|
|
On November 11 2019 05:18 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 05:01 Rebs wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 11 2019 03:55 sneirac wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 03:36 Rebs wrote:On November 11 2019 03:24 sneirac wrote:On November 11 2019 03:20 Rebs wrote: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.. 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. 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. 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: Show nested quote +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.
The definition is in your common sense. I am no expert on anatomy, but a "gap" between the arm and the body probably exists in 99% situations unless someone is taking action to actively avoid it by hiding your arms, which is precisely what the explanation says they dont want players to have to do. Also its not enlarging the body, its unnaturally enlarging. i.e an arm sticking out unnaturally as opposed to an arm just having a gap to the body which is a pretty stupid definition by any measure regardless of how straightforward it may be. Again I think its pretty fair to say its obvious when an arm is out where it shouldnt be and when its just like sorta hanging there as a part of someones movement.
|
Hiding arms is also a free invitation to dribble past the defender. It's a pretty rigid stance, you can't explosively react to an attackers dribble if you have your hands on your back, because to be explosive, you need your arms.
If defenders have to hide their arms because attackers can exploit some ridiculous handball rule (aim for the defenders arm for a free 80% scoring chance) we'll all be looking at penguins trying to run/defend.
|
On November 11 2019 16:43 Twisted wrote:
Hiding arms is also a free invitation to dribble past the defender. It's a pretty rigid stance, you can't explosively react to an attackers dribble if you have your hands on your back, because to be explosive, you need your arms.
If defenders have to hide their arms because attackers can exploit some ridiculous handball rule (aim for the defenders arm for a free 80% scoring chance) we'll all be looking at penguins trying to run/defend.
Yeah. I think there's a lot defenders can improve on tucking in once they're committed to blocking a shot or cross, but demanding that penquin posture on open play sounds rough.
That being said, players like John Terry have done a pretty good job in some situations, but I'm not sure if even they'd do it in a 1 on 1 against a player who can dribble or explode past them.
|
Reading this discussion, I think it would be time to radically change the rule for handball in box. Something along those lines of, if your hand is blocking a cross, it should be yellow and indirect freekick and only if you are actively blocking a shot on goal it's red and penalty
|
I have been reading a lot of newspaper-/ user-comments yesterday regarding the Liverpool/City game. And there really is no consensus, it feels like a 60:40 or 50:50 split. Which is pretty consistent with the discussion in this thread.
But when people are this divided in regard to the application of the rule, then the rule itself is maybe the problem. From my perspective, the rule really needs to change again. Players need their arms to move, even in the penalty box.
|
On November 11 2019 19:34 Harris1st wrote:
Reading this discussion, I think it would be time to radically change the rule for handball in box. Something along those lines of, if your hand is blocking a cross, it should be yellow and indirect freekick and only if you are actively blocking a shot on goal it's red and penalty
I think there's still loads of controversy on what counts as intentionally blocking a shot and so on, but the idea of utilizing indirect free kicks on some cases sounds promising. For example the UCL final handball could be seen as such.
Then again, in some sense football also lives on this drama, so you don't want to make the ruleset too 'reasonable' in all cases. Defending inside the box should always be a moment of highest tension.
|
Norway28798 Posts
On November 11 2019 19:45 Malinor wrote:
I have been reading a lot of newspaper-/ user-comments yesterday regarding the Liverpool/City game. And there really is no consensus, it feels like a 60:40 or 50:50 split. Which is pretty consistent with the discussion in this thread.
But when people are this divided in regard to the application of the rule, then the rule itself is maybe the problem. From my perspective, the rule really needs to change again. Players need their arms to move, even in the penalty box.
I think that when people are so divided, the main issue is people's inability to accept the arbitrariness of decisions like these. Some decisions are so close that they can go either way. Imo, when decisions that are that close go either way, it's not a problem. The problem is when decisions that are clearly wrong go the wrong way, but unless you operate with rules like 'touching a player is a foul' or 'your hand coming in contact with the ball is a foul' then there will always be situations where discerning whether the contact was 'sufficient' or whether the hand was far away enough from the body is gonna be very difficult, and ultimately, to some degree, arbitrarily decided.
