Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hayden used his arm/hand to control the ball because he lost control of it ffs That is so different from the situation we observed with Colback. As for the rest of your post, I've already answered it several times and you're not understanding - it simply isn't handball in any situation. Quoted for posterity. You're being arrogant and ignorant tbh, not to mention patronising, but I'm sure there'll be no penalties given this season in similar situations to Colback's, so you've nothing to worry about. Even if penalties are given in the exact same situation, it makes no difference - it still isn't a penalty and would just be an incorrect decision. So if it's a penalty, it wasn't a penalty. Like I said, it's the 'la la la not listening' method. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy84 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Standard away game under Benitez, see we really struggled with the Elland road atmosphere Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hayden used his arm/hand to control the ball because he lost control of it ffs That is so different from the situation we observed with Colback. As for the rest of your post, I've already answered it several times and you're not understanding - it simply isn't handball in any situation. Quoted for posterity. You're being arrogant and ignorant tbh, not to mention patronising, but I'm sure there'll be no penalties given this season in similar situations to Colback's, so you've nothing to worry about. Even if penalties are given in the exact same situation, it makes no difference - it still isn't a penalty and would just be an incorrect decision. So if it's a penalty, it wasn't a penalty. Like I said, it's the 'la la la not listening' method. What are you blabbering on about. It's dead simple, by the letter of the law, it wasn't a pen. The fact that some idiot ref may have incorrectly given it doesn't even enter the equation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 There is no way that is a pen Ball struck about 25mph from 1 yard away, arm in a normal position when jumping. Take his arm away and it'd of hit his torso anyway. Think people need reminding the rule is that handball must be deliberate. There is no way he deliberately moved his arm to stop the ball then. The 'natural sway of your arm' argument doesn't really work when you're diving in to block the ball. He makes a situation where his arm is out away from his body when he knows the ball is coming his way, it's his choice. He didn't deliberately stop the ball with his arm, so it's not a penalty. There is no way in that short distance with the ball travelling that fast he'd have the time to think and put his arm in front of the ball (also noting his arm was stationary throughout and didn't move towards the ball). There is no argument here, it's just simply not a penalty. no argument. From Graham Poll Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand. The rules are nowhere near as simple as you're making out like, otherwise there would literally never be a penalty given for handball. From the FA's website: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct#WQQIIAOeJPSscHJY.99 Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. It was not deliberate. The following must be considered: - The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) There was absolutely zero movement of the hand towards the ball. - The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) There was about 2 yards between Colback and the ball when it was struck - The position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement Which means the position of Colback's arm is irrelevant - Touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation - Hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation Because "refs have given them before" doesn't make it a penalty, or mean it should even be discussed as one. Previous bad calls do not set a precedent to start giving penalties. The laws of the game in this situation are pretty clear, there is absolutely no reason to give a penalty in that situation. It's not even close to being a penalty. Christ almighty, so because the rules are as you interpret them, despite there being numerous examples of professional referees interpreting them differently to you, there's no argument and no discussion despite this being an argument and this being a discussion. Also known as the 'la la la not listening' method. You are wrong KI. It wasn't a penalty, simple. Wrong? I never said it was a penalty. I said that it's in the 'seen them given' category and would have been soft, because rightly or wrongly, we've seen them given. Figures is the one living in the rule book and ignoring the reality where they're often given as penalties. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
U2 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Most of the atmosphere picked up by the SKY microphones was coming from our lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hayden used his arm/hand to control the ball because he lost control of it ffs That is so different from the situation we observed with Colback. As for the rest of your post, I've already answered it several times and you're not understanding - it simply isn't handball in any situation. Quoted for posterity. You're being arrogant and ignorant tbh, not to mention patronising, but I'm sure there'll be no penalties given this season in similar situations to Colback's, so you've nothing to worry about. Even if penalties are given in the exact same situation, it makes no difference - it still isn't a penalty and would just be an incorrect decision. You are right. The law says it wasn't a pen. I hate this, "I've seen them given", bullshit. It was as much a pen as the second goal was offside. You hating it doesn't change the fact that, ye nah, we've seen them