The Steve Cook handball in the first half

[Spijed]

Looked far more obvious than the ones that were given, especially as he seemed to waft the ball away with his right hand.

[cricketfieldclarets]

That was a pen all day long for me. Don’t care that it bounced off his own foot. It’s hand ball. Much like Ben Mees last week should’ve been.

[Spijed]

That was a pen all day long for me. Don’t care that it bounced off his own foot. It’s hand ball. Much like Ben Mees last week should’ve been.

Difference was, he had his arm outstretched.

[summitclaret]

Looked far more obvious than the ones that were given, especially as he seemed to waft the ball away with his right hand.

Sorry both never pens.

[gawthorpe_view]

Cook batted the ball away, stonewall penalty.

VAR crew cocked up/ bottled the first shout, and evened it up with less obvious one.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Does anyone really know what the handball law is? No, okay, I will give my opinion.

The Ben Mee one last week is a penalty all day long. If we aren't having handball for that then we may as well do away with handball.

I've not seen the one's today back again, but......

The first one for their goal, no handball for me. The ball comes over and players in front of him miss the ball and it hits him as he's turning away. The only way that it wouldn't have hit the very upper part of his arm is if he was an amputee.

This one (Cook?), no handball/no penalty. He miss kicks it and it hits his arm/hand on the swivel motion of him trying to clear the ball.

Our penalty, yes that's a penalty. The flight of the ball catches him out and he tries to readjust himself but sticks out an arm.

Maybe the handball law should be changed to the common sense law.

[Spijed]

The first one for their goal, no handball for me. The ball comes over and players in front of him miss the ball and it hits him as he's turning away. The only way that it wouldn't have hit the very upper part of his arm is if he was an amputee.

The rules were changed this season. It doesn't matter if it's deliberate or not. If the ball strikes an attacking players arm regardless then any goal will be disallowed.

[Bin Ont Turf]

The rules were changed this season. It doesn't matter if it's deliberate or not. If the ball strikes an attacking players arm regardless then any goal will be disallowed.

Just seen Match o' t Day and it's still not handball

[dpinsussex]

Does anyone really know what the handball law is? No, okay, I will give my opinion.

The Ben Mee one last week is a penalty all day long. If we aren't having handball for that then we may as well do away with handball.

I've not seen the one's today back again, but......

The first one for their goal, no handball for me. The ball comes over and players in front of him miss the ball and it hits him as he's turning away. The only way that it wouldn't have hit the very upper part of his arm is if he was an amputee.

This one (Cook?), no handball/no penalty. He miss kicks it and it hits his arm/hand on the swivel motion of him trying to clear the ball.

Our penalty, yes that's a penalty. The flight of the ball catches him out and he tries to readjust himself but sticks out an arm.

Maybe the handball law should be changed to the common sense law.

Yes I do. I would suggest searching IFAB app

1st in simple terms a goal cannot be scored if by accident or not comes off an attacking teams arm or hand. - took me a while spot it bit did come off the arm. So no goal. Correct In law.

Second one - no idea from the angles i have seen it's a pen.

3rd clearly use of arm away from body it's a penalty. Rest of it is irrelevant.

Hate to say but referees use "sense" when applying law. There is when questions occur.

Hope that helps
Dp

[boatshed bill]

Where does the arm become the shoulder? This is subject to interpretation.
Cook's was a clear and deliberate hand ball in my opinion.

[claretspice]

More a pen than the one we got. Surprised and disappointed that MOTD didn't show both for completeness

[Bordeauxclaret]

Looked accidental to me.

[SalisburyClaret]

VAR was 100% right today in interpreting the law - obviously the laws didn’t need changing in the first place and that must have been a hell of a lunch where the old duffers sat down and decided that this was the way forward.

[Paul Waine]

Handball rule was changed at the beginning of the season: attacking team can't score a goal if the ball has touched "hand" of any attacking player leading up to ball going into goal.

Hand ball, when ball touches hand or arm of player. Does that include shoulder? Based on offsides being given based on position of armpit (!) then it appears that the arm must extend all the way to the top to where the arm joins the torso.

Let's look for some diagrams of footballers arms and shoulders in tomorrow's papers.

UTC

PS: We can, of course, consider that we've got something back for Chris Wood's disallowed goal at Leicester and Arsenal's winner at t'Turf a couple of seasons back and.....

[tarkys_ears]

He hit that away with his hand.

Couldn't have been more obvious

[dsr]

Does anyone really know what the handball law is? No, okay, I will give my opinion.

