Not in my book it doesn't. Deliberate is when you purposely direct your hand or arms towards the ball. If you don't, it is accidental.
You make yourself big by making your body as big as possible (including your upper body, and thus your arms).
To award something a referee has to be reasonably sure that a player has committed an offence (in this case, deliberately also). If a referee isn't certain he should assume that the player hasn't committed an offence.
And I have checked a FIFA website about the rules of the game. Nothing on that states that the handball rule has changed from the original rules of the game. Ie: it is only a free kick or penalty if you intentionally handball. (wherever on the pitch that may be).
The ruling has changed. why are you so reluctant to believe it?
Not in my book it doesn't. Deliberate is when you purposely direct your hand or arms towards the ball. If you don't, it is accidental.
You make yourself big by making your body as big as possible (including your upper body, and thus your arms).
To award something a referee has to be reasonably sure that a player has committed an offence (in this case, deliberately also). If a referee isn't certain he should assume that the player hasn't committed an offence.
And I have checked a FIFA website about the rules of the game. Nothing on that states that the handball rule has changed from the original rules of the game. Ie: it is only a free kick or penalty if you intentionally handball. (wherever on the pitch that may be).
From the link in walterwhite's post (cheers, saved me looking it up) :
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.
In other words, as I said, if the player deliberately places his arm/hand in a position that anticipates where the ball might go, and the ball hits it, it's a foul and that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of deliberate IMO. Making yourself big shouldn't include hands and arms unless you are the goallie!
The rule hasn't changed according to the laws of the game, according to that article.
Only the interpretation of what is deliberate. That is only an interpretation - not a rule.
I would say that having your ands and arms behind your body is not a natural position. Having them beside you (if not raised up) is a perfectly natural position) so that shouldn't result in an offence (unless it is obvious that a player has directed his hand towards the ball)
If I was the ref I'd interpret it as deliberate. Players sometimes raise their arms like that in a situation near to goal "just in case" - anticipating the possibility of deflecting a shot or pass. If the ball does then make contact with hand or arm, it counts as deliberate in my book. He would have known that by raising hand and arm he was at risk of giving away a penalty if the ball hit it.
As for the red card, well that's down to the ref not the replays and from the refs perspective, he was entitled to judge that it was a clear goalscoring opportunity. I don't know if it was an intended shot chip or pass even after endless replays so the ref had no chance of knowing for sure and he with his linesman had to make a judgement call. If we can't tell, who are we to say it was a mistake?
Change the rule altogether and make the ‘deliberate or not’ decision completely redundant.
Any ball contact with the hand/arm should be deemed an offense whether deliberate or not.
Put the onus on the player to move their hand/arms out of the way; if they can’t do that, for whatever reason, then it’s ‘handball’.
The rule hasn't changed according to the laws of the game, according to that article.
Only the interpretation of what is deliberate. That is only an interpretation - not a rule.
I would say that having your ands and arms behind your body is not a natural position. Having them beside you (if not raised up) is a perfectly natural position) so that shouldn't result in an offence (unless it is obvious that a player has directed his hand towards the ball)
I give up. I've shown you the link and you've chosen to ignore it so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
The article states that is how the rule should be interpreted. It is a guideline. This is not the same as saying that is the rule itself.
Yes, the interpretation has changed, for the better IMO. But it is the official interpretation from IFAB and is therefore binding on referees, pundits and all. Even Alan Shearer. Refs obviously still have an element of discretion though, as they are asked to also consider the proximity of potentially offending players to whoever last played the ball, speed of the ball etc.
Happy 50TH. MOTD. All.for £2.88 per week., unlike some crook who charges us £600 plus per year to view same package.
Are you seriously comparing the price of a once a week highlights package to several live games a week? That's without factoring in that your £600 pays for way more than football.
Are you seriously comparing the price of a once a week highlights package to several live games a week? That's without factoring in that your £600 pays for way more than football.
If i only wanted football, what is the minimum i would have to pay Sky and BT?.
Are you seriously comparing the price of a once a week highlights package to several live games a week? That's without factoring in that your £600 pays for way more than football.[/QUO
How much.does sky charge for same package
Lot more,than.BBC, I don't watch much live games,anyway, MOTD. suits me fine but still pay the obscene. Amount to.murdoch. Corporation.know people who.refuse to.fund the crook one penny, which.I.can.understand totally .
Are you seriously comparing the price of a once a week highlights package to several live games a week? That's without factoring in that your £600 pays for way more than football.[/QUO
How much.does sky charge for same package
Lot more,than.BBC, I don't watch much live games,anyway, MOTD. suits me fine but still pay the obscene. Amount to.murdoch. Corporation.know people who.refuse to.fund the crook one penny, which.I.can.understand totally .
Considering how much Sky have to pay for the rights I think the Sky Sports fee is pretty reasonable personally.
The difference is with Sky you have the choice if you want it or not.
BBC you have to pay.
