FA SF - Forest - City

[bloovee]

Penalty claim for an odd one - defender stops shot with hands behind his back - but was that an unnatural position when side-on to the shot? (Or even deliberate?)

But someone on a City thread posted this from IFAB. Irrelevant to the incident but does anyone know what IFAB document it's from?




Incident at 4.00 on https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens/nottingham-forest-fa-cup-semi-final-extended-highlights-63881356
(Maybe less of an issue as City scored from the corner)

 

[Big Cat]

Natural position. Not unnaturally bigger. He's not a penguin. Indeed, he's desperately trying not to handle the ball by pulling his flippers out of the way

 

[JamesL]

As I have repeatedly said the law says nothing about an unnatural position.

Did he make his body unnaturally bigger and it he did was this a consequence or justifiable for the players movement in that situation. I think Big Cat has summed that up for us

Unfortunately the football rules have dropped out of date and were not updated with law.s this season as far as I could see and I can see that being a problem in future albeit this is a sensible answer.

 

[Peter Grove]

Penalty claim for an odd one - defender stops shot with hands behind his back - but was that an unnatural position when side-on to the shot? (Or even deliberate?)

But someone on a City thread posted this from IFAB. Irrelevant to the incident but does anyone know what IFAB document it's from?
View attachment 8113



Incident at 4.00 on https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens/nottingham-forest-fa-cup-semi-final-extended-highlights-63881356
(Maybe less of an issue as City scored from the corner)

It's from the IFAB's Football Rules (sic) website.

https://www.footballrules.com/

 

[bloovee]

Natural position. Not unnaturally bigger. He's not a penguin. Indeed, he's desperately trying not to handle the ball by pulling his flippers out of the way

Not from this picture! It may exaggerate the angle but it does illustrate that having hands behind your back doesn't mean it can't be an offence. See 6.34 of the highlights video for a player with hands behind and close to body.

 

[Big Cat]

Not from this picture! It may exaggerate the angle but it does illustrate that having hands behind your back doesn't mean it can't be an offence. See 6.34 of the highlights video for a player with hands behind and close to body.

View attachment 8116

Your judgement of games involving Manchester sides has always been comical. Take that with my humour as intended
Posting freeze frames (as I've said a zillion times) adds no value to most arguments. Game ain't played motionless

 

[bloovee]

Your judgement of games involving Manchester sides has always been comical. Take that with my humour as intended
Posting freeze frames (as I've said a zillion times) adds no value to most arguments. Game ain't played motionless

Look at it live then. From the FA highlights...

(I hadn't seen that angle when I posted the OP.)

 

[bloovee]

As I have repeatedly said the law says nothing about an unnatural position.

Did he make his body unnaturally bigger and it he did was this a consequence or justifiable for the players movement in that situation. I think Big Cat has summed that up for us

Unfortunately the football rules have dropped out of date and were not updated with law.s this season as far as I could see and I can see that being a problem in future albeit this is a sensible answer.

That's pedantic, even for referees!

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

You can only make your body unnaturally bigger (which is a daft phrase in itself) by having hand or arm in an unnatural position.

Spanish version of the laws, literal translation:
"Touch the ball with the hand or arm when the hand or arm is positioned in an unnatural way and makes the body take up more space."

 

[JamesL]

That's pedantic, even for referees!

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

You can only make your body unnaturally bigger (which is a daft phrase in itself) by having hand or arm in an unnatural position.

Spanish version of the laws, literal translation:
"Touch the ball with the hand or arm when the hand or arm is positioned in an unnatural way and makes the body take up more space."

Yes but the opposite is not true. You can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger. And where translations differ English takes precedent

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

That's pedantic, even for referees!

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

You can only make your body unnaturally bigger (which is a daft phrase in itself) by having hand or arm in an unnatural position.

Spanish version of the laws, literal translation:
"Touch the ball with the hand or arm when the hand or arm is positioned in an unnatural way and makes the body take up more space."

From the good book: "The IFAB publishes the Laws of the Game in English, French, German and Spanish. If there is any divergence in the wording, the English text is authoritative."
Not sure why the Spanish version was needed here, as it repeats the "unnaturally bigger" requirement (?)

