law as it is stands, but there can't be a doubt that is handling as things stand.

THANK YOU!

 

[Big Cat]

That is a clear penalty under the current law, even with the tweaked PGMOL interpretation. I don't like the law as it is stands, but there can't be a doubt that is handling as things stand.

Thank you. Your polarised opinion is no more correct than mine. However, I think we're good at misunderstanding one another
I wouldn't surprise me if we get noises out of the PGMOL (again), that this decision was incorrect (both in law and for football)

 

[Wolf_Ref]

I do have to say that the handball did stop a cross. I know it’s impossible to run without hand movement, but I can understand why it was given.

 

[QuaverRef]

I do have to say that the handball did stop a cross. I know it’s impossible to run without hand movement, but I can understand why it was given.

If it was a natural movement whilst running, how can it be considered making your body unnaturally bigger? It can’t be both

 

[Big Cat]

I'll sign off on this by saying, 'I don't understand how people can accept fact (established by others) from vagary when doing so is damaging football'

 

[Jtpetherick1]

I'll sign off on this by saying, 'I don't understand how people can accept fact (established by others) from vagary when doing so is damaging football'

Don't paint it like we're sitting there outside of IFAB meetings chanting 'ruin the game!'