Handball by Onana

[Kevsleftpeg]

But the same incident there are pictures showing his hand above the head. But does the ball need to strike the part of his arm/hand above the shoulder or is the hand above the head in itself enough of an 'unnatural position' whatever that means?

I think you're going in a bit much on Gallagher there. He's trying to explain why we're seeing these ridiculous looking decisions. It's not about him defending a refs decision at all costs but he's illustrating that the ridiculous degree of micro-management within the wording of the laws now means a case can be made for a decision to go either way and both be correct, or more accurately not necessarily wrong, within the wording of the laws.

For me refs are being put into an impossible situation by those in charge of the rules.

His hand isn't above his head relative to his body position. If you do a hand stand your hands are closer to the floor but your hands are above your head. It about the relation to the body not to the ground.

 

[RD2910]

I can accept that referees will make different decisions in different game but Gallagher is literally looking at two identical incidents and saying one is a pen and one isn't.

I get it, but they're not identical. That's impossible.

 

[Osamabindiesel]

I can only assume you have never played the game because most people who have don't want that to be given as handball.

I have and your comment is stupid. Anyways, I thought it was a handball.

 

[kenada_blue]

I get it, but they're not identical. That's impossible.

They're under the same criteria and therefore should be judged under the same. Gallagher for example makes a point of the Romero one and the proximity of the player to the ball. Yet he doesn't even mention that for the Onana incident.

It's the same as a red card challenge. They get judged on momentum, control, over the ball etc to deem it so.

And don't get me started on the Spurs shirt pull last night.

Multiple cameras, up to 5 officials, millions upon millions spent on VAR...yet one is missed and one isn't.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

I get it, but they're not identical. That's impossible.

Ok, so a guy driving down a road gets done for driving 33 and the next guy driving down the same road in the other direction gets let's off while doing 34 by the same copper. Most people would say those facts are identical.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

I have and your comment is stupid. Anyways, I thought it was a handball.

Getting picked last on the playground doesn't count.

 

[mahermi1]

I have and your comment is stupid. Anyways, I thought it was a handball.

More ball to hand, there is no way on Earth he meant to handball that shot, it was far too close to him to get out of the way of and he would of been doing what I would have done, protecting his face.

 

[hallamblue]

More ball to hand, there is no way on Earth he meant to handball that shot, it was far too close to him to get out of the way of and he would of been doing what I would have done, protecting his face.

I don't think it should have been a penalty, but it was always going to be given. Modern defending means keeping your arms down and leading with your chest. It's unnatural but that's the way the rules are. It's even worse on the continent and in International football.

 

[twoblue]

To be honest if the ball is going in and it hits a hand I’m happy for a penalty.
As long as thats the rule for everyone.
If it’s ball to hand an the balls not traveling towards goal, then it’s ball to hand and play on…

 

[ClausThomsen]

I mean, even your picture shows the ball NOT hitting his arm above his head. Ergo: stupid fn decision by all involved.

I'm saying that perhaps the position of his hand above his head is deemed to be an indicator of an unnatural position. And if the player is deemed to be taking an unnatural position then the part of the arm that makes contact with the ball doesn't itself have to be above the head. By nature it's extended to that position by the supposedly unnatural position of the hand.

It's a poorly thought out, or fn stupid, law in terms of how it's written and implemented but an understandable decision when a ref is forced to work within those fn stupid laws. The law makers have tried to develop a solid near binary frame of reference for every single conceivable situation to absolutely remove any requirement for nuance or situational judgement but in doing so have muddied the waters to such an extent that two very similar situations can conceivably be two different decisions and the wording of the laws can accommodate both to a degree that VAR cannot deem a mistake to have been made.

It's the natural progression of spending years howling and screaming over every single little decision, constantly berating minor decisions as disastrous incompetence and a rampant media monster, be it traditional or social, in need of 24 hour content to justify it's existence.

 

[ClausThomsen]

His hand isn't above his head relative to his body position. If you do a hand stand your hands are closer to the floor but your hands are above your head. It about the relation to the body not to the ground.

He's not doing a handstand. His feet are on the ground and his hand is above his head, or appears to be, in that picture. I agree though that there are several positions where the hand can be out to the side or touching the ground and it can be deemed unnatural. Hand above the head is not the only one.

We can post all the pictures we like but the problem is how the laws are written around this type of thing. My point was that Gallagher is getting it full pelt when he's merely saying how a decision can be reached under the laws as they are - he's defending the refs decision in the context that the ref can only work within the framework of the laws of the game.

The ridiculous attempt to micro manage every single aspect of a decision is not what he is being asked about.

 

[ClausThomsen]

To be honest if the ball is going in and it hits a hand I’m happy for a penalty.
As long as thats the rule for everyone.
If it’s ball to hand an the balls not traveling towards goal, then it’s ball to hand and play on…

I'd agree with this to a large extent but would look for significant defensive advantage as the measure rather than travelling towards goal.

For instance an attacking player hits the byline and pulls back a cross for a team-mate who is one yard out in front of a completely empty net. That ball isn't going towards goal but a defender changing the path of the ball would result in significant defensive advantage.

However either method would require an acceptance of refs having some semblance of decision making and discretion. And the loudest voices among fans, media, pundits and the rest simply won't accept that when it goes against their side. All too often people see a decision going the other way as the rule not being applied equally and we end up going full circle to convoluted attempts to cover every scenario in the rules and the mess we're currently in.

 

[TyphooToffee]

That has always been the case, from the first match ever played......

Common sense needs to prevail and the referee cannot give it, no matter what his assistant says or how much those whiners complain.

Common sense was abolished once VAR came into existence.

 

[Tipp blue]

It's absolutely insane that someone can argue the Onana one is a penalty but the Romero one not a pen. Onana is closer to the ball, his arm is below the shoulder and his arm is a normal position for someone sliding. The Romero one is more of a penalty in every way yet Dermot reaches completely the opposite conclusion. It completely inexplicable.

Has he ever disagreed with a refs decision.. he's just there to back up his buddies.

 

[Tipp blue]

I get it, but they're not identical. That's impossible.

It's identical enough to be called identical.