I'm sure there won't be any problems

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52208435

Cue all players wearing long sleeves with stitched join being at the elbow, badges removed that may have given a clue to where the shoulder is.

Players and clubs in shock bend the rules to gain an advantage so as to win at all cost

Ludicrous.

Handball should either be your hand, or your full arm. This will just lead to players using their upper arm/shoulder to block the ball.

Doesn’t it mean where the sleeve joins the main body of the shirt?

I.e where the white meets the black on the Juve shirt below? As a result anything that hits the white part of the sleeve (or black on the opposite side) will be deemed as handball.

burnmark wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:25 pm

Doesn’t it mean where the sleeve joins the main body of the shirt?

I.e where the white meets the black on the Juve shirt below?

Yes. Not sure why there’s any controversy. That’s always where I’ve thought the arm met the body according to the offside law.

The lawmakers really don’t help themselves with the language they use sometimes as you can see by the confusion that this has caused.

burnmark wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:25 pm

Doesn’t it mean where the sleeve joins the main body of the shirt?

I.e where the white meets the black on the Juve shirt below? As a result anything that hits the white part of the sleeve (or black on the opposite side) will be deemed as handball.

No. The other end of the sleeve. That's why it's called the "T shirt line" by IFAB not the "seamed bit on the body / start of the sleeve" line.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:01 pm

No. The other end of the sleeve. That's why it's called the "T shirt line" by IFAB not the "seamed bit on the body / start of the sleeve" line.

Are you sure? I read it as where the sleeve is stitched to the body of the t-shirt. The very fact that we’re debating this shows how badly the law makers can word a simple rule.

I've seen players 'shoulder' the ball back to a goalkeeper loads of times. Mike Duff used to do it sometimes.

Surely the rule doesn't penalise anything below the line draw on Burnmark's post.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:06 pm

Are you sure? I read it as where the sleeve is stitched to the body of the t-shirt. The very fact that we’re debating this shows how badly the law makers can word a simple rule.

I'm not sure that the rule (or rather interpretation) in the media is the full guidance from IFAB but both on three grounds it must be the end of the shirt:
1 If it was the seam at the shoulder, that wouldn't be a change
2 The context is spoken of as making some handballs no longer handballs, so it must be a relaxation
3 Unless you are a very sad individual, the "T shirt line" (which I think is what IFAB have called it) is partway down the arm.

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:11 pm

Surely the rule doesn't penalise anything below the line draw on Burnmark's post.

The current interpretation does penalise this area highlighted.
The revised interpretation won't.

thatdberight wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:20 pm

I'm not sure that the rule (or rather interpretation) in the media is the full guidance from IFAB but both on three grounds it must be the end of the shirt:
1 If it was the seam at the shoulder, that wouldn't be a change
2 The context is spoken of as making some handballs no longer handballs, so it must be a relaxation
3 Unless you are a very sad individual, the "T shirt line" (which I think is what IFAB have called it) is partway down the arm.

Fair enough. It seems ludicrous to define an arbitrary line based on the end of the sleeve of a garment that will vary quite significantly based on the design and size of the person wearing it. Totally bizarre.

I thought people were way off the mark when they were suggesting teams will have long sleeves to gain an advantage but if you’re right they almost certainly will. Of course, the sleeve could be longer than where this line is supposed to be drawn but the VAR will certainly be influenced by where the physical sleeve ends.

Definition of ‘T Shirt’ line below from BBC and ‘Inside World Football’. I’m still sticking with my view detailed above.

Good. I wrote to the Premier League and made the suggestion following the Bournemouth match and also made the point on the Daily Telegraph website, where the Burnley strip had a quite clear distinction in its manufacture between body of strip and arm in contrast to the Bournemouth strip which had a diagonal seam and no distinction, thus the problems arose in that match.

Thank Pstotto for bringing good sense and sensibility to bear on the playground squabble.

This has restored my faith in culture and my relationship to it, where I've said something sensible and it's been sensibly received.

Sensible exists!!!!!! Oh thank you God!

If the ball touches the claret part between neck and arm, that is shoulder. If it hits the blue bit of the strip, that is arm.

It's the best way to define it and all strips should follow that model, to make a clear distinction.

To get into philosophical problems like this season as to what constitutes arm and shoulder, is ludicrous.

It's like Formula One, they all have to follow the manufacture rules.

Shirt manufacturers will now have some parity which is only right.

Bloody hell a lucid argument from pstotto.

All my arguments are lucid, you just don't get my humour.

I've got a mental illness, I have to be sane more than anyone else. If you live in a holocaust of impositioned madness, you have to be really together to steady the ship, hence I can whirl when I'm drunk and not fall over and stop in a second.

I always was the sensible one, I was called it at school.

We went on a school trip and met up with girls and a letter came to the school addressed to me, because I was the 'sensible one'.

My mum was a school teacher and she still is, so I've had that since birth.