Never a penalty


Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it was harsh, his arm was up to protect his face. It hit just above his armpit. Had it hit his elbow than fair play, he would have blocking the flight of the ball. The linesman is basically saying he should have been knocked the fuck out by powerful shot from a short distance. I bet he'd have his arm up too if he was in that position. I'm sure I would.
That's only allowed against Sunderland. Source - Andre Marriner.
 
Does the fact that you have this 'clear and unambiguous rule' in front of you yet no Sunderland supporters agree concern you? Many fans like yourself love an excuse to feel hard done by yet you aren't getting support even from them. Why do you think that is?

Its because they know that referees have to consider whether a player has made themselves bigger by putting their arms and hands in an unnatural position when deciding if handball is deliberate. There is no wide interpretation of the rule itself but there can be inconsistencies in the award of a penalty because if the ref feels the player was protecting himself he can choose not to give it.


Show me in the rules where it mentions a player making himself big and i will agree with u. In the rules not sum refs interpretation of them.
 
Tbf to @wicketkeeper he probably has a point about the rules, however the rules are outdated and most people on here know that and agree it was a pen and would be given 90% of times in this day and age,so the common sense approach is that a pen should have been given.
 
Show me in the rules where it mentions a player making himself big and i will agree with u. In the rules not sum refs interpretation of them.

It doesn't say in the rules that if a player 'picks a brick up of the floor and smashes a player in the face' he should be sent off. The referee would have to interpret that as violent conduct and send the player off. It doesn't say in the rules that if you leap up like a starfish when a player is about to cross that ball then its deliberate handball, the referee has to interpret it as such and so on. Anyone involved in football is fully aware if you put your arms in an unnatural position to make yourself bigger to stop a cross or a shot then you will concede a penalty.

The only argument in this case is whether Denayer was protecting himself . If you were making this argument then it has some discussion merit. Still a penalty all day for me.

Is this some kind of whooosshhh

:lol: I thought you were agreeing with the knacker. Apologies.
 
.As I have already said you are choosing to quote refs interpretations of the rule which as we know can differ widely not the rule itself,which is clear an unambiguous- the hand has to go towards the ball not the ball to hand.

It's not their individual interpretations. That is the interpretation that they all have to follow. UEFA, FIFA and all of the FA's regularly align their refereeing to make it consistent.
 
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.
The rules still say that the act must be deliberate, whatever method Graham Poll used to judge that. I'm certainly not convinced that it was deliberate and (although I'll have to watch it again) I thought that if Denayer hadn't got his arm up he'd have taken it straight in the face.

Having said that, I'd be certain it was a penalty if it had been for us.
 
It doesn't say in the rules that if a player 'picks a brick up of the floor and smashes a player in the face' he should be sent off. The referee would have to interpret that as violent conduct and send the player off. It doesn't say in the rules that if you leap up like a starfish when a player is about to cross that ball then its deliberate handball, the referee has to interpret it as such and so on. Anyone involved in football is fully aware if you put your arms in an unnatural position to make yourself bigger to stop a cross or a shot then you will concede a penalty.

The only argument in this case is whether Denayer was protecting himself . If you were making this argument then it has some discussion merit. Still a penalty all day for me.



:lol: I thought you were agreeing with the knacker. Apologies.


There is a rule about handball though. It clearly states it has to be deliberate. All this crap about unnatural position is not in the rules.

Therefore according to the rules it was not a penalty.

Does the fact that you have this 'clear and unambiguous rule' in front of you yet no Sunderland supporters agree concern you? Many fans like yourself love an excuse to feel hard done by yet you aren't getting support even from them. Why do you think that is?

Its because they know that referees have to consider whether a player has made themselves bigger by putting their arms and hands in an unnatural position when deciding if handball is deliberate. There is no wide interpretation of the rule itself but there can be inconsistencies in the award of a penalty because if the ref feels the player was protecting himself he can choose not to give it.


Why do they have to consider something that isn't in the rules.
 
he had his hands in an unnatural position and his hands moved up when he jumped. Clear a penalty as we have ever conceded despite your ropy interpretation of the rules.


Have you actually read the rule .it makes no mention whatsoever of unnatural position.
I am not interpreting the rule that s what others are doing. I am telling u the rules say it has to be deliberate
 
It was a harsh penalty he was only a couple of yards away and he didn't move his hands to the ball to gain an advantage other than to prevent himself from harm so it could be construed.This unnatural malarkey business is open to interpretation the law states that handball has to be deliberate.An unnatural position would be hands on the soles of your feet not those from the end of your armpit. The ref was shit all game.He obviously was intent of keeping his good record of six out of six in officiating over Swansea wins
 
OP having yet another shocker! Pen clear as day and if shoe on other foot and we hadn't got it he'd be saying it was as well!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top