I thought offside was gonna be an issue where VAR could do its business with no real complains, but turns out even a black and white rule like that still has some voices that thing 'i mean technically it was probably an offside but a toe shouldn't be enough to change a call'.
|
SEATTLE -- The thunderous roars that came from CenturyLink Field celebrating the goals sealing the Seattle Sounders' 2nd MLS Cup didn't just carry across SoDo and Pioneer Square...
They registered as seismic events!
The "SoundersFC Soccer Shake" experiment was conducted by the University of Washington's Pacific Northwest Seismic Network group. Seismologists placed a seismograph inside the stadium to measure the earth-moving cheers the Sounders fans had in the team's 3-1 victory over Toronto FC Sunday.
Sure enough, all three goals registered on the seismograph, though it seems to have been the second goal that topped the trio.
Source
|
Manmade earthquakes...
Imagine the static calculations that go in building a stadium where 30.000+ people jump and roar at the same exact moment.
That has to go beyond the normal (safety) multiplier with 1.5 for dynamic force
|
The important thing is that as long as there is "controversy", our favorite player gets away with punching a player's head during a match. Or is able to call an entire organization corrupt and only gets 1 friendly ban, whilst that would have eaten a good chunck of someone else's career. And the powerful or chosen in a particular period teams keep winning even when opposition should have. The importang thing is that double standard continues, and the referees and the people who boss them get no regular judgement and punishment. Actually they do get behind the scenes, either when they do the right or the wrong thing at the wrong time, and you know why.
|
Liverpool are such a nasty team that I was hoping they would lose. I don't understand why they have such a positive image. In that game, Alexander-Arnold pushed Sterling into the advertising boards and later Robertson did the same to Walker.
Add that to the diving, the tactical fouling (Fabinho committed one early in the game yesterday but somehow wasn't booked), the tapping up of Van Dijk, the slogan "We are Liverpool. This means more.", Klopp's moaning when things don't go his way (he's as bad as Mourinho or Wenger ever were), the poaching of youth players, and so on. They should be the pantomime villain of the Premier League.
|
On November 12 2019 00:23 Melliflue wrote:
Liverpool are such a nasty team that I was hoping they would lose. I don't understand why they have such a positive image. In that game, Alexander-Arnold pushed Sterling into the advertising boards and later Robertson did the same to Walker.
Add that to the diving, the tactical fouling (Fabinho committed one early in the game yesterday but somehow wasn't booked), the tapping up of Van Dijk, the slogan "We are Liverpool. This means more.", Klopp's moaning when things don't go his way (he's as bad as Mourinho or Wenger ever were), the poaching of youth players, and so on. They should be the pantomime villain of the Premier League.
This all sounds rather personal. What is your favorite Club then if you don't mind me asking?
|
On November 11 2019 21:22 Harris1st wrote:
Manmade earthquakes...
Imagine the static calculations that go in building a stadium where 30.000+ people jump and roar at the same exact moment.
That has to go beyond the normal (safety) multiplier with 1.5 for dynamic force
Reminds me of the water system issues that happen when all the superbowl viewers use the commercial break to visit bathroom simultaneously.
|
On November 12 2019 00:44 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 00:23 Melliflue wrote:
Liverpool are such a nasty team that I was hoping they would lose. I don't understand why they have such a positive image. In that game, Alexander-Arnold pushed Sterling into the advertising boards and later Robertson did the same to Walker.
Add that to the diving, the tactical fouling (Fabinho committed one early in the game yesterday but somehow wasn't booked), the tapping up of Van Dijk, the slogan "We are Liverpool. This means more.", Klopp's moaning when things don't go his way (he's as bad as Mourinho or Wenger ever were), the poaching of youth players, and so on. They should be the pantomime villain of the Premier League. This all sounds rather personal. What is your favorite Club then if you don't mind me asking?
