Bayern v PSG - 6.05

[RustyRef]

This will be the last I say on this as I don’t want my early experience on here ruined, especially by an admin.

Reading through threads, you commonly quote guidance that you have been given by the FA/PGMOL when trying to prove a point. One of which was during last summer’s introduction of the 8 second restriction for goalkeepers. The guidance you had been given seemed to trump the laws. The laws state goalkeeper can’t hold it for more than 8 once they have control. You then started on how the FA want it done via guidance. So you used guidance over law.

You really need to get out more if you have time go back trawling through peoples' posts to try to prove a point. Or you have an incredible memory, but anyway ...

I said that IFAB had issued guidance on the practicalities of the 8 second law in terms of when the count should start, at least I think that's what I said as I don't have time to trawl back through my own posts. But that guidance complemented rather than contradicted the law, whereas the wording in the rules about it not being a handling offence if played by a defender effectively contradicts the law.

 

[Outsidelefts]

You really need to get out more if you have time go back trawling through peoples' posts to try to prove a point. Or you have an incredible memory, but anyway ...

I said that IFAB had issued guidance on the practicalities of the 8 second law in terms of when the count should start, at least I think that's what I said as I don't have time to trawl back through my own posts. But that guidance complemented rather than contradicted the law, whereas the wording in the rules about it not being a handling offence if played by a defender effectively contradicts the law.

No trawling required. The search function in this site is pretty good.

But this is what I don’t like about certain sections of this site; someone proves you wrong, and you get aggressive. As an admin of the site, is saying someone needs to get out more really necessary? You don’t know me and certainly don’t know my circumstances. Are you going to apologise @RustyRef or will you prove you are a bully?

 

[RustyRef]

No trawling required. The search function in this site is pretty good.

But this is what I don’t like about certain sections of this site; someone proves you wrong, and you get aggressive. As an admin of the site, is saying someone needs to get out more really necessary? You don’t know me and certainly don’t know my circumstances. Are you going to apologise @RustyRef or will you prove you are a bully?

Thanks for your comments Runner Ref

 

[Outsidelefts]

Thanks for your comments Runner Ref

I have just had a look and can see who you appear to referring to. If you want to believe I am that individual then I will let you believe that.

I will block yourself and move on with my time in the forum. I am keen to interact and learn from other members. I just had hesitations around yourself and a couple of others. Fortunately for me, you have proven yourself early on in my time

 

[JamesL]

This will be the last I say on this as I don’t want my early experience on here ruined, especially by an admin

Ok. Something tells me old habits won't die hard though.

Reading through threads, you commonly quote guidance that you have been given by the FA/PGMOL when trying to prove a point. One of which was during last summer’s introduction of the 8 second restriction for goalkeepers. The guidance you had been given seemed to trump the laws. The laws state goalkeeper can’t hold it for more than 8 once they have control. You then started on how the FA want it done via guidance. So you used guidance over law.

Search is very good, true, so easy to find the comments referenced and again I wasnt trying to prove any points at all.

I made a comment, you questioned it and I explained that was how we had been told to apply the new law practically. There was no point proving taking place.

 

[RustyRef]

I have just had a look and can see who you appear to referring to. If you want to believe I am that individual then I will let you believe that.

I will block yourself and move on with my time in the forum. I am keen to interact and learn from other members. I just had hesitations around yourself and a couple of others. Fortunately for me, you have proven yourself early on in my time

I may be many things but I am very IT savvy and professionally trained in forensic IT investigations. Sadly that training failed me on this occasion as I missed it, but luckily two other admins were on the ball and spotted you had multiple shared IP addresses with Runner Ref, the chances of that happening being in the same level of winning the Euro Millions.

So, with respect, you have been found out. That said, I'm always one to offer an olive branch so if you want to participate and play by the forum rules I have absolutely no issue with you remaining a member, but if you don't adhere to those rules you will be blocked. Can't really say much fairer than that, not really something a bully would do is it?

 

[Paul_10]

Going back to the thread in question, I have seen cases if a player heads the ball downwards and it hits his own arm or tries to clear a ball and hits his own arm then no penalty is the right outcome as your not seeking any advantage by doing that.

I do think regardless what the ruling is I would prefer no penalty here, there is no advantage for the defending team and it certainly was not deliberate. Of course as the wording seems to suggest if a defender makes a poor header and it's heading towards their own goal and it hits another defender on the arm then that would be a penalty as an advantage was gained there.

 

[RustyRef]

Going back to the thread in question, I have seen cases if a player heads the ball downwards and it hits his own arm or tries to clear a ball and hits his own arm then no penalty is the right outcome as your not seeking any advantage by doing that.

