Hand Ball....


Status
Not open for further replies.
Having just watched MOTD I am now officially confused as to what is and what isn't deemed to be handball.
The penalty that Spurs got was dubious by today's interpretation, personally I think it was, because it hit Lesccott's arm and denied Spurs an opportunity, but in another game it won't be given.
All the authorities have done is introduce more doubt and confusion into the game along with the abortion that they call the offside law.
The doubt re handball has been caused by television analysing all decisions not the authorities
 
Before I try and answer your question did you actually read the example that I gave?
If yes what is your interpretation of that situation, you never did answer my question you went off into some hypothetical situation to ask what I thought.

I did read the example you gave and I have already said it should be up to the ref to judge whether a player is interfering in play instead of just saying offside is offside no matter when the scenario

No can we get back to your position please?
 
That's about all I remember :lol: It was from the left (possibly Johnson). Don't know which players hand it hit. The ball didn't travel far and hit the left hand right down to his side.
I honestly can't remember it mate but I really do think players play up to ball but hand. They aren't daft and neither are the managers, coaches etc. 9 times out of 10 they'll prob get away with it, on the odd occasion like lescott they'll get punished. Obviously sometimes it's absolutely impossible to get hands/arms out the way but in my opinion not as often as people think.

Instantly if you stop being a bellend.
Stop being a tool man. It's a good thread and good debate. If you don't have owt constructive to offer then just leave it.
 
Based on the current laws it wasnt a penalty as there was no way he could move his arm out of the way.
Correct. However it would have been given if the defender had been stood tall with both hands held together straigh above his head because that would be deemed an unnatural position. Despite the defender making himself a slimmer obstacle therefore giving an advantage to the attacker.

Standing crouched with his hands to the side is a natural position for a defender. But he's making himself a wider obstacle and it's a disadvantage to the attacker.

Neither is handball to me because he hasn't 'deliberately' used his hand or arm to connect with the ball.
 
Well I disagree and that's my opinion. I think you're being very naive and prob haven't played the game competitively before. If you have then I'm surprised you take that stance. I found it quite easy to defend using my body, legs and head personally.
If it's so easy why can't the best players in the world do it then?

You try and tackle a world class winger coming at you with your arms tied behind your back.

Utter utter nonsense
 
I don't like to see offside given when only the slightest part of the player is deemed to be offside. I think the rule should be the same as when a ball is deemed a goal, or out of play; the whole of the player should be offside, not just part of him.
 
I did read the example you gave and I have already said it should be up to the ref to judge whether a player is interfering in play instead of just saying offside is offside no matter when the scenario

No can we get back to your position please?
Well in the example I gave I deem that it should be offside, the player knows he's off , the defenders have played him off, he even moved toward the ball but didn't touch it and because of this was deemed not to be interfering, which is just plain daft.
You of course stretched the conversation to suit your referee biased agenda about a hypothetical situation regarding someone scoring a 40 yard screamer with another player in an *offside* position (you weren't specific regarding this), do you still agree that in my *real* example that the player should have been flagged offside?
No of course you don't.
 
I don't like to see offside given when only the slightest part of the player is deemed to be offside. I think the rule should be the same as when a ball is deemed a goal, or out of play; the whole of the player should be offside, not just part of him.
Agree with this. If part of his body is onside then he should be deemed onside.
 
Well in the example I gave I deem that it should be offside, the player knows he's off , the defenders have played him off, he even moved toward the ball but didn't touch it and because of this was deemed not to be interfering, which is just plain daft.
You of course stretched the conversation to suit your referee biased agenda about a hypothetical situation regarding someone scoring a 40 yard screamer with another player in an *offside* position (you weren't specific regarding this), do you still agree that in my *real* example that the player should have been flagged offside?
No of course you don't.

My example happen all the time man:lol: You always see people standing half a yard offside not interfering with play when people score long range efforts.

I will ask you one more time. Do you believe it should be up the official to deem whether a player is interfering or should offside be offside no matter what the scenario?
 
Didn't they used to say it was only offside if there was daylight between them? What happened to that?
Aye it did. Think it changed when phase 2 and all that came in. Its daft really that part can be onside and part off so it's given off. I'm only guessing but I imagine the daylight scenario would be easier for linesmen.
 
My example happen all the time man:lol: You always see people standing half a yard offside not interfering with play when people score long range efforts.

I will ask you one more time. Do you believe it should be up the official to deem whether a player is interfering or should offside be offside no matter what the scenario?
You still have not answered my question, you've been avoiding it since your first response, because you know that it is wrong/crazy, but as usual you will not accept it, we all know the laws of the game my gripe is the interpretation of them, laws shouldn't be open to interpretation everyone should *know* when it's handball or offside not have to be dependent on interpretation.
 
You still have not answered my question, you've been avoiding it since your first response, because you know that it is wrong/crazy, but as usual you will not accept it, we all know the laws of the game my gripe is the interpretation of them, laws shouldn't be open to interpretation everyone should *know* when it's handball or offside not have to be dependent on interpretation.

I have answered you question:lol: I believe it should be up to the officials to interpret as to whether someone is interfering with play when it comes to offside.

So let me get this straight you are claiming offside should be offside no matter what the scenario and handball should be handball no matter what the scenario? The ref or linesmen should not be able to judge intent when it comes to handball and interfering with play when it comes to offside?
 
I have answered you question:lol: I believe it should be up to the officials to interpret as to whether someone is interfering with play when it comes to offside.

So let me get this straight you are claiming offside should be offside no matter what the scenario and handball should be handball no matter what the scenario? The ref or linesmen should not be able to judge intent when it comes to handball and interfering with play when it comes to offside?
I give up, you only take the referees part in every debate, I'm beginning to think that you're challenged in some way or other so I'll just leave it at that.
Try having a debate with your carer, they have my sympathy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top