New law suggestion: You cannot score with your hand

Snake Plissken

Aka LTS10
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
7,188
Kinda crazy that in this day in age we had a whole host of ex pro's who played at the highest level for years, giving conflicting views on whether or not that Neymar goal should have stood.

I guess the rules really aren't clear enough.
 

Ibi Dreams

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
4,914
There is no scenario in football that allows you to score with your hand.
Isn't deliberate hand ball in relation to penalties? Non deliberate handballs are regularly given outside the defenders box.
Neymar was outside his own box. If that makes sense
There's no difference with handballs, it's just one rule that applies to all situations. If the handball is not deliberate, play should carry on. It's pretty vague though and could do with revising.
 

thejtrain

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
1,894
Location
Cary, NC
Any advantage gained through a handball should be called a foul, deliberate or not. You can't assist, score or prevent a clear goal scoring/assisting opportunity - even unintentionally.
 

Spiersey

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
7,191
Location
United Kingdom.
Supports
Chelsea
The issue I have is that if that's a defender that heads it onto his hand on the line and clear it wouldn't be given as a pen, despite the circumstances being the same.
Personally think it should have stood as it was obviously accidental and ball to hand.
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
39,348
Location
Montevideo
So there was a lot of chatter after that disallowed goal, much of it pretty ill-informed.

Although 99% of people would probably agree that in terms of fair-play, common sense etc, the right call was made, most people could see that by the letter of the law the goal should have stood.

So should there be a change in the law?

My initial suggestion is a simple addition that a goal cannot be scored with the hand.

You could argue that an accidental handball assist, or by a defender on the line to stop a goal has just as much affect. But a) such incidents just don't stick in the throat quite as much as an actual goal and b) I can't think of a practical rule to start covering those.

Good idea? Got a better one?
Yeah, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

That was a clear goal IMO. "Probably not without the arm" I hear many say. Well, Frank Lampard's goal record wouldn't be too impressive if you take away deflections off people's arses/legs/arms/cocks.

It quite clearly wasn't intended and it's actually remarkable the assistant picked it up at all.

There will always be outcomes that seem a tad harsh on one side, so what? Perfection isn't a goal here is it? It's the imperfections and room for different takes and controversy that make football what it is.
 

DFreshKing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
3,366
Location
Greater Manchester
The issue I have is that if that's a defender that heads it onto his hand on the line and clear it wouldn't be given as a pen, despite the circumstances being the same.
Personally think it should have stood as it was obviously accidental and ball to hand.
If the hand stops it going in then I think that should be a foul too. Gaining an advantage.

I really would simplyfy the whole thing and give a foul for any contact with the hand unless the oponent has delibrately hit it at the hand.

Make 'accidental' hand ball happen a lot less imho.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,692
I dont know the law but its pretty clear Neymar had stuffed it and if his hand wasnt there it was going wide. It would have been wrong to give a goal.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
32,094
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
What does deliberate mean then in your context of the rules?
For example if the hand is moving towards the ball and the distance between the ball and the player. Basically by considering all things, Neymar shouldn't have been able to head the ball into his own hand. Even though it doesn't say so directly in the rule books you can certainly interpret it that way. Only way, imo, that you can score with your hand is if you're standing and get hit by the ball like Lichsteiner got hit yesterday in the first half. His hand was completely by his side and there was no way he could have moved it.
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
42,220
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Yeah, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

That was a clear goal IMO. "Probably not without the arm" I hear many say. Well, Frank Lampard's goal record wouldn't be too impressive if you take away deflections off people's arses/legs/arms/cocks.

It quite clearly wasn't intended and it's actually remarkable the assistant picked it up at all.

There will always be outcomes that seem a tad harsh on one side, so what? Perfection isn't a goal here is it? It's the imperfections and room for different takes and controversy that make football what it is.
People always say this, but it's bollocks. Football is much more than it's imperfections, and if magically all refereeing errors were removed we would still be commenting on the actual game, not bemoaning the lack of goals scored with the hand. FFS.
 

Snow

Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
32,094
Location
Lousy Smarch weather
Kinda crazy that in this day in age we had a whole host of ex pro's who played at the highest level for years, giving conflicting views on whether or not that Neymar goal should have stood.

I guess the rules really aren't clear enough.
They just don't know the rules. There are a lot of professional footballers that don't know the rules.
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,946
Location
Where the goals come from.
Yeah, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

That was a clear goal IMO. "Probably not without the arm" I hear many say. Well, Frank Lampard's goal record wouldn't be too impressive if you take away deflections off people's arses/legs/arms/cocks.

