Forest v Wolves

[Paul_10]

Is the high bar for penalties against handball so high now we will barely see one because how on earth Wolves did not get a penalty for handball is beyond me, arm couldn't be more outstretched, proximity clearly not a factor and the arm moves towards the ball.

Forest also have an appeal for a penalty for handball but I think this is less of a penalty than the Wolves one, arm not as outstretched and does not move towards the ball but the counter argument is the defender gains an advantage from it otherwise it would of landed towards Chris Wood and the ball moved away from him.

Incidents are around 1:35 and 2:25.

 

[Kent Ref]

1. penalty.

2. No penalty.

 

[MarcusSurreyRef]

For me, no pen for both

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Neither are penalties for me, however, both would've been given penalties in the early days of VAR where everything was a penalty.

If the first one gets given as a penalty then the second one has to, and then we have a season where 100 penalties get given because the ball touched the arm.

It doesn't satisfy either of these criteria for me as they are both natural movements based on the situation.

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  
  
• 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. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

 

[RefIADad]

Is the high bar for penalties against handball so high now we will barely see one because how on earth Wolves did not get a penalty for handball is beyond me, arm couldn't be more outstretched, proximity clearly not a factor and the arm moves towards the ball.

Forest also have an appeal for a penalty for handball but I think this is less of a penalty than the Wolves one, arm not as outstretched and does not move towards the ball but the counter argument is the defender gains an advantage from it otherwise it would of landed towards Chris Wood and the ball moved away from him.

Incidents are around 1:35 and 2:25.

I’m still trying to find the clause in the Laws where “gaining an advantage” is a consideration for handling. The only part of the Laws that comes close to that is the language around scoring a goal via the hand/arm or immediately after.

 

[Big Cat]

Based on the comments above and without even watching the highlights, I can confidently say, 'no pen, no pen'
Most contact with the hand/arm is not HB and we shouldn't have ended up adjudging HB offense so readily over recent years

 

[Paul_10]

So basically defenders can have arms really outstretched away from the body and not be penalised because of natural movement and all that.

Chris wood's arm can't be anymore outstretched than it is and his hand/arm moves towards the ball, I stand by that is a clear penalty and if it was given, there can't be too many complaints and it certainly wouldn't be overturned by VAR if the referee did awarded a penalty.

 

[Deleted member 13306]

Both pens. Arms are out and away from their bodies. Makes them unnaturally bigger.

I do wonder sometimes if referees just agree with the decision because someone higher than them has given it.

Both pens. No doubt.

 

[RefereeX]

Both pens. Arms are out and away from their bodies. Makes them unnaturally bigger.

I do wonder sometimes if referees just agree with the decision because someone higher than them has given it.

Both pens. No doubt.

Not at all. Neither of these are pens, because neither of them are pens, not just because a better referee didn't think so, but because with my understanding of what constitutes handball, they aren't pens.

In both examples the defender is not looking at where the ball is coming from at the time it strikes the arm. In the first example the defenders arm comes up to brace himself for contact with the attacker, a perfectly normal place to have your arm for the footballing action being undertaken.
In the second one, similarly, the defender is pumping his arms to sprint back / grappling with his man and the ball catches him out when he doesn't know where it is. Again, a perfectly normal footballing action.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Both pens. Arms are out and away from their bodies. Makes them unnaturally bigger.

I do wonder sometimes if referees just agree with the decision because someone higher than them has given it.

Both pens. No doubt.

Ridiculous comment

You only need to look at the Rice red card thread to see the spectrum of different opinions

 

[Paul_10]

Not at all. Neither of these are pens, because neither of them are pens, not just because a better referee didn't think so, but because with my understanding of what constitutes handball, they aren't pens.

In both examples the defender is not looking at where the ball is coming from at the time it strikes the arm. In the first example the defenders arm comes up to brace himself for contact with the attacker, a perfectly normal place to have your arm for the footballing action being undertaken.
In the second one, similarly, the defender is pumping his arms to sprint back / grappling with his man and the ball catches him out when he doesn't know where it is. Again, a perfectly normal footballing action.

Chris Wood knows where the ball is coming from and he knows it's dropping into his area hence his frantic defending, you can argue all you like about it all being natural regarding where your arms meant to be but his arms are so far out your running the risk of a penalty being awarded there.

I wonder what the reaction on here would be if the referee gives the penalty, I can bet it wouldn't be overturned by VAR and I doubt anyone on here would say it's a dreadful decision.

Also on every free kick into the box, defenders may aswell have their backs turn to play and have their arms well out wide because that is a good enough excuse not to be penalised it would seem?

 

[Viridis1886]

on every free kick into the box, defenders may aswell have their backs turn to play and have their arms well out wide because that is a good enough excuse not to be penalised

They could, but I suspect that isn't a likely outcome of this decision.

 

[RefereeX]

Chris Wood knows where the ball is coming from and he knows it's dropping into his area hence his frantic defending, you can argue all you like about it all being natural regarding where your arms meant to be but his arms are so far out your running the risk of a penalty being awarded there.

I wonder what the reaction on here would be if the referee gives the penalty, I can bet it wouldn't be overturned by VAR and I doubt anyone on here would say it's a dreadful decision.

Also on every free kick into the box, defenders may aswell have their backs turn to play and have their arms well out wide because that is a good enough excuse not to be penalised it would seem?

If defenders want to all turn their backs to play so that they're less likely to be penalised for handball then that's fine, but I would suggest it's not a great strategy for defending itself to not be watching the ball as it comes towards you and I think it would work against you as a strategy at least 100 times for every 1 time it works for you, maybe more.

He knows the direction the ball is coming from, but he isn't looking at it as the ball makes contact. Does that mean it isn't a handball offence? No, of course it doesn't. Is it a consideration? In my opinion, certainly. He's not dancing around flailing his arms all around, he's pumping his arms running / having a small (but legal) tussle with the attacker.

 

[cooperd5]

Just goes to show how confusing the hb law is now, especially in penalty area.
Me? Wood is a hb/pen.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

I wonder what the reaction on here would be if the referee gives the penalty, I can bet it wouldn't be overturned by VAR and I doubt anyone on here would say it's a dreadful decision.

I imagine the consensus would be it's harsh/soft but can see why it's given.

I can bet it wouldn't be overturned by VAR

Correct, this wouldn't be overturned because the referee hasn't made a mistake. It's a subjective decision as to whether the movement of the offender is natural and is in relation to the on-field situation. If the on-field referee has intepreted the incident as handball, he is not incorrect in his decision.

 

[one]

Correct, this wouldn't be overturned because the referee hasn't made a mistake. It's a subjective decision as to whether the movement of the offender is natural and is in relation to the on-field situation. If the on-field referee has intepreted the incident as handball, he is not incorrect in his decision.

Strictly this is not correct on a few levels.

Firstly, VAR never overturns a referee's decision. They can only recommend to the referee to review their own decision. Only the referee can overturn their own decision after the review or just based on recommendation from the VAR.

Secondly, even a subjective decision, including handball, can be recommended for review and subsequently overturned. There are lots of precedences that a referee interpreted a handball incident one way, accepted a review recommendation and deemed their own original interpretation incorrect.

Lastly the criteria for review recommendation of a subjective decision is not that VAR thinks it's a "mistake". The criteria is that the decision is "clearly and obviously wrong".