Chelsea v Bournemouth

[Paul_10]

I got to say the decision not to disallow Bournemouth's first goal for a handball has totally baffled me as the ball clearly strikes the goalscorers arm and lead directly to the goal.

The VAR had a good look at it but did not intervene but surely in law it has to be disallowed?

I'm not too surprised there is not much noise on this as it benefitted the smaller club but the laws got to be applied surely?

 

[Gabriel]

Just seen that, looks like shoulder and then chest to me.

 

[RustyRef]

Even if it hit the arm, which I'm not convinced it did, it didn't immediately lead to the goal. The first shot was saved, and Sanchez then played the rebound onto Brook's foot, not really sure how that could be described as having immediately scored following the potential handling.

 

[TheCuriousOne]

Even if it hit the arm, which I'm not convinced it did, it didn't immediately lead to the goal. The first shot was saved, and Sanchez then played the rebound onto Brook's foot, not really sure how that could be described as having immediately scored following the potential handling.

Not saying that you are incorrect, but it's mental if that is the reason for it to not be considered a handball because the goal was scored exactly 1 second after the incident. It should be adjusted somewhat differently - that the GK making a save doesn't negate the "immediately scored following the potential handling", maybe if it's within x seconds of the incident.

 

[TheCuriousOne]

Just seen that, looks like shoulder and then chest to me.

It didn't look like a shoulder at all. If it did hit his arm, it was just below his sleeve, but we were never shown any conclusive replays and for some reason VAR spent most of the time looking at it from the side angle from which it's a lot harder to see.

 

[socal lurker]

Not saying that you are incorrect, but it's mental if that is the reason for it to not be considered a handball because the goal was scored exactly 1 second after the incident. It should be adjusted somewhat differently - that the GK making a save doesn't negate the "immediately scored following the potential handling", maybe if it's within x seconds of the incident.

The original iteration of the attacker “accidental” HB offense was more broad. It was deliberately narrowed down to the concept of immediate and the same player to remove some “offenses” wiped out goals. I believe @RustyRef is correct that with an intervening save, the powers that be do not consider this immediate within the meaning of the attacker HB provision.

 

[RustyRef]

Not saying that you are incorrect, but it's mental if that is the reason for it to not be considered a handball because the goal was scored exactly 1 second after the incident. It should be adjusted somewhat differently - that the GK making a save doesn't negate the "immediately scored following the potential handling", maybe if it's within x seconds of the incident.

Look at the dictionary definition of immediately - "now or without waiting or thinking". After the potential handling Brooks gets the ball down to have a shot, Sanchez saves it, then Sanchez in trying to save it plays the ball onto Brooks and into the goal. I'd say there is a not inconsiderable amount of thinking in that sequence, far too much for it to be deemed immediately.

 

[TheCuriousOne]

Look at the dictionary definition of immediately - "now or without waiting or thinking". After the potential handling Brooks gets the ball down to have a shot, Sanchez saves it, then Sanchez in trying to save it plays the ball onto Brooks and into the goal. I'd say there is a not inconsiderable amount of thinking in that sequence, far too much for it to be deemed immediately.

That wasn't my point. My point is that if it's worded/implemented the way it is now, it just gives an incredibly unfair advantage to an attacker if the keeper is excellent at his job. The way it's now, Sanchez might as well just concede the goal from the initial shot just to make sure that the rule is applied. The same way the offside rule is still implemented if the keeper made the save but not if the defender was making a clearance and was in full control of the ball. In this case Sanchez wasn't able to make a deliberate play at all and he still gets punished (if it was a handball).

 

[RustyRef]

That wasn't my point. My point is that if it's worded/implemented the way it is now, it just gives an incredibly unfair advantage to an attacker if the keeper is excellent at his job. The way it's now, Sanchez might as well just concede the goal from the initial shot just to make sure that the rule is applied. The same way the offside rule is still implemented if the keeper made the save but not if the defender was making a clearance and was in full control of the ball. In this case Sanchez wasn't able to make a deliberate play at all and he still gets punished (if it was a handball).

A valid point, but referees can only apply the rules as they are written, not how they think they should be written.

 

[socal lurker]

That wasn't my point. My point is that if it's worded/implemented the way it is now, it just gives an incredibly unfair advantage to an attacker if the keeper is excellent at his job. The way it's now, Sanchez might as well just concede the goal from the initial shot just to make sure that the rule is applied. The same way the offside rule is still implemented if the keeper made the save but not if the defender was making a clearance and was in full control of the ball. In this case Sanchez wasn't able to make a deliberate play at all and he still gets punished (if it was a handball).

IMO the mischief here came from a well-intentioned but ultimately flawed idea. For decades, an accidental HB was nothing at all—just like a bad bounce or the ball hitting the ref. Refs tended to be more likely to consider something deliberate if it led to a goal, but there still had to be a determination of deliberate. A few years ago, the powers that be decided it was unseemly if even an accidental HB caused a goal. First they had a broad rule that, as written, could penalize an accidental HB at midfield if that player made a pass to a goal scorer. (Indeed, you could even contrive a scenario where the accidental HB could result in a PK against the team!) So they narrowed it down a lot. But it stil has its original inconsistency—we are punishing something that isn’t an offense otherwise SOLELY because a goal happens to be scored. THAT is what creates the weirdness here. And I firmly reject the idea that it gives the attacker an “unfair advantage” if it falls outside the “immediate” definition, wherever that definition is—and as far as I can tell, IFAB has done very little to define that, but left it to R discretion. The attacker has. By definition, not DONE anything wrong under this rule—the ball just happened to touch his arm. If in fact the attacker deliberately touched the ball or unnaturally made himself bigger, this rule is not involved at all. (As you can probably tell, I still think this is a really stupid rule.)