Partick Thistle v Aberdeen women - handball

[CaptainsPlease]

We all happy that this should have been a penalty? (starts 8:09)
Partick's manager was also cautioned for dissent reacting to this being turned down, which of course was probably merited anyway.

 

[ladbroke8745]

I'm seeing the referees position as possibly being blinded by another player being in the way.
Though neutral assistant should probably help here if they're mic'd up.

 

[one]

A similar handball was turned down against man City in round 1 (or two) and no review was done either. There is a thread here about it.

I think both are handball. But there is a change of direction from PGMOL that means a lot of incidents that were considered handball last year, are not this year.

 

[RyantheRef]

Yes, and the referee was much too static to see it.

 

[deusex]

I think it's ridiculous to penalise this but in the name of consistency (at the top level) it should be given.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Looks like another decision that could split the forum

For what its worth, that's a stonewall penalty for me. The arm is neither in a natural position nor is it a movement that is suitable in the game situation.

And whilst not an official benchmark despite being regularly used, I think football "expects" a penalty here, regardless of what version of handball laws we are using.

 

[David G]

Fortunately they scored seconds later, but looks like it should have been a penalty since arm not in a natural position and the arm moves towards the ball.

 

[RustyRef]

Can't really see any footballing justification for the arm being where it was, so I'd say penalty. Can understand why it was missed though as happened very quickly and the referee may be blocked off.

 

[Kes]

Hand doesn't need to be there. Hand is also above shoulder height. Handball.

 

[bloovee]

It's a natural position if you're not expecting your opponent to kick the ball up in the air for no apparent reason.