The Ben Mee one last week is a penalty all day long. If we aren't having handball for that then we may as well do away with handball.

I've not seen the one's today back again, but......

The first one for their goal, no handball for me. The ball comes over and players in front of him miss the ball and it hits him as he's turning away. The only way that it wouldn't have hit the very upper part of his arm is if he was an amputee.

This one (Cook?), no handball/no penalty. He miss kicks it and it hits his arm/hand on the swivel motion of him trying to clear the ball.

Our penalty, yes that's a penalty. The flight of the ball catches him out and he tries to readjust himself but sticks out an arm.

Maybe the handball law should be changed to the common sense law.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... misconduct

Ben Mee last week:

... it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
# directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close;
# if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger

So no penalty because his hand was by his side (the guidance also mentions that if you don't have time to pull your arm out of the way).

Cook first half:

It is usually an offence if a player touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
# the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

So no penalty because the ball bounced off his foot onto his hand even though his hand was in "an unnatural position". He deliberately kicked the ball and by fluke it bounced up and hit his arm - not a penalty.

Their disallowed goal (Billings):

It is an offence if a player ... gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
# scores in the opponents’ goal
# creates a goal-scoring opportunity

On that basis, the first Bournemouth goal probably shouldn't have been disallowed, because Billings didn't gain control of the ball. Although he did create a goalscoring opportunity without gaining possession, which is how the law has been interpreted all season; technically, an accidental hand pass is not handball, accidental hand control is. What a stupid law. Surely this one has to be changed and go back to the new defender's handball law (which I think works as well as can be expected) for both sides.

The third one was a penalty. He stretched his arm out and blocked the ball. All this "unnatural position" stuff is only relevant when the ball hits you; when you hit the ball, the old rule about deliberate handball is still in force. And I agree he stretched out his arm; Eddie Howe's implication that he stretched out his shoulder is a physiological impossibility.

So I reckon your "common sense" approach is right, BOT. All that remains is for you to codify it and submit it to the Laws committee!!!!!

[tarkys_ears]

Who gives a ****.

They handballed at least 3 times, that's clearly part of Eddies cheating tactics.

They got caught out.

Am I sorry for them? Am I ****.

[Clarethalffull]

Cook has some previous too...

[tarkys_ears]

Cook has some previous too...

Clearly playing the wrong role isn't he!

[Colburn_Claret]

I thought the first was accidental, it would have been harsh if it was given.
Kings goal should have stood as well.
The penalty given was a stone waller. The guy moved his arm to the ball, deliberately, and made contact. Sad for them, but the right result.

[bfcjg]

VAR correct with both decisions IMHO.

[bob-the-scutter]

We won 3.0............ that's all folks!

[Walton]

Cook one isn't handball, as BoT and dsr say, it was a miskick and the touch wasn't deliberate. The laws of the game are quite prescriptive about it.

[AlargeClaret]

They were bit unlucky on their 1st but our 1st pen shout was a better one for sure . The pen plus disallowed goal was stonewall imo as he controlled the ball and influenced play ,even though was upper arm.

I’m presuming that upper arm but “ Ben Mee style “ where you’re purposely holding arms at side and no benefit is achieved is allowed .whereas upper arm with no attempt to avoid and some advantage achieved is a pen

[ClaretTony]

Kings goal should have stood as well.

I think the new handball rule is ridiculous but under the current rules the goal should not have stood.

[Blackburn_Claret]

Both of their goals were perfectly good goals we got very lucky

[Rileybobs]

Both of their goals were perfectly good goals we got very lucky

No they weren’t. There was a handball in the build up to each goal so they were exactly the opposite of perfectly good goals.

[joey13]

Cook one isn't handball, as BoT and dsr say, it was a miskick and the touch wasn't deliberate. The laws of the game are quite prescriptive about it.

Of course it’s handball it’s hand to ball

[ClaretTony]

Both of their goals were perfectly good goals we got very lucky

Don't think anyone would question there being anything wrong with their second goal, it just happened to come following a clear handball at the other end. As for the first, under the new rules it was no a legitimate goal.

[ClaretTony]

Of course it’s handball it’s hand to ball

That's my take on it having seen it again. It has come up off him but he's made a definite move with his arm to play the ball.

[Blackburn_Claret]

No they weren’t. There was a handball in the build up to each goal so they were exactly the opposite of perfectly good goals.

There was only one handball and it wasn't awarded

[ClaretTony]

There was only one handball and it wasn't awarded

I think you need to check up on what is and what isn't handball now. Both of the VAR decisions were absolutely correct.

