FA Cup v AFC Wimbledon Monday 7:55pm

[psl]

Should a defender be penalised for sliding in and making a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball?

 

 

In the law as you suggest it, a smart player, let's call him Luis for argument's sake, would be encouraged to flick a ball against a defenders hand ... if it 'unfairly affects play', then that'd be a penalty, wouldn't it?

 

Not saying its perfect as I don't think the game really allows for a perfect, catch all situation. Also, I gave it about 20 seconds thought before posting it. This hypothetical Luis character, and he sounds great by the way, hypothetically did that a few times last season anyway!

[RP]

Not saying its perfect as I don't think the game really allows for a perfect, catch all situation. Also, I gave it about 20 seconds thought before posting it. This hypothetical Luis character, and he sounds great by the way, hypothetically did that a few times last season anyway!

 

And sometimes 'Hypothetical Luis' got the decision and sometimes he didn't. Hypothetically.

[Tones]

 

 

They should have had 2 red cards, and a penalty against them (Gerrard didn't even touch the defender, which makes that pirouette even crazier). No real replays on the incidents or post match analysis.

 

It's ok they are a div 2 team, and have a history of being 'crazy', so it's perfectly ok.

 

There were replays of the handball last night. It was never going to be given because theres no way it was intentional.

[RP]

There were replays of the handball last night. It was never going to be given because theres no way it was intentional.

 

Classic case of someone working through the thread and responding just a bit too early

[Tones]

Classic case of someone working through the thread and responding just a bit too early

 

Yeah i do that often

 

However the post i quoted claimed we should have had a penalty. I disagree with that

Edited January 6, 2015 by Rod Sex

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

No it wouldn't have been.

 

Or rather it shouldn't be.

 

 

And Macca is saying there needs to be more subtlety in the law ... that only opens up the way for even more 'controversy'.

Part of it is Sky Sports & twelve of sensation. But more laws mean more to get wrong.

 

Personally I preferred it 70s style where it was way open to interpretation

[Tommok]

Wasn't too bothered by Murphy. But it was very annoying that the director kept showing endless replays and kept missing bits of live play. Almost like he forgot he wasn't putting together the MOTD highlight show.

Edited January 6, 2015 by TommoK

[RP]

Part of it is Sky Sports & twelve of sensation. But more laws mean more to get wrong.

 

Personally I preferred it 70s style where it was way open to interpretation

 

When it's open to interpretation, you've no grounds to ever complain ... as the ref's interpretation is purely a personal thing.

 

Careful what you wish for.

 

I'd rather move the other way personally, if we're going to persist with 'head in the sand' officiating (i.e. a Dus-style ignorance of technology).

[realtarragona]

Think it's fine as the way it is - there needs to be some intent. Situations like that player losing his bearings (which could be argued either way) don't happen too often for it to be a big issue imo.

[Tommy Cockles]

One of my mates was there & said our terrace was right behind the dugout & Rodgers was getting loads of stick that he couldn't fail to hear.

[Cobs]

Definitely not if they're in front of his face ... that's a perfectly natural position (self-defence)

 

 

Self defence = deliberate handball. Put hands in front of face to stop the ball hitting the face.

 

[RP]

Self defence = deliberate handball. Put hands in front of face to stop the ball hitting the face.

 

There is always the Cobs obtuse interpretation, I suppose.

[billybunter]

It was never going to be given because theres no way it was intentional.

 

Is handball ever really intentional (well, apart from when Luis tried being a goalie)?

 

If the player has ample time to move his hand out of the way (i.e. the ball hasn't just been booted from one yard away) and/or the arms are outstretched in an unnecessary fashion, then it's a penalty. As others have mentioned, it would be a free kick anywhere else on the pitch, why not in the box? The defender last night didn't intentionally handball, but his own error of judgment lead to the incident. Therefore it's a penalty in my view.

 

You see players put their arms behind their backs in the box these days, to make sure there is no opportunity for the ball to hit their hands. If more defenders took that approach, then there would be less penalties.

[RP]

Putting your hands behind your back is not a natural way to stand when defending.

 

I think your post goes round in circles a bit.

 

The current law is that there has to be some intent - and the interpretation of that appears to be that if the arms are in an unnatural position, and the ball strikes one of them, then that is reasonably interpreted as intent. Even if the hand wasn't moved deliberatly towards the ball to alter its course, if the arms are spread out wide or above the head for example, and the ball hits them, then that is a penalty because the positioning of the arms is taken as demonstratng intent.

[Gravy]

One of my mates was there & said our terrace was right behind the dugout & Rodgers was getting loads of stick that he couldn't fail to hear.

I find that pretty sad to be honest. After what he gave us last year I think the man needs more respect than that, but I guess human nature tells us otherwise

[Boca]

Bolton game fixed for Saturday 24th at 5.30pm.

 

On BT Sport.

[Tommy Cockles]

Bolton game fixed for Saturday 24th at 5.30pm.

 

On BT Sport.

 

How many fecking TV games are there per round?

 

There seemed to be about 10 in the 3rd round.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

FACR3 was spread over 5 days wasn't it? Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon & Tue

 

f***ing balls that is