Handball by Onana

[Kevsleftpeg]

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.

I was using a hand stand as example of when someone’s hand can be above their head but still be closer to the ground. Onana’s hand is not above his head from an anatomical perspective. It is parallel with his shoulder. Gallagher looked at two examples and applied completely different criteria. Onana is closer to the ball and his hand is in a more natural position for the motion he is making. If you can’t see that I’m not sure what else I can say.

 

[Tipp blue]

Dunno if been posted

I'd love to see sky sports have him out and show him this and ask him to explain himself.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

Why were City players allowed to surround the ref screaming at him to give the pen? I couldn’t tell on the tv coverage who he looked at before giving it?

If it were the other way around, there’d have been cards galore.

The ref looked like he was pointing for a corner. I wonder if the linesman had had a word in his ear.

 

[mahermi1]

I'd love to see sky sports have him out and show him this and ask him to explain himself.

He's simply a sly six big team fan, it's not often you see Dermot going against the big six, as often as snow in August.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

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.

You are looking at this in a completely different way to most people. Most people who play football and watch a lot of football care about intent. The handball rule was designed to stop players deliberately handling the ball. It has morphed over the years into the current monstrosity because the powers that be don’t understand the purpose of the rules. Same with offside. Every kid growing up playing football knows the difference between ball to hand and hand ball. It really doesn’t need to be difficult.

 

[TyphooToffee]

To me the unnatural position of the arms is behind the back. Arms are used for balance, especially when falling. It's one thing to change the laws of football, quite another to change the laws of nature.

 

[perth_blue]

People banging on like he's done this..

 

[spectateur]

Common sense was abolished once VAR came into existence.

It was intended to aid the referee.
It now seems to rule the referee.
Should be kept in the background until, like in rugby, the ref asks for assistance and advice.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

To me the unnatural position of the arms is behind the back. Arms are used for balance, especially when falling. It's one thing to change the laws of football, quite another to change the laws of nature.

Exactly. When a ball’s being smacked at you from a yard or two away the MOST natural position is for your arm to protect your head and face. That’s human instinct and at a time they’re at least pretending to care about head injuries should never be penalised.

The ball is going to hit his head so the arm makes no difference. The terms involved in the law are ludicrous but whether you use “natural position” or “extending the silhouette” it shouldn’t be a pen.

It was a terrible decision, and not even a correct process to reach it.

 

[Rooney_Tunes]

I'd love to see sky sports have him out and show him this and ask him to explain himself.

What an absolute joke...corrupt as F...

 

[NathDogg]

You are looking at this in a completely different way to most people. Most people who play football and watch a lot of football care about intent. The handball rule was designed to stop players deliberately handling the ball. It has morphed over the years into the current monstrosity because the powers that be don’t understand the purpose of the rules. Same with offside. Every kid growing up playing football knows the difference between ball to hand and hand ball. It really doesn’t need to be difficult.

Said exactly this in the VAR thread.

Deliberate with intent is all we need, but the new laws allow them to corrupt the decision to suit whatever scab club is playing or affect other results in the league, and the beat goes on - the game is more scripted than wrestling now.

 

[Titus Bramble]

Without having a blanket "if it hits your hand/arm under any circumstance it's a foul" rule, there's always going to be an element of subjectivity from the officials. As has been pointed out, the handball rule has been overly convoluted to try and eliminate grey areas, but it's made it worse.

I think the rules need to be stripped back and the officials trusted (I know, I know...) to use their common sense - we all know what an unnatural arm position is and if a ball is blasted from point blank range, there's nothing any player can do to get out of the way.

Plus, if we have to keep using VAR, I would introduce more specific rulings for the VAR check itself. Watch as many replays as you want from any angle you can think of, but they all have to be at real time speed. Using ultra slow-mo and still frames to determine if the ball has brushed an elbow is daft. Re-watching any incident at real speed gives a much better impression of the situation.

 

[maccavennie]

The only thing that corrupt little goblin Gallagher was correct in saying was -

It took 0.2 seconds for the ball to hit Onanas hand.

He would have needed 1.1 seconds to be able to react and get his hand out of the way.

Basically, it was impossible to get out of the way.

 

[hallamblue]

The issue was that defenders had started going to block the ball with their arms out, knowing that of they didn't block it with their body it would hit their arm and couldn't be handball. They then changed the rules to try and stop this, which is how we ended up with the farce we have now. The easiest thing to do is just have a blanket rule that if it hits the hand it's a free kick or penalty no matter what. In field hockey if it hits your leg it's a free hit whether you mean it or not. This would stop any debate.

 

[twoblue]

Common sense was abolished once VAR came into existence.

I mean life wasn’t great before var