[Rileybobs]

There was only one handball and it wasn't awarded

You’re wrong.

[Blackburn_Claret]

I think you need to check up on what is and what isn't handball now. Both of the VAR decisions were absolutely correct.

Is the shoulder handball? If so then both decisions were correct

[taio]

Is the shoulder handball? If so then both decisions were correct

The second one certainly didn't hit his shoulder

[ClaretTony]

Is the shoulder handball? If so then both decisions were correct

Shoulder is NOT handball - neither of those yesterday were shoulder. They were in the area described by PGMOL as arm. I don't like the rule but that's the one we play to so both decisions were absolutely correct.

[Blackburn_Claret]

The second one certainly didn't hit his shoulder

So the first one did then?

[ClaretTony]

The second one certainly didn't hit his shoulder

They've shown the first one today from an angle which shows that the first one wasn't shoulder either.

[Blackburn_Claret]

Shoulder is NOT handball - neither of those yesterday were shoulder. They were in the area described by PGMOL as arm. I don't like the rule but that's the one we play to so both decisions were absolutely correct.

The first goal did NOT hit his arm

[taio]

So the first one did then?

To be honest would need to see it again. But I understand that according to the laws of the game it was the correct decision. Anyway you said both and the second was a clear pen.

[Stalbansclaret]

Having seen the goals on MOtD it seems pretty clear to me :
1. The first "goal"should have been given as the ball has hit the top of Billings' shoulder..that's not handball.I remember Mario Balotelli deliberately scoring with his shoulder (v Norwich ?) for Man City.

2. The second offence was a blatant penalty...as it looked in the ground at the time, because the full back clearly stuck his arm out at an angle away from his body and the ball connected with the outside of his upper arm.The arm is handball. If Mike Dean had done his job and just given the penalty at the time it would have saved a lot of bother.

What is also clear is that we won 3-0 and it was a tremendously entertaining afternoon.

[Rileybobs]

Having seen the goals on MOtD it seems pretty clear to me :
1. The first "goal"should have been given as the ball has hit the top of Billings' shoulder..that's not handball.I remember Mario Balotelli deliberately scoring with his shoulder (v Norwich ?) for Man City.

2. The second offence was a blatant penalty...as it looked in the ground at the time, because the full back clearly stuck his arm out at an angle away from his body and the ball connected with the outside of his upper arm.The arm is handball. If Mike Dean had done his job and just given the penalty at the time it would have saved a lot of bother.

What is also clear is that we won 3-0 and it was a tremendously entertaining afternoon.

Can’t agree with your first point. The ball hit the top of Billing’s arm which as far as I’m concerned is not classed as shoulder. Had it hit the top of his shoulder the ball would have deflected vertically.

The shoulder is surely classed as the horizontal part at the top of the arm. Anything below that is arm.

[Zlatan]

The first goal did NOT hit his arm

The first one DID hit his arm


[I can use caps too, only I’m also right]

[ksrclaret]

The ball hit the top of Billing’s arm which as far as I’m concerned is not classed as shoulder. Had it hit the top of his shoulder the ball would have deflected vertically.

You're confusing the ball moving in an upwards direction, with the ball moving vertically there.

[Rileybobs]

You're confusing the ball moving in an upwards direction, with the ball moving vertically there.

Can an upwards direction not be vertically? Obviously I wasn’t claiming that the ball would deflect at exactly 90 degrees.

[Blackburn_Claret]

The first one DID hit his arm


[I can use caps too, only I’m also right]

No it didnt and the CAPS was in reply to the post i was quoting

[ksrclaret]

Can an upwards direction not be vertically? Obviously I wasn’t claiming that the ball would deflect at exactly 90 degrees.

It can if the direction is at right angles with an horizon, so the pitch might be a good benchmark to use there. Otherwise, the ball would simply move in a non-vertical direction with a positive incline.

[taio]

No it didnt and the CAPS was in reply to the post i was quoting

What about the second one?

[Blackburn_Claret]

Having seen the goals on MOtD it seems pretty clear to me :
1. The first "goal"should have been given as the ball has hit the top of Billings' shoulder..that's not handball.I remember Mario Balotelli deliberately scoring with his shoulder (v Norwich ?) for Man City.

.it was a clear handball the UTC mafia said so

[Blackburn_Claret]

What about the second one?

I dont think its a penalty. Ben Mees against Southampton and Cooks yesterday were penalties