Handball Rule

[footy666]

After last nights VAR decision I am baffled why people would disagree with the refs decision.

I am baffled how Michael Owen, Hargreaves and Rio all think it should NOT have been a penalty.

The player blocked the shot with his arm. His movement was towards the ball and his arms were out. It could not be more blatant. Yes it's unlucky and Yes he probably did not intend to block it with his arm, but he has blocked the ball from potentially resulting in a goal. Yes - it's unlikely it was going to trouble the keeper and it may have even been going over the bar, but you cannot say for certain that it was missing and can't assume the keeper will save it, the keeper may well have fumbled it like he did with Rashford's shot earlier and spilt it to a United player.


If anyone thinks it was not a penalty.......Let's put this another way. If the exact same thing happend BUT instead the defender was on the goal line and the ball was 100% going to go into the back of the net, does your decision change? Do you still say NO PENALTY?

If you still say NO PENALTY then I am even more baffled.

If you now say YES in that circumstance it should be a penalty..... then it's not so much about the player being in a natural position or not, but more about where the ball is potentially going.


For me the way the rule should be written is obvious....

If the ball hits your arm and you have your arm by your side then no penalty should be given, unless A: You move towards the ball or B: You are the last man and block a shot which was clearly and obviously going to go into the goal.

In any other situation where the ball hits a players arm inside the penalty area - a penalty should be given.

Whether it's intentional or not is irrelevant.

[murf]

The rule says it has to be intentional so, by you saying it was unintentional, then you should think it should NOT be a penalty.

Making yourself large is by my logic intentional so it should have been handball.

Having said that.... it is debatable whether he was making himself bigger and the ref initially said it wasn't. VAR should, by definition, only be used to overturn clear errors. This wasn't clear so the ref's decision should NOT have been overturned.

Clear as mud.....

[footy666]

The rule says it has to be intentional so, by you saying it was unintentional, then you should think it should NOT be a penalty.

Making yourself large is by my logic intentional so it should have been handball.

Having said that.... it is debatable whether he was making himself bigger and the ref initially said it wasn't. VAR should, by definition, only be used to overturn clear errors. This wasn't clear so the ref's decision should NOT have been overturned.

Clear as mud.....

By me saying it was 'probably unintentional' - I am saying it's likely that he did not deliberately intend to block it with his arm, but that's irrelevant - the point is that he's got his arms out and is moving towards the ball, which is one aspect the ref needs to consider alongside the distance between Dalot and the defender.

1. He moves his arms towards the ball.
2. He was not that close to Dalot.

Therefore the ref counts this as 'deliberate handball'.

What Rio Ferdinand was saying was that the player was in a natural position as you can't always have your arms by your sides or behind your back.....I understand his point, players cannot always get their arms out of the way and do not intentionally mean to block shots or handle the ball, but this is irrelevant, you cannot allow a shot to be blocked in this manner, there is no way you would say NO PENALTY if the defender did this on the goal line. Whether it's intentional or not, you cannot jump towards the ball with your arms out and block someone's shot.

I am confused - you say it should have been handball..... then you say it wasn't clear so they should not have gone to VAR. It doesn't make much sense.

He's jumped towards the ball and it could not be clearer that it hit his arm. What is not clear about either of those things?

[murf]

VAR only turns over clear errors. I think it was marginally handball but the ref initially saying it wasn't means that should have stood as it was not clear enough for a VAR overturn.

So... correct decision got to incorrectly.

[hancockjr]

I know the handball laws and guidance and that was handball. He was trying to block the shot and his arms were out more than they needed to be - he was making himself “bigger”.

I don know the VAR protocol for the Champions league so cannot comment, but if the ref himself is deciding I’m not sure if “clear and obvious ” required.

What amazes me is pundits in the studio are paid to comment on football matches, don’t learn the laws / guidance, yet still feel they can deliver their opinion as fact. And argue about it with Philip Walton.