A&H

SHE WHU VAR HB

I'm just not convinced that you can class that as creating a goal scoring opportunity. If he had then passed it to the player who scored then yes, I would say that could be classed as creating a goal scoring opportunity, but he didn't, he passed it to another player who then created the goal scoring opportunity.

He was was closer to the half way line than the penalty area when the ball hit his hand.

Edited because I can't judge distance very wwll

I would say it was rice's pass that created the goal scoring opportunity tbh
 
The Referee Store
This is harsh. But by the letter of the law is handball, probably, just.

How we define goal scoring opportunity. We already have a promising attack. We already have obvious goal scoring opportunity.
Is goal scoring opportunity somewhere in between?
 
I would say it was rice's pass that created the goal scoring opportunity tbh

I'm not convinced, and I think West Ham fans have every reason to feel aggrieved by that decision he was closer to the half way line than the penalty area and two of his team mates touched the ball before the goal was scored.

IFAB are probably going to have to tighten up the laws about what does and does not constitute creating a goal scoring opportunity.

None of the Sheffield players seemed to complain about this at the time, or after the goal was scored, so this isn't what football expects. And I would argue that ruling out a goal for a completely accidental/unintended hand ball near the half way line that happened two passes before the goal is in the spirit of the game either.
 
I'm not convinced, and I think West Ham fans have every reason to feel aggrieved by that decision he was closer to the half way line than the penalty area and two of his team mates touched the ball before the goal was scored.

IFAB are probably going to have to tighten up the laws about what does and does not constitute creating a goal scoring opportunity.

None of the Sheffield players seemed to complain about this at the time, or after the goal was scored, so this isn't what football expects. And I would argue that ruling out a goal for a completely accidental/unintended hand ball near the half way line that happened two passes before the goal is in the spirit of the game either.
That Karma can be a real bitch, I truly hope they get relegated......;)
 
I'm not convinced, and I think West Ham fans have every reason to feel aggrieved by that decision he was closer to the half way line than the penalty area and two of his team mates touched the ball before the goal was scored.

IFAB are probably going to have to tighten up the laws about what does and does not constitute creating a goal scoring opportunity.

None of the Sheffield players seemed to complain about this at the time, or after the goal was scored, so this isn't what football expects. And I would argue that ruling out a goal for a completely accidental/unintended hand ball near the half way line that happened two passes before the goal is in the spirit of the game either.

I suspect no one appealed because in real time no one saw it! I completely agree disallowing a goal like this is against the spirit of the game but i still think it led directly to the goal and was correctly ruled out.
 
I can understand why this was disallowed under the current Law. Whilst there's no intent, if it hadn't hit his hand then the rest of the play might never have happened.

Has any other season in living memory had so much 'controversy' over Laws? VAR and handball are regularly hitting the headlines.

The only other thing I can think of is when offside has been tinkered with
 

He always scores against us....... sorry, correction, he usually scores against us!!!! ;)

Breaking news that the PL chiefs are reversing last night’s VAR decision because it made ****ney England pin up boy, Declan Rice, sad.

A spokesperson said “Our boy Declan was close to tears and we didn’t think that the VAR decision was fair on the West Ham fans, some of whom even travelled to the game.”
 
Last edited:
I suspect no one appealed because in real time no one saw it! I completely agree disallowing a goal like this is against the spirit of the game but i still think it led directly to the goal and was correctly ruled out.
But it didn't lead directly to the goal though, did it? It led indirectly to a goal, after the ball went to two other players. Also, the law doesn't say it is an offence if it leads to a goal, it says:
It is an offence if a player:
gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
[...]creates a goal-scoring opportunity

As others have pointed out, it was a different player who created the actual goal scoring opportunity. The law requires that it be the player who handled the ball, who creates the goal scoring opportunity and that's not what happened here.
 
The furthest back in a move I can remember accidental handball being penalised previously was against City, where the ball hit a hand, went directly to another player who then put it in. I don't think there's precedent for going this far back in a move to penalise accidental handball.

Now, if the referee thought it was a deliberate handball (which I could maaaaaaybe justify under the new laws) then I think there might be a legit case for disallowing it. But that's a subjective decision and he didn't go to the monitor, so surely that can't be the right conclusion?
 
But it didn't lead directly to the goal though, did it? It led indirectly to a goal, after the ball went to two other players. Also, the law doesn't say it is an offence if it leads to a goal, it says:


As others have pointed out, it was a different player who created the actual goal scoring opportunity. The law requires that it be the player who handled the ball, who creates the goal scoring opportunity and that's not what happened here.

I'm not so sure...

Rice handles it accidentally (I'm sure we all agree no offence, yet)

Within a second or two and 2 or 3 touches of the ball by rice, he creates a goal scoring opportunity for Snodgrass.