West Brom. I know it is a little personal with Liverpool for me but it isn't because of which team I support. If anything, I think my particular dislike of Liverpool was caused by the lack of criticism of Liverpool on many occasions where I thought other teams/managers/players would be criticised for doing the same thing. The commentators, pundits, analysts all seem too easy on Liverpool. Quick to praise but very slow to criticise. It annoys me and that leads me to disliking Liverpool even though they don't control the way the media treats them.
I know some things wind me up more than they do other people, such as the pushing into advertising boards. I think it is unnecessary and Alexander-Arnold knew the ball was out of play so I don't understand why he would intentionally endanger another player. And I don't understand why it is tolerated.
And Klopp irritates me. He rarely seems to give the opposition any credit when Liverpool don't win and never accepts when Liverpool get lucky. My favourite example was the 1-1 draw at West Ham last season when Liverpool's goal was obviously off-side and after the match Klopp said he didn't know if their goal was off-side and then accused the ref of bias in favour of West Ham because the ref knew he had made a mistake and was trying to even it up - despite Liverpool almost scoring a winner late on which was also off-side.
|
On November 11 2019 21:22 Harris1st wrote:
Manmade earthquakes...
Imagine the static calculations that go in building a stadium where 30.000+ people jump and roar at the same exact moment.
That has to go beyond the normal (safety) multiplier with 1.5 for dynamic force
I used to live there for a bit and have been to few Seahawks games, (which are signficanlty more intense than Sounders games) the magnifying effect of the acoustics is quite ridiculous. The play area and stands themselves are actually like a third to a half of the complex. Its the most impressive stadium Ive ever been too.
|
|
|
Probably a reasonable decsion if emotions are still running high from the weekend.
|
On November 12 2019 11:37 Greg_J wrote:Probably a reasonable decsion if emotions are still running high from the weekend.
I wonder if Sterling was considered the instigator or if this was more of a majority thingy with 4 Liverpool players vs 2 City players in the squad. It's just Montenegro after all, you could probably drop both too if necessary.
|
On November 11 2019 20:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 19:45 Malinor wrote:
I have been reading a lot of newspaper-/ user-comments yesterday regarding the Liverpool/City game. And there really is no consensus, it feels like a 60:40 or 50:50 split. Which is pretty consistent with the discussion in this thread.
But when people are this divided in regard to the application of the rule, then the rule itself is maybe the problem. From my perspective, the rule really needs to change again. Players need their arms to move, even in the penalty box. I think that when people are so divided, the main issue is people's inability to accept the arbitrariness of decisions like these. Some decisions are so close that they can go either way. Imo, when decisions that are that close go either way, it's not a problem. The problem is when decisions that are clearly wrong go the wrong way, but unless you operate with rules like 'touching a player is a foul' or 'your hand coming in contact with the ball is a foul' then there will always be situations where discerning whether the contact was 'sufficient' or whether the hand was far away enough from the body is gonna be very difficult, and ultimately, to some degree, arbitrarily decided. I thought offside was gonna be an issue where VAR could do its business with no real complains, but turns out even a black and white rule like that still has some voices that thing 'i mean technically it was probably an offside but a toe shouldn't be enough to change a call'.
I only now realized (after reading your post) that I always assumed the rulebook divides all actions in black and white. Or to but it differently, when you look at the rulebook, you will always find the answer to any situation in there.
That is such a naive point of view though and I most certainly do not approach other areas of life / most other sports this way.
The discussions about handballs seem always to be about who is right, when very often there probably is no right or wrong. But I do not feel that the rule change helped the situation at all. There must be a better way to formulate that rule, though I do not envy those who have to do it.
The state right now seems to be broken though, I wonder if there are statistics to show a significant difference in handballs called after implementing the change.
|
On November 12 2019 17:00 Bacillus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2019 11:37 Greg_J wrote:Probably a reasonable decsion if emotions are still running high from the weekend. I wonder if Sterling was considered the instigator or if this was more of a majority thingy with 4 Liverpool players vs 2 City players in the squad. It's just Montenegro after all, you could probably drop both too if necessary.
If this is to be believed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
