Bournemouth v West Ham
- Thread starter DavidObs
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Unnatural. Way up in a daft place. Easy pen.
But… someone from the premier league or PGMOL or both told clubs at the start of the season that the premier league would make up its own interpretation of this. Hence the manager feels hard done by.
But… someone from the premier league or PGMOL or both told clubs at the start of the season that the premier league would make up its own interpretation of this. Hence the manager feels hard done by.
Appreciate your thoughts. I do recall the news from the summer that clubs were being informed that handball wouldn’t be as harsh as last season. Also, the Bournemouth Manager was referring to the practice of a defender having his hands/arm behind his back which some do and some don’t and he wasn’t keen and that’s fair enough. He also went on to say that anyone who played football would know that his player has his arms in a natural position. Some may say decision was harsh, though I can see why it was given & can’t say it was wrong.
Unnatural Position has nothing whatsoever to do with unnatural position
Vary rarely does a player deliberately handle the ball in the PA (why on earth would they, except when stopping a ball from entering the goal when there might be more to gain than lose), so all positions are natural. Even this Bournemouth player had his hand in a natural position. It was there for a fleeting moment of balance. He actually tried to pull his hand away
Anyway, 'unnatural position' is just a term that's used to make HB easier to referee. Hand/arm above head height for instance. That is one cast iron classification of unnatural position, therefore this West Ham PK was bound to be awarded assuming the VAR had his forensic microscope working.
What annoys me (from my very long list!), is West Ham had two bites at the cherry, because there's no way they're coming back to the PK if they'd scored from that extremely promising pin ball attempt that ensued. It's all wrong and represents a major flaw with the VAR process
Vary rarely does a player deliberately handle the ball in the PA (why on earth would they, except when stopping a ball from entering the goal when there might be more to gain than lose), so all positions are natural. Even this Bournemouth player had his hand in a natural position. It was there for a fleeting moment of balance. He actually tried to pull his hand away
Anyway, 'unnatural position' is just a term that's used to make HB easier to referee. Hand/arm above head height for instance. That is one cast iron classification of unnatural position, therefore this West Ham PK was bound to be awarded assuming the VAR had his forensic microscope working.
What annoys me (from my very long list!), is West Ham had two bites at the cherry, because there's no way they're coming back to the PK if they'd scored from that extremely promising pin ball attempt that ensued. It's all wrong and represents a major flaw with the VAR process
Last edited:
For the 1000th time it is not that the hand is in an unnatural position that makes an offence. This is not what the law says.
We are looking for where the position of the hand or arm makes the body unnaturally bigger which is a totally different standard to work against.
We are looking for where the position of the hand or arm makes the body unnaturally bigger which is a totally different standard to work against.
So yes, unnaturally bigger because of unjustified position, even though the position was and always is (almost always) justified
It's justifiable or unjustified position that was the crux of my post
Unnaturally bigger is always the consequence of unjustified position, hence the phraseology is used loosely by everyone (except in ref geek speak)
Last edited:
Which on a referee's forum...
Ultimately the language of unnatural position is misleading because as I have said before I can have my hand/arm in all manner of unjustified unnatural positions (oooh matron I hear you say) but it's all inconsequential if the unnatural position does not make the body bigger.
I truly get that James. I was at a non-league game (National League South) a season ago when a player made themselves smaller/shorter in an attempt to block a shot on goal by an attacker. At this incident, the ball was hit at pace and with the said defender positioned only a short distance away. The Referee allowed play to continue and rightly so, because it was a case of hand to ball, rather than ball to hand, but I was just thinking that there may be cases when the defender does a similar thing, but the ball was shot from much further away - so the defender perhaps had time to not allow the ball to hit his arm & if it did, would the outcome be the same from making themselves/arm shorter/smaller - just an observation.
Similarly, I had another situation whereby following a shot at pace on goal by an attacker, the defender, who was a short distance away, raised his right arm to either make himself unnaturally bigger, or more likely, to enable him to balance as he threw himself towards the ball or to protect his face, though the ball actually hit his grounded left arm supporting his body which was falling to ground. Again, in this incident, the Referee allowed play to continue - rightly.
We have definitely seen a decrease in ‘soft’ handballs this season in the PL, though there are still many difficult decisions to decide upon.
I'm struggling to visualize an unjustified position that doesn't result in unnaturally bigger
Of all the wrong terminology to use, I've never been bothered about substituting the words around to make 'unnatural position'
Anyway, I take your point overall and welcome the reminder
I tend to think 'careless' is THE apt word for HB offenses most of the time. We often penalize HB because we think the contact was avoidable and therefore 'careless'. Plus the fact that 'careless' is such an important word in Law that it would apt to draw a parallel
Hands tucked in behind the back. Unnatural position. Not making unnaturally bigger.
Sounds more like a case or deliberate so we don't get as far as the next offence
I could crash my car and go to jail for careless driving without it being a deliberate act
Back to the OP though. This was a guaranteed PK once the VAR detected it
I was just riled by the two bites of the cherry
I think this happens quite a lot, but I'm staggered that I'm yet to see the goal occur to prove they wouldn't go back
Last edited:
Was more a European referee penalty & EPL referee play on as the cross reached its destination perfectly.
If this was a foul that had no consequence then wouldn't be brought back for a foul by VAR.
youtube.com
or
youtube.com
If this was a foul that had no consequence then wouldn't be brought back for a foul by VAR.
✂️ West Ham
59 seconds · Clipped by David C · Original video "Extended Highlights | Bournemouth 1-1 West Ham | Premier League" by West Ham United FC
youtube.com
or
✂️ Wes Ham
24 seconds · Clipped by David C · Original video "Unbelievable Unal free-kick rescues point for Cherries 🤯 | Bournemouth 1-1 West Ham | EPL Highlights" by S...
youtube.com
Was his hand above his head? Yes. Was there any justification for the hand being in that position based on the body movement for that situation? Not that I can see. Looks like a pretty clear cut penalty to me, difficult to see with the naked eye so can understand why it was missed, but VAR are always going to come in there even with this low bar.
Playing devils advocate, if I do huge swipe of my foot miss the ball, catch attacker by smallest contact & his cross goes exactly as intended, i.e. a free header from six yards, is VAR recommending a penalty review?
So why is a small contact with the hand which has no impact a penalty?
So why is a small contact with the hand which has no impact a penalty?
The HB was actually beneficial to West Ham in this case as the very slight deflection set up the opportunity to score
I'm with you. It was a bit of a strange one. But I had zero doubt it was gonna be given
This kind of loose phrases create a headache for refs who apply the law though.
I gave a penalty this weekend for a player with both arms out in front of her as she jumped, arguably a natural position for a person in a jumping motion but it made her body unnaturally bigger and was a penalty. Cue grief from coaches about position
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'm confused. If you felt that her arm position was (arguably) justified and natural for the body movement being undertaken, then that's her making her body naturally bigger and therefore not an offence?
When training handball to new referees, I make a point of demonstrating half a dozen entirely natural positions when playing (running, jumping, falling etc) all of which broaden the body silhouette / make the body "bigger" but all of which are entirely to be expected and therefore not something we should penalise
All of which would be given as PKs in the Champions League and some of which would be given in the EPL
I think you're fighting a one man battle although I admire your Crusade to communicate what 'should' represent HB (or non-HB)
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
It's certainly been an uphill battle these last few years!! However I'm heartened by the shift in the EPL this season, as evidenced by the dramatic reduction in the number of penalties for HB. Keep the faith good soldier, our cause is just and we shall prevail
