EPT2019 - 2020 Football Thread - Page 89
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 11 2019 03:18 sneirac wrote: tbf he has a point on that one, this is exactly what the rule change/clarification is calling a handball nowadays Which is kinda of ridiculous, the first one was this one wasnt.. | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On November 11 2019 03:20 Rebs wrote: Which is kinda of ridiculous, the first one was this one wasnt.. Meh the first one isnt because it was deflected, this one should be because he increases the area of his body by having his arm out. Theres a reason why more and more defenders have their hands behind their backs in situations like this. Having your arms out just a bit to block more balls without it being blatant enough for a handball was just as much abusing the rules as intentionally hitting the hands of your opponents would be. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18762 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28911 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
 | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 11 2019 03:24 sneirac wrote: Meh the first one isnt because it was deflected, this one should be because he increases the area of his body by having his arm out. Theres a reason why more and more defenders have their hands behind their backs in situations like this. Having your arms out just a bit to block more balls without it being blatant enough for a handball was just as much abusing the rules as intentionally hitting the hands of your opponents would be. I dont know if I am crazy but am i reading this different from everyone ? Not an infraction of ball touching hand Rule : "The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near" Explanation If the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hands/arms it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball: The scenario in the rule doesn't really apply in the first handball. Like it applies to it ricocheting off Silva, thats like a 50/50 ball squelch but then it loops around and TAA's arm stretches out while he was steadying himself to intercept it. Second one this rule is applied fairly. "The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger" He wasnt, what is supposed to do cut his arm off? Unless he is stretching it, thats totally fair. You cant be a robot keeping our arm at a perfect angle trying to block a shot. Putting your hands behind your back is an absolutely ridiculous practice that has come out of people being scared of getting penalized for exactly this scenario which they shouldnt be. I dont know the rules seem fine their interpretation or the way you are seeing makes no sense to me. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On November 11 2019 03:36 Rebs wrote: I dont know if I am crazy but am i reading this different from everyone ? Not an infraction of ball touching hand Rule : "The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near" Explanation If the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hands/arms it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball: The scenario in the rule doesn't really apply in the first handball. Like it applies to it ricocheting off Silva, thats like a 50/50 ball squelch but then it loops around and TAA's arm stretches out while he was steadying himself to intercept it. Second one this rule is applied fairly. "The ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger" He wasnt, what is supposed to do cut his arm off? Unless he is stretching it, thats totally fair. You cant be a robot keeping our arm at a perfect angle trying to block a shot. Putting your hands behind your back is an absolutely ridiculous practice that has come out of people being scared of getting penalized for exactly this scenario which they shouldnt be. I dont know the rules seem fine their interpretation or the way you are seeing makes no sense to me. Well my view is fairly simple: - the first was deflected from opponent from close range, and initially i thought from his hip tho that was apparently wrong, so its not a penalty according to the rules - he second, in my opinion his arm was not tucked into his body, there was a visible gap. I don't think defenders should have to have their arms behind themselves however there needs to be a line drawn between what is tucked in and what is increasing the area of their body. Having a clear and visible gap between arm and body seems like a good definition for me. I saw such a gap right there => penalty | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 11 2019 03:55 sneirac wrote: Well my view is fairly simple: - the first was deflected from opponent from close range, and initially i thought from his hip tho that was apparently wrong, so its not a penalty according to the rules - he second, in my opinion his arm was not tucked into his body, there was a visible gap. I don't think defenders should have to have their arms behind themselves however there needs to be a line drawn between what is tucked in and what is increasing the area of their body. Having a clear and visible gap between arm and body seems like a good definition for me. I saw such a gap right there => penalty Yes it is simple, its also incorrect based on what I see and what I am reading here. This ball looped from around 10 feet away off a richocet (so it wasnt even travelling that fast.) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9NXu0sh.jpg) So close range- False, off the hip false. If anything was close it was the ricochet off Silva, that is close range.. 10 feet for a bobble is not close. Next for the shot - cba to dig an image out but - ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GYK2zFr.png) What about his hand or arm was un natural ? That there was a gap between his hand an his body? Your joking right ? I am ok with either not being given, but I think there is a large margin for lack of consistency in the first instance. The second one will be pretty consistent and its fair so I have no problem with that not being given. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland2117 Posts
I think a freekick for Liverpool would probably have been the fair call, but it's a messy situation with the potential of VAR checking and all that. The safe thing to say is probably that had Aguero played to the whistle, Liverpool would have had much harder time capitalizing the counterattack. | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On November 11 2019 05:01 Rebs wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 11 2019 03:55 sneirac wrote: Well my view is fairly simple: - the first was deflected from opponent from close range, and initially i thought from his hip tho that was apparently wrong, so its not a penalty according to the rules - he second, in my opinion his arm was not tucked into his body, there was a visible gap. I don't think defenders should have to have their arms behind themselves however there needs to be a line drawn between what is tucked in and what is increasing the area of their body. Having a clear and visible gap between arm and body seems like a good definition for me. I saw such a gap right there => penalty Yes it is simple, its also incorrect based on what I see and what I am reading here. This ball looped from around 10 feet away off a richocet (so it wasnt even travelling that fast.) So close range- False, off the hip false. If anything was close it was the ricochet off Silva, that is close range.. 10 feet for a bobble is not close. Next for the shot - cba to dig an image out but - What about his hand or arm was un natural ? That there was a gap between his hand an his body? Your joking right ? I am ok with either not being given, but I think there is a large margin for lack of consistency in the first instance. The second one will be pretty consistent and its fair so I have no problem with that not being given. The close range deflection I am referring too is I thought it was either deflected again of Aguero or of his own hip: If it wasn't, then yes that should have been a penalty. However the it moot anyway, because the City handball takes precedence. I'm curious if this was correctly not called or if that should have come back to freekick Liverpool, either way the end result was always going to be not a penalty As to rules quotes: The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick: • the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm • a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger • the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm) Again, somewhere there has to be a definition on when the arm enlarges the body and if there is a visible gap it seems like a much more straight forward definition then trying to argue about whether or not it was far enough out. | ||
Shellshock
United States97277 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4200 Posts
City just doesn’t look the same defensively without Laporte. Next game is crucial for City, if they lose to Chelsea they will probably be 12 points behind and I don’t see this Liverpool losing a 12 point lead in November. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18762 Posts
| ||
| ||
