Never a penalty


Status
Not open for further replies.
Didn't have time to get his hands away from the ball

Had time to put his hands up in the air

Pick one.
 
You're a bell end if you genuinely think that wasn't a penalty. Stupidity from Denayer.


One question are you saying he deliberately moved his hands to handle the ball on purpose.

If Sunderland wern't awarded that you'd be up in arms


Arguable whether he was even looking at the ball when it hit him. Hit being the operative word.

in your opinion Did he deliberately handball it
 
Last edited:
If Pienaar could be arsed to help PVA out in the lead up it wouldn't have even got that far. All game he's been caught inside strolling about leaving PVA to cover 2 players
 
One question are you saying he deliberately moved his hands to handle the ball on purpose.




Arguable whether he was even looking at the ball when it hit him. Hit being the operative word.

in your opinion Did he deliberately handball it

Let's get this straight you think a player can run round the penalty area with his arms outstretched pretending to be plane and if the ball hits him it shouldn't be a penalty?
 
No he deliberately put his arms and hands in a position to make himself bigger and in an unnatural position increasing the chances of the ball being blocked by his hands or arms. That is a penalty.


I'm 100% sure the rule says must be deliberate and it clearly wasn't.
 
One question are you saying he deliberately moved his hands to handle the ball on purpose.





Arguable whether he was even looking at the ball when it hit him. Hit being the operative word.

in your opinion Did he deliberately handball it
If your hands are in an unnatural position it's a penalty every time. His were above his head. Every referee in the league would have given it.
 
I'm 100% sure the rule says must be deliberate and it clearly wasn't.

I am 100% sure you are wrong as usual tbf: According to Graham Poll:

"So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.
 
You haven't answered the question. Can a players run round the penalty area with his arms above his head and it not be a penalty if the ball hits him?

I have just read the rule. It clearly says the players hand must move towards the ball and not the ball to hand.

It also says the referee must consider the distance the ball travels before it strikes the hand.

FIrstly the ball hit hand and secondly the ball travelled an extremely short distance. By both these criteria no penalty.
 
I am 100% sure you are wrong as usual tbf: According to Graham Poll:

"So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?"

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.


I am reading the rule. You are reading the interpretation of a failed referee. A man who said he never gave decisions for pushing and pulling in the box despite the rules because it was too difficult to make a decision.
 
I have just read the rule. It clearly says the players hand must move towards the ball and not the ball to hand.

It also says the referee must consider the distance the ball travels before it strikes the hand.

FIrstly the ball hit hand and secondly the ball travelled an extremely short distance. By both these criteria no penalty.

No you haven't and no is doesn't: The rule is explained below:

So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him?

If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top