Immediate Handball Incident

[NoFoulsAllowed]

Incident is at 8:45

I thought any handball by the attacking team 'immediately' before a goal is scored, means the goal is not allowed. I think we can agree the 1 second it takes for the ball to hit the Kilmarnock players arm, (which is absolutely in a natural position and is no way deliberate) constitutes as immediate.

So my take is on the law wording below. It has to be the same player that scores.

Law 12.1
It is an offence if a player:
Scores in the opponents’ goal:
- Immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

 

[NoFoulsAllowed]

Watched the full clip and they cover every point above pretty well. I sort of wrote the above before fully reading and digesting the law. Then I changed what I wrote. Now I have watched the full analysis. I have realised I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[santa sangria]

Incident is at 8:45

I thought any handball by the attacking team 'immediately' before a goal is scored, means the goal is not allowed. I think we can agree the 1 second it takes for the ball to hit the Kilmarnock players arm, (which is absolutely in a natural position and is no way deliberate) constitutes as immediate.

So my take is on the law wording below. It has to be the same player that scores.

Law 12.1
It is an offence if a player:
Scores in the opponents’ goal:
- Immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

Really great show. Whole thing was excellent!

 

[wazztie16]

Try selling that at grassroots in any situation though!

 

[CaptainsPlease]

If I might turn this into a thread about these incidents more generally...

The 3:45 decision for no DOGSO seems not to be explained well with little discussion of the considerations. The ball is not under the attacker's control but the consideration in law is 'likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball'. All the other considerations seem to be clearly satisfied. I'm interested to know what UEFA/FIFA guidance Collum is talking about.

The explanation of the 15:25 Violent Conduct focuses too much on excessive force/brutality when what is being alleged is a strike to the face the force threshold is lowered to non-negligible. This is mentioned but gets confused by continuing to discuss excessive force/brutality.

 

[NoFoulsAllowed]

First incident is you mention, I think he covers fairly well.

For DOGSO all of the DDDC needs to be ticked.
Defenders, well none as he's pretty through on goal. Tick

Direction, he's inside the 6 yard box attacking a ball. Tick.

Distance, same as above. Tick.

Control, ball is whipped in with speed and he is trying to get on the end of it. So a subjective decision here, but if it isn't absolutely obvious that the attack would get on the end of it and getting in the end of it would mean he is also getting a **** on target. Is a big ask. So I wouldn't tick this one as obvious.

Since not all the DOGSO criteria is ticked for me. It can't be DOGSO.

 

[NoFoulsAllowed]

Law 12.3

Violent Conduct

"In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."


So the argument given by Collum was the force was negligible. Which I think if you watch the clip. There is absolutely nothing behind it.