given. Fucking hell man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 There is no way that is a pen Ball struck about 25mph from 1 yard away, arm in a normal position when jumping. Take his arm away and it'd of hit his torso anyway. Think people need reminding the rule is that handball must be deliberate. There is no way he deliberately moved his arm to stop the ball then. The 'natural sway of your arm' argument doesn't really work when you're diving in to block the ball. He makes a situation where his arm is out away from his body when he knows the ball is coming his way, it's his choice. He didn't deliberately stop the ball with his arm, so it's not a penalty. There is no way in that short distance with the ball travelling that fast he'd have the time to think and put his arm in front of the ball (also noting his arm was stationary throughout and didn't move towards the ball). There is no argument here, it's just simply not a penalty. no argument. From Graham Poll Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand. The rules are nowhere near as simple as you're making out like, otherwise there would literally never be a penalty given for handball. From the FA's website: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct#WQQIIAOeJPSscHJY.99 Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. It was not deliberate. The following must be considered: - The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) There was absolutely zero movement of the hand towards the ball. - The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) There was about 2 yards between Colback and the ball when it was struck - The position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement Which means the position of Colback's arm is irrelevant - Touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation - Hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation Because "refs have given them before" doesn't make it a penalty, or mean it should even be discussed as one. Previous bad calls do not set a precedent to start giving penalties. The laws of the game in this situation are pretty clear, there is absolutely no reason to give a penalty in that situation. It's not even close to being a penalty. Christ almighty, so because the rules are as you interpret them, despite there being numerous examples of professional referees interpreting them differently to you, there's no argument and no discussion despite this being an argument and this being a discussion. Also known as the 'la la la not listening' method. You are wrong KI. It wasn't a penalty, simple. Wrong? I never said it was a penalty. I said that it's in the 'seen them given' category and would have been soft, because rightly or wrongly, we've seen them given. Figures is the one living in the rule book and ignoring the reality where they're often given as penalties. So what you are actually saying is that refs sometimes get decisions wrong? Why not just say that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hayden used his arm/hand to control the ball because he lost control of it ffs That is so different from the situation we observed with Colback. As for the rest of your post, I've already answered it several times and you're not understanding - it simply isn't handball in any situation. Quoted for posterity. You're being arrogant and ignorant tbh, not to mention patronising, but I'm sure there'll be no penalties given this season in similar situations to Colback's, so you've nothing to worry about. Even if penalties are given in the exact same situation, it makes no difference - it still isn't a penalty and would just be an incorrect decision. So if it's a penalty, it wasn't a penalty. Like I said, it's the 'la la la not listening' method. What are you blabbering on about. It's dead simple, by the letter of the law, it wasn't a pen. The fact that some idiot ref may have incorrectly given it doesn't even enter the equation. So a refs being wrong and giving them as pens means nothing? What a load of crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Not even sure KI knows what his argument is now like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 save all this "was it a penalty" shit for an international break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 There is no way that is a pen Ball struck about 25mph from 1 yard away, arm in a normal position when jumping. Take his arm away and it'd of hit his torso anyway. Think people need reminding the rule is that handball must be deliberate. There is no way he deliberately moved his arm to stop the ball then. The 'natural sway of your arm' argument doesn't really work when you're diving in to block the ball. He makes a situation where his arm is out away from his body when he knows the ball is coming his way, it's his choice. He didn't deliberately stop the ball with his arm, so it's not a penalty. There is no way in that short distance with the ball travelling that fast he'd have the time to think and put his arm in front of the ball (also noting his arm was stationary throughout and didn't move towards the ball). There is no argument here, it's just simply not a penalty. no argument. From Graham Poll Regarding handball they now ask the referee to consider the proximity of the potential offender to the person last playing the ball, the speed of the ball and importantly whether the offender's arms are in a natural or unnatural position. So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? If the answer to that is yes then it is correct to penalise that player even though it used to be argued that was ball to hand. The rules are nowhere near as simple as you're making out like, otherwise there would literally never be a penalty given for handball. From the FA's website: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct#WQQIIAOeJPSscHJY.99 Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. It was not