How is it not a penalty? Anyone who thinks it's not obviously doesn't understand the new handball rule. I personally don't think it should be a penalty, but according to the new rule it is 100%That's not a penalty, VAR has fans minds ruined.
You telling me that Odois arm was in a natural position?No, that's not how it works. If his arm is a natural position then it doesn't matter.
Roman Saiss cleared one off the line yesterday with his arm but because it was in a natural position it wasn't a pen and considered a brilliant clearance.
That can't possibly be the reason. If so then the ref is going off the old laws of the game and I don't think that's the case. Mind you I can't figure out why it wasn't given. 100% blatant penalty. Not even a little controversial.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I mean it absolutely is. He's in the box and his hand in an unnatural position controls the ball away from Greenwood. 100% stonewallJust because it hit his hand doesn't mean it's handball.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Let’s hope Chelsea pip Liverpool to 4th place by a point.Because klopp bitched we get favourable decisions and since then the refs and var give us nothing.
Even when they're blatent.
No, hope West Ham do, feck the pair of themLet’s hope Chelsea pip Liverpool to 4th place by a point.
That’s insane. Since when was “moving the hand toward the ball” one of the criteria? Do actual referees not know the rules now?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When it's as clear as this and not given, then yes.So every pen shout deserves it's own thread?
i fecking hate David Moyes that much that I’d prefer Chelsea get fourth. I don’t hate him that much to want Liverpool to finish above him.No, hope West Ham do, feck the pair of them
When it's as clear as this and not given, then yes.
Nope. Greenwood makes slight contact with CHO after his hand reaches the handball position. He even holds his hand there to match the flight of the ball. Him making contact with Greenwood is why they cant have their arms so high in unnatural positions. It matches every criteria for a pen.Except it wasn't that clear and Greenwood is making contact with his arm so there's that
It is actually in the rules (first bullet point) however that is more so to do with low hands, and in this situation the last two bullet points clearly apply.That’s insane. Since when was “moving the hand toward the ball” one of the criteria? Do actual referees not know the rules now?
You would think Greenwood moved his hand from his hip the way some apologists are acting.That’s insane. Since when was “moving the hand toward the ball” one of the criteria? Do actual referees not know the rules now?
Yeah, I think that’s part of the mind-reading required to know if the act is deliberate or not. If they move the hand towards the ball then it’s definitely deliberate. But they introduced all additional clauses so refs didn’t always have to be mind-readers.It is actually in the rules (first bullet point) however that is more so to do with low hands, and in this situation the last two bullet points clearly apply.
It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including movingthe hand/arm towards the ball
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if
accidental, immediately:
• scores in the opponents’ goal
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity
touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
• the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player
deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm
directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is
close.
good point, hard deciding who you despise the most from those teamsi fecking hate David Moyes that much that I’d prefer Chelsea get fourth. I don’t hate him that much to want Liverpool to finish above him.
Care to explain this further?I think it's because if it wasn't gonna touch CHO's hand then it would have touched Greenwoods.
I don’t really understand this point of view, I mean, if CHO isn’t there, Greenwood controls the ball.As I said, the referee could well have interpreted as being probably handball against Greenwood anyway, if the hand wasn't there, it hits Greenwood's arm.
If CHO wasn't putting his arm up first, it would have hit greenwood's. Both of them were raising their hands in unnatural positions in a tustle for the ball.I don’t really understand this point of view, I mean, if CHO isn’t there, Greenwood controls the ball.
I just don’t see how it’s a “tussle” considering they come from two different angles, nor do I see how “well it would of hit Greenwood’s” is a viable excuse.If CHO wasn't putting his arm up first, it would have hit greenwood's. Both of them were raising their hands in unnatural positions in a tustle for the ball.
As I said I think it's a pen on balance but not as outrageous as what we've had against us recently. This one at least I can see where the ref came from even if I disagree overall. On the Sheffield United incidents, it was just bizzare. That's my original point.
What do you mean you don't get it was a tustle? They were both tustling over the ball?I just don’t see how it’s a “tussle” considering they come from two different angles, nor do I see how “well it would of hit Greenwood’s” is a viable excuse.
Either way like many have said in the long run it wouldn’t be good for the game for these to be given, but to the rules we have now, it definitely should have been.
You shoot an old man in cold blood, and then argue before the judge that the person was so old he was about to die anyway.I think it's because if it wasn't gonna touch CHO's hand then it would have touched Greenwoods.
It might not of hit his hand, but it may have hit his hand.I just don’t see how it’s a “tussle” considering they come from two different angles, nor do I see how “well it would of hit Greenwood’s” is a viable excuse.
Either way like many have said in the long run it wouldn’t be good for the game for these to be given, but to the rules we have now, it definitely should have been.