Well if you are one day late om.payments they cut you off, whilst BBC don't operate a policy like that, we switched to Virgin which is way too high still but nowhere as bad as sky
Extract from the FIFA Laws of Football, Law 12 (fouls and misconduct)
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following........ offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
In any incident involving the handling of the ball inside the penalty area, the referee has to first determine whether or not the ball actually struck the defender's hand. He must then decide whether or not it was a deliberate act. He may consider, for instance, whether the attacking player deliberately kicked the ball AT the defender's hand or arm with the intention of gaining a penalty, and whether or not the ball came at him from so close, or so quickly, that he could not possibly have avoided it.
One rule of thumb is whether he considers the incident to be "hand to ball" or "ball to hand".
If he decides that the act was deliberate he must then consider whether or not a definite goal would have resulted, or whether a clear goalscoring opportunity was denied. If he believes either occurred, then a red card is mandatory.
And he has to decide all this instantly having seen it only once, without any technological assistance or referral to TV playbacks.
It never fails to amaze me the number of people who have been watching / playing football for many years (including professional players, commentators and pundits) who have never bothered to learn the laws of the game.
All these controversies about handballs / penalties / red cards come from people who get the opportunity to look at any given incident many times over and still cannot agree whether a penalty should or shouldn't be given.
The referee on the other hand, just gets on with the job and stands by his decision right or wrong.
If anybody out there wants to get up out of their armchairs and do the job themselves instead of gobbing off about people who actually do it, Please click on the link below.
Comments
The ruling has changed. why are you so reluctant to believe it?
Here is a link: as you won't look for yourself:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2284201/GRAHAM-POLL--The-Official-Line-The-new-handball-rule-explained-Newcastle-got-lucky-Fox-penalty.html
From the link in walterwhite's post (cheers, saved me looking it up) : In other words, as I said, if the player deliberately places his arm/hand in a position that anticipates where the ball might go, and the ball hits it, it's a foul and that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation of deliberate IMO. Making yourself big shouldn't include hands and arms unless you are the goallie!
The rule hasn't changed according to the laws of the game, according to that article.
Only the interpretation of what is deliberate. That is only an interpretation - not a rule.
I would say that having your ands and arms behind your body is not a natural position. Having them beside you (if not raised up) is a perfectly natural position) so that shouldn't result in an offence (unless it is obvious that a player has directed his hand towards the ball)
Change the rule altogether and make the ‘deliberate or not’ decision completely redundant.
Any ball contact with the hand/arm should be deemed an offense whether deliberate or not.
Put the onus on the player to move their hand/arms out of the way; if they can’t do that, for whatever reason, then it’s ‘handball’.
Alan Shearer would back this suggestion..........
I give up. I've shown you the link and you've chosen to ignore it so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
No I haven't.
The article states that is how the rule should be interpreted. It is a guideline. This is not the same as saying that is the rule itself.
Yes, the interpretation has changed, for the better IMO. But it is the official interpretation from IFAB and is therefore binding on referees, pundits and all. Even Alan Shearer. Refs obviously still have an element of discretion though, as they are asked to also consider the proximity of potentially offending players to whoever last played the ball, speed of the ball etc.
Are you seriously comparing the price of a once a week highlights package to several live games a week? That's without factoring in that your £600 pays for way more than football.
If i only wanted football, what is the minimum i would have to pay Sky and BT?.
That's not the point. You might as well compare the costs of watching Holby City to Sky Sports.
I only wanted to compare the price between Sky and BT for sport, not terrestrial tv sport.
BBC you have to pay.
I thought Ruud Gullit was plain wrong.
It wasn;t deliberate handball and shouldn't have been a penalty.
Even less a red card.
Ohhhhhhhhh, yes it does.
Extract from the FIFA Laws of Football, Law 12 (fouls and misconduct)
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)
Full laws of the game are at:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf
The laws go on to state:
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the
following........ offences:
• serious foul play
• violent conduct
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity
by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within
his own penalty area)
In any incident involving the handling of the ball inside the penalty area, the referee has to first determine whether or not the ball actually struck the defender's hand. He must then decide whether or not it was a deliberate act. He may consider, for instance, whether the attacking player deliberately kicked the ball AT the defender's hand or arm with the intention of gaining a penalty, and whether or not the ball came at him from so close, or so quickly, that he could not possibly have avoided it.
One rule of thumb is whether he considers the incident to be "hand to ball" or "ball to hand".
If he decides that the act was deliberate he must then consider whether or not a definite goal would have resulted, or whether a clear goalscoring opportunity was denied. If he believes either occurred, then a red card is mandatory.
And he has to decide all this instantly having seen it only once, without any technological assistance or referral to TV playbacks.
It never fails to amaze me the number of people who have been watching / playing football for many years (including professional players, commentators and pundits) who have never bothered to learn the laws of the game.
All these controversies about handballs / penalties / red cards come from people who get the opportunity to look at any given incident many times over and still cannot agree whether a penalty should or shouldn't be given.
The referee on the other hand, just gets on with the job and stands by his decision right or wrong.
If anybody out there wants to get up out of their armchairs and do the job themselves instead of gobbing off about people who actually do it, Please click on the link below.
http://www.thefa.com/my-football/referee/general-information
There's an old navy saying: Put up or shut up.