It quite clearly wasn't intended and it's actually remarkable the assistant picked it up at all.

There will always be outcomes that seem a tad harsh on one side, so what? Perfection isn't a goal here is it? It's the imperfections and room for different takes and controversy that make football what it is.
Fair point, I can see that view.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
19,189
It wouldn't be innocuous if the rule was any handball is a foul. No deliberate nonsense, no accidents, just a technical definition.
Then you'd get players just deliberately kicking the ball at players hands.
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
39,348
Location
Montevideo
People always say this, but it's bollocks. Football is much more than it's imperfections, and if magically all refereeing errors were removed we would still be commenting on the actual game, not bemoaning the lack of goals scored with the hand. FFS.
I doubt many will be commenting much at all about this game for years to come. There was nothing special or remarkable about it.

Juve winning would have made for a great story, or the goal not being disallowed would keep Juve fans raging for a decade. As it turns out: better team won, convincingly, nothing to see there.
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
39,348
Location
Montevideo
Refs just use commonsense, so if you score a goal with your hand even if it's unintentional it gets chalked off.
Yeah, that's my take on it. 2-1, would have been 3-1 and over so you err on the side of keeping the game very much ON.

I have no problem with that and expect most refs to exercise good judgement. Similar with the age old "wasn't really a peno on Pogba but may as well balance it a bit here just in case".

People seem to want rules to be so perfect there's no room for interpretation. As we've seen, not even the pros quite know what the rules are.

But I prefer that sport, the one open to interpretation, debate, and that trusts referees to exercise good judgement even if sometimes it may seem inconsistent.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
82,865
Location
india
I think it's simple.

An attacker can't touch the ball with his hand and if he does it's a free kick for the defending team.

A defender can't
1. Deliberately handle the ball, or
2. Inadvertently handle the ball where his arms are away from his body and the handling influences play. I.e if he does a Scholes vs Fulham it's a foul, but if it hits his hand which is away from his body but the shot is anyway flying wide anyway then it's not.

That, to me, makes sense.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
41,805
the whole "deliberate" handball thing irritates me profusely.

How many times do you see an actual deliberate handball. Not very often at all.

Much more frequent is when a player has their hand in an odd position, and someone wellies it into them. That's not deliberate.

The idea that you can still score with a hand by accident is hilarious.
 

peterstorey

Specialist In Failure
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
37,293
Location
'It's for the Arsenal and we're going to Wembley'
the whole "deliberate" handball thing irritates me profusely.

How many times do you see an actual deliberate handball. Not very often at all.

Much more frequent is when a player has their hand in an odd position, and someone wellies it into them. That's not deliberate.

The idea that you can still score with a hand by accident is hilarious.
Well a few years back players started doing the crucifixion when attempting to block a shot, that obviously had to be cut out.
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
39,348
Location
Montevideo
I think it's simple.

An attacker can't touch the ball with his hand and if he does it's a free kick for the defending team.

A defender can't
1. Deliberately handle the ball, or
2. Inadvertently handle the ball where his arms are away from his body and the handling influences play. I.e if he does a Scholes vs Fulham it's a foul, but if it hits his hand which is away from his body but the shot is anyway flying wide anyway then it's not.

That, to me, makes sense.
Keeper/defender attempts a clearance which hits the attackers arm (much as it could have hit any body part, unintentionally). Ball bounces into the goal.

It's a goal and you won't convince me otherwise in a million years. Not the prettiest, but definitely legit.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
41,805
Keeper/defender attempts a clearance which hits the attackers arm (much as it could have hit any body part, unintentionally). Ball bounces into the goal.

It's a goal and you won't convince me otherwise in a million years. Not the prettiest, but definitely legit.
Ref would definitely rule that out, if he's seen it's a hand.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,086
Location
France
It wouldn't be innocuous if the rule was any handball is a foul. No deliberate nonsense, no accidents, just a technical definition.
The current rule talks about 'unnatural position' of the arm/hand and it's the right rule, your proposition would open a breach because the ball carrier would gain a free kick just by kicking into the arm of the opponent.
 