 

[The Gump]

Yes but the opposite is not true. You can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger. And where translations differ English takes precedent

I would agree with this - it's very unnatural to run around with your arms behind your back so if the LOTG simply referred to unnatural position even the arms being clasped tightly behind the back would be handball.

 

[RustyRef]

That's pedantic, even for referees!

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

You can only make your body unnaturally bigger (which is a daft phrase in itself) by having hand or arm in an unnatural position.

Spanish version of the laws, literal translation:
"Touch the ball with the hand or arm when the hand or arm is positioned in an unnatural way and makes the body take up more space."

Can't really be pedantic when it is quoting the laws.

Honest answer, would you be posting stills and videos of this incident had it been Man Utd that had not been awarded a penalty rather than Man City?

 

[bloovee]

Yes but the opposite is not true. You can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger. And where translations differ English takes precedent

But that makes even more of a nonsense of the English version.

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

If you can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger the wording of the law is redundant. And putting your hands behind your back is quite obviously an unnatural position when playing football.

 

[Big Cat]

But that makes even more of a nonsense of the English version.

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

If you can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger the wording of the law is redundant. And putting your hands behind your back is quite obviously an unnatural position when playing football.

As is (near enough) always the case, notice that you stand alone when it comes to opinions on City games. You must be conscious of that trend

I don't really understand it. I can set aside my emotional brain when it comes to judging decisions for and against Newcastle. However, I couldn't count the number of times you've posted emotive opinions on City games that near enough nobody on here agrees with.
When you post about non-City stuff, you generally talk sense!

 

[JamesL]

But that makes even more of a nonsense of the English version.

"A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation."

If you can have your hand in an unnatural position when not making the body unnaturally bigger the wording of the law is redundant. And putting your hands behind your back is quite obviously an unnatural position when playing football.

It only doesn't make sense when you grab a bit of the text without the section it proceeds which provides the context which makes it make sense!!!

 

[RefereeX]

!!!

James is angry! You won't like him when he's angry...



Oh and this is just quite simply not handball. I know people hate the phrase 'what football expects' but I assure you football does not expect a penalty when a player who is making every effort to pull their hands away from the likely path of the ball accidentally makes contact with the ball as a result.

 

[bloovee]

As is (near enough) always the case, notice that you stand alone when it comes to opinions on City games. You must be conscious of that trend

I don't really understand it. I can set aside my emotional brain when it comes to judging decisions for and against Newcastle. However, I couldn't count the number of times you've posted emotive opinions on City games that near enough nobody on here agrees with.
When you post about non-City stuff, you generally talk sense!

Perhaps your emotions seem to have read into that post stuff about City that was nothing to do with the daftness of the drafting of the law. If they start with a concept like "making the body unnaturally bigger", i.e. a physical impossibility, and then someone complains that "unnatural position" is not in the laws, it doesn't make for clarity.

Try this.

[It is an offence if a player]

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.

 

[Big Cat]

Perhaps your emotions seem to have read into that post stuff about City that was nothing to do with the daftness of the drafting of the law. If they start with a concept like "making the body unnaturally bigger", i.e. a physical impossibility, and then someone complains that "unnatural position" is not in the laws, it doesn't make for clarity.

Try this.

[It is an offence if a player]

touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.

The awful rules are a primary root cause of problems in football and the refereeing of the game. We're agreed on that
Utterly amateurish, but that's what the game expects as 'the game' has never known any different

 

[bloovee]

The awful rules are a primary root cause of problems in football and the refereeing of the game. We're agreed on that
Utterly amateurish, but that's what the game expects as 'the game' has never known any different

My first "Referees' Chart and Players' Guide to the Laws of the Game" was a quarter the size of the LOTG now. More international football and more televised football are what's caused it - because what the game expects now is consistency. Refereeing "reinterpretations" haven't helped - e.g. for a ball to be "in the corner arc". And "clarifications" usually mean more words, but the additional words have unintended consequences. And there are still fairly fundamental things that are open to interpretation, some because the IFAB can't get a three-quarter majority to change the wording.