I do think regardless what the ruling is I would prefer no penalty here, there is no advantage for the defending team and it certainly was not deliberate. Of course as the wording seems to suggest if a defender makes a poor header and it's heading towards their own goal and it hits another defender on the arm then that would be a penalty as an advantage was gained there.

Which probably ties to the old law of it not being an offence if it deflects off your own body or that of an opponent, and if I'm being honest I prefer that law. Taking it a step further I'd personally remove all wording from the handball law and just put it back to the referee deciding if it was intentional or not.

But we are where we are, and the current law makes no reference to it not being an offence if it is last played by an opponent.

 

[socal lurker]

Which probably ties to the old law of it not being an offence if it deflects off your own body or that of an opponent,

except that wasn’t quite what it said. It was more of an over-interpretation of confusing drafting by our friends at IFAB. The 20-21 version said it wasn’t an offense unless it met the criteria above (I.e., was deliberate or a result of biggering, etc.). In other words, it was a redundancy in the Law, more or less telling people. Ot to assume it was an offense if it hit the body first. It wasn’t a get out of jail free card.

 

[one]

Does the Game really want this to be a HB penalty on a clearance that takes a teammate p’s arm at close distance when he is turning away?

As others have said, there is a mesh mash of guidance out there—and we really don’t even know what guidance, specifically, UEFA is giving for this competition.

For me, no call is the better result. Rather than looking at checklists, I’m thinking of the concepts and ideals behind them. “Biggering” arose as a way of identifying sneaky deliberate handling. Sure, it has evolved a bit with the re-defining it as something separate from deliberate. But the core concept is that a player should not be able to unfairly take up space with the arm to disadvantage the opposing team. Is that remotely close to what happened here? No, he turned away from a clearance by his teammate at close range, blocking his own teammate’s clearance. That USB’s unfair to the other team in any way. Sure, we’d have a different discussion if this blocked an opponent, but is his arm really in an unnatural position for a person turning away from a ball blasted at close range. I don’t think so. I think this was a good no call.

In isolation I agree with this. But look at many other handball penalties that have been given in European games and this one sticks out like a sore thumb.

The other thing to consider is to look at either applying the wording of the law or not applying it. As far as "unnaturally bigger" goes there is no wiggle room on the circumstances mentioned in your post. We may as well remove that clause if we are going to find others mitigating circumstances not to apply it (which i think is a better outcome but the cat is out of the bag).

 

[Big Cat]

I have just had a look and can see who you appear to referring to. If you want to believe I am that individual then I will let you believe that.

I will block yourself and move on with my time in the forum. I am keen to interact and learn from other members. I just had hesitations around yourself and a couple of others. Fortunately for me, you have proven yourself early on in my time

Let's be clear... I rule the roost round here, not the Mods, although I guess Ross could turn the server off at any time so my statement is arguably flaky.

I wouldn't bother tackling dogma. Football is a strange sport. Quite unique I'd say. Only Professional Wrestling compares to Soccer in terms of the opacity of the rules. The book is nothing short of pathetic and it's ridiculous the way interpretations are allowed on a regional level, not to mention the number of 'sources of truth' mentioned by @one the the other day. Is it any surprise we specialists in the game end up squabbling about utter nonsense. All that said, because it makes refereeing quite literally impossible, I derive a lot of enjoyment from the absurdity. But I firmly believe that beyond a certain competency level, none of us are much better than one another. We can't be, it's impossible!

With respect to HB, they've shagged the Law during the 10 years I've reffed. It used to amount to nothing more than deliberate with only two considerations, how far did the ball travel (unexpected ball), and ball to hand / or hand to ball. Words to that effect. Too many cooks spoilt the broth

 

[socal lurker]

The other thing to consider is to look at either applying the wording of the law or not applying it. As far as "unnaturally bigger" goes there is no wiggle room on the circumstances mentioned in your post. We may as well remove that clause if we are going to find others mitigating circumstances not to apply it (which i think is a better outcome but the cat is out of the bag).

I think the no call here can easily be justified under the language. Biggering has to be evaluated on what is natural for what the p,Ayer is doing. His arm was completely natural for turning away from a blasted ball.

I fear that biggering is getting unmoored from its purpose.

 

[one]

I think the no call here can easily be justified under the language. Biggering has to be evaluated on what is natural for what the p,Ayer is doing. His arm was completely natural for turning away from a blasted ball.

I fear that biggering is getting unmoored from its purpose.

I have no doubt it can be justified but that interpretation/application means vast majority of biggering penalties in Europe is incorrectly given.

The bigger part of my point was consistent application of the law.