deliberate. The following must be considered: - The movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) There was absolutely zero movement of the hand towards the ball. - The distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) There was about 2 yards between Colback and the ball when it was struck - The position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement Which means the position of Colback's arm is irrelevant - Touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation - Hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an infringement Doesn't apply in this situation Because "refs have given them before" doesn't make it a penalty, or mean it should even be discussed as one. Previous bad calls do not set a precedent to start giving penalties. The laws of the game in this situation are pretty clear, there is absolutely no reason to give a penalty in that situation. It's not even close to being a penalty. Christ almighty, so because the rules are as you interpret them, despite there being numerous examples of professional referees interpreting them differently to you, there's no argument and no discussion despite this being an argument and this being a discussion. Also known as the 'la la la not listening' method. You are wrong KI. It wasn't a penalty, simple. Wrong? I never said it was a penalty. I said that it's in the 'seen them given' category and would have been soft, because rightly or wrongly, we've seen them given. Figures is the one living in the rule book and ignoring the reality where they're often given as penalties. So what you are actually saying is that refs sometimes get decisions wrong? Why not just say that. Read what I said instead of making assumptions tbf. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Not even sure KI knows what his argument is now like He's lost me now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaus Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 We still haven't resolved the God debate from the last international break. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Not even sure KI knows what his argument is now like Your argument ignores reality. As far as your concerned there's no ambiguity and the rules are clear. Penalty decisions like that are regularly inconsistent though, so ye know, there's that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 We still haven't resolved the God debate from the last international break. We did man. Benitez is god. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 lmao if you don't know by now that KI already realized you were talking about different things 5 posts ago but through sheer immature inertia he's unable to stop running his gob for another 25 pages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Again: So the question of intent is now, did the offender deliberately place his arms in an unnatural position to increase the chances of the ball hitting him? In spite of whatever you might say about Poll I imagine he's probably in a better position than me or you to discuss what referees are told. By all means though just stick your fingers in your ears and keep on repeating that deliberate means deliberate even though it's obviously never meant that in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Not even sure KI knows what his argument is now like He's lost me now. You were lost from the beginning considering you didn't read what you were replying to and just piggy backed on figures's posts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Not even sure KI knows what his argument is now like Your argument ignores reality. As far as your concerned there's no ambiguity and the rules are clear. Penalty decisions like that are regularly inconsistent though, so ye know, there's that. The rules are fucking clear man. The problem is that ref's misjudge the action, not the rule. In this case, the ref got it correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Yknaaaa it's a routine win when the main argument is about a decision given in our favour that was inconsequential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Can't believe there's a two page argument about a dubious penalty claim. I thought Monk was clutching at straws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 No pen. Pipe down N-O. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 lmao if you don't know by now that KI already realized you were talking about different things 5 posts ago but through sheer immature inertia he's unable to stop running his gob for another 25 pages Says the sugar pig who hasn't been able to halt the diet that started in a petrol station 20 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 dont they only give pens from close range blasts at people if the arms are out away from the body, and in this case Colback had his arms tucked in and it hit his elbow? so correct no pen. I would have been pissed off but not at all surprised if it had been given. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackandWhite Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 We'll always have these arguements so long as some laws are left open to the referee's own personal interpretation. Just like denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity and other laws left to the opinion of the referee some will decide it is and some will decide it's not. The ref, correctly in my opinion, decided there was no deliberate handball for the incident. But other refs would see it was deleberiate handball as he blocks the cross comin into the box. The laws dont give a clear definition of what is deleberate handball it only gives a few pointers and suggestions to help the referee judge. If it said "a handball is when the ball hits a hand or arm" it'd be black and white and leeds would have had a peno. But it's not all black and white like that at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now