Mrs Smoker

Full Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
25,740
Location
In garden with Maurice
Supports
Panthère du Ndé
The current rule talks about 'unnatural position' of the arm/hand and it's the right rule, your proposition would open a breach because the ball carrier would gain a free kick just by kicking into the arm of the opponent.
That's my long time wish, have no problem with it. As long as the hand is not next to body. Prejudice similar to field hockey, no deliberate/not deliberate dilemmas. The football would be changed a lot, though. More goals, more penalties, less "grabby" defenders,...
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,086
Location
France
That's my long time wish, have no problem with it. As long as the hand is not next to body. Prejudice similar to field hockey, no deliberate/not deliberate dilemmas. The football would be changed a lot, though. More goals, more penalties, less "grabby" defenders,...
You are okay with the likes of Neymar deliberately aiming for Valencia's hand and gaining a free kick?
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
42,220
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
I doubt many will be commenting much at all about this game for years to come. There was nothing special or remarkable about it.

Juve winning would have made for a great story, or the goal not being disallowed would keep Juve fans raging for a decade. As it turns out: better team won, convincingly, nothing to see there.
I agree, but I don't see how it relates to what you said earlier. Football would not suffer if rules were clarified and referee errors were stamped out completely.
 

No11

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
3,058
Location
Aberdeen
Supports
Aberdeen
I think the rule is fine as it is.
The rule isn't fine at all.
Deliberate hand ball rarely happens, yet many free kicks/penalties are given.
It is quite simple, if you gain an advantage when the ball strikes your hand/arm then a foul should be given.
Take the word deliberate out.
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,946
Location
Where the goals come from.
The rule isn't fine at all.
Deliberate hand ball rarely happens, yet many free kicks/penalties are given.
It is quite simple, if you gain an advantage when the ball strikes your hand/arm then a foul should be given.
Take the word deliberate out.
No way that's fair for me. How is it fair for the oppo to get a penalty when a cross anavoidably hits your arm, just inside the area? You've done nothing wrong, and the attacking team had no sort of clear goalscoring opportunity, yet suddenly they have a penalty?!

For me, if you're going to get rid of intent, then it has to be an indirect free-kick, and you need a separate level of offence for cynical / match-changing hand-balls, which gives a direct free-kick / penalty.
 

No11

Full Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
3,058
Location
Aberdeen
Supports
Aberdeen
No way that's fair for me. How is it fair for the oppo to get a penalty when a cross anavoidably hits your arm, just inside the area? You've done nothing wrong, and the attacking team had no sort of clear goalscoring opportunity, yet suddenly they have a penalty?!

For me, if you're going to get rid of intent, then it has to be an indirect free-kick, and you need a separate level of offence for cynical / match-changing hand-balls, which gives a direct free-kick / penalty.
Almost all penalties given for hand ball are not intentional,whats fair about that?
 

antohan

gets aroused by tagline boobs
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
39,348
Location
Montevideo
Ref would definitely rule that out, if he's seen it's a hand.
Shouldn't if it isn't deliberate (inc. "Making yourself big" like a goalie).

If it's accidental it should be a goal. Credit to the attacker for closing down and making the defender twat it aimlessly in a panic. Legit goal AFAIC, football isn't just tekkers.

Why invent a rule against benefiting from the hunger/drive of the attacker and lack of composure from the defender?
 

ManUArfa

Full Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
1,441
Location
....and Solskjaer has won it!
For me his hand was in an unnatural position as if he were covering the area which the ball might land if he didn't get a clean header.


The no goal was a good decision, IMO.
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,946
Location
Where the goals come from.
Almost all penalties given for hand ball are not intentional,whats fair about that?
Well that's just poor refereeing if they aren't intentional.
Though I do have a bit of an issue with both handballs and fouls in non-dangerous situations in the area being penalties.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
52,086
Location
France
For me his hand was in an unnatural position as if he were covering the area which the ball might land if he didn't get a clean header.


The no goal was a good decision, IMO.
His hand was in a totally natural position, you can't control your arm in that situation, I understand the 'foul' though.
He is trying to make a powerful header, and his hands are positioned like that because he is seeking for balance, that's totally unintentional.
 

Sir A1ex

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
27,946
Location
Where the goals come from.
For me his hand was in an unnatural position as if he were covering the area which the ball might land if he didn't get a clean header.

The no goal was a good decision, IMO.
I considered that. But does any player (let alone a £50m Barcelona striker) go for a straightforward header thinking "I might fail to make proper contact with this", really?
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
41,805
I remember a game the other season, where a player was pretty much through on goal, the goalie, outside of his area, had fallen arse over tit, but accidentally managed to handle the ball away from danger, meaning the chance went away.

Ref played on.

Thought that was a shocking decision.

It'd be like getting away with accidentally professional fouling someone because you slipped.
"oh it was accidental">
oh that's ok then