Based on all the examples I've seen/can remember this season (Jesus v spurs, wolves v Leicester, Watford v Newcastle) this is identical.

I think all were disallowed correctly (no matter how absurd the law!)
 
The furthest back in a move I can remember accidental handball being penalised previously was against City, where the ball hit a hand, went directly to another player who then put it in. I don't think there's precedent for going this far back in a move to penalise accidental handball.

Now, if the referee thought it was a deliberate handball (which I could maaaaaaybe justify under the new laws) then I think there might be a legit case for disallowing it. But that's a subjective decision and he didn't go to the monitor, so surely that can't be the right conclusion?

Yeah I'm 100% confident it was disallowed for leading directly to a goal scoring opportunity
 
The biggest issue clearly is a lack of suitable guidance.

I have a game today. If I see what happened last night in my game I'll be advising the ref to disallow and you wouldn't.

I'm not sure who should be right tbh (though pgmol clearly share my view and at least they are consistent with it!)
 
I'm not so sure...

Rice handles it accidentally (I'm sure we all agree no offence, yet)

Within a second or two and 2 or 3 touches of the ball by rice, he creates a goal scoring opportunity for Snodgrass.

Sorry, I was going by a couple of previous posts on here that said it went to another player before ending up with the goalscorer. I just found a clip of the goal and it doesn't. So it becomes a much less clear argument about why it shouldn't be a goal. I can see the argument that it it does fit the law as written, it's just that I'm still not convinced that the law was originally intended to apply to something happening so far back in the build-up. I think this was poorly thought out and poorly written by the IFAB and needs further clarification as to which exact scenarios are supposed to be covered.
 
But it didn't lead directly to the goal though, did it? It led indirectly to a goal, after the ball went to two other players. Also, the law doesn't say it is an offence if it leads to a goal, it says:


As others have pointed out, it was a different player who created the actual goal scoring opportunity. The law requires that it be the player who handled the ball, who creates the goal scoring opportunity and that's not what happened here.

I'm confused by all the people saying it was a different player who created the goal-scoring opportunity. Wasn't it Rice who handled the ball (inadvertently) and then passed the ball to the goalscorer Snodgrass after gaining possession?

 
My bad, for some reason I thought the ball went to another player who then put it through to Snodgrass.

Either way, I still think it happened too far back in the build up to rule the goal out.
 
I think the question is whether he "created a goalscoring opportunity" from it, or whether the goalscoring opportunity was created several second later when he put the ball through to Snodgrass.

I timed it, and there are about 5 seconds between the ball hitting Rice's hand and Snodgrass getting on the end of Rice's through ball to score.

Rice's also took several touches after the ball struck his hand before Snodgrass got on the end of the through ball.

At the end of the day, as IFAB haven't clarified what, in this instance, equates to creating a goal scoring opportunity, it comes down to in the opinion of the referee.
 
I think the question is whether he "created a goalscoring opportunity" from it, or whether the goalscoring opportunity was created several second later when he put the ball through to Snodgrass.

I timed it, and there are about 5 seconds between the ball hitting Rice's hand and Snodgrass getting on the end of Rice's through ball to score.

Rice's also took several touches after the ball struck his hand before Snodgrass got on the end of the through ball.

At the end of the day, as IFAB haven't clarified what, in this instance, equates to creating a goal scoring opportunity, it comes down to in the opinion of the referee.

I'd agree they haven't clarified it, however in this country, and after seeing what's happening in the premier league, if you see a handball like this today, and the defensive team do as well, and you don't give it, you'll be in all sorts of match control trouble
 
If the ball doesn't hit Rice's left arm there is no way he is controlling that ball, at least not straight out in front of him anyway. He's then directly created a goal scoring opportunity so under the current laws it has to be disallowed.

This is part people getting what they wanted and part IFAB taking it too far. Whenever someone scored with their arm there was outrage and people demanded changes, the problem is with the currently law it it goes too far in terms of how many touches back do you go. They should revise it to just if the player scores with his hand.
 
however in this country, and after seeing what's happening in the premier league, if you see a handball like this today, and the defensive team do as well, and you don't give it, you'll be in all sorts of match control trouble

I think we're in trouble regardless of how we enforce it unfortunately.

I gave one for a block, where the defender had his arm shielding his face and handled it. They scored from the resulting free-kick, but woe is me, did I get so much complaining about that because "what is he supposed to do? Get hit in the face?"

And it isn't helping that players can be utterly stubborn at refusing to understand that there can be distinctions to offences; For example; They'll appeal all day for ball-to-hand incidents where the hand is at the side and get annoyed when one gets given because the defender went in like a half-starjump. :hmmm:
 
Back
Top