Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Handball by Onana

Status
Not open for further replies.
Somebody keep me right and explain what the handball rule is atm, all I've heard from pundits, Clattenturd and posters is that it shouldn't be a penalty but it meets current guidelines for one so has to be given, what then are the guidelines?
Clattenturd said last night that it's when the arm is in an unnatural position making the body bigger, and the issue being it was a shot on target. He then contradicted himself by saying the arm wasn't unnatural and Onana didn't make himself bigger, and though he never said it the shot wasn't going near the target as it was skying 20 foot over the bar.
But none of the other pundits questioned him, they all just nodded like dogs as they've no idea what guidelines it met either and were just waffling on without actually taking a stance.
 
Chrismac said:
Somebody keep me right and explain what the handball rule is atm, all I've heard from pundits, Clattenturd and posters is that it shouldn't be a penalty but it meets current guidelines for one so has to be given, what then are the guidelines?
Clattenturd said last night that it's when the arm is in an unnatural position making the body bigger, and the issue being it was a shot on target. He then contradicted himself by saying the arm wasn't unnatural and Onana didn't make himself bigger, and though he never said it the shot wasn't going near the target as it was skying 20 foot over the bar.
But none of the other pundits questioned him, they all just nodded like dogs as they've no idea what guidelines it met either and were just waffling on without actually taking a stance.
Click to expand...
If you were to read the law itself, nothing's been broken. Onana hadn't made himself 'unnaturally bigger' because his arm was directly in front of his body. If it hadn't hit his arm it would have hit him.

The issue is they have their precedents and secretive guidance as well, and from this they have decided that if a player's arm is 'up' and the ball hits it, it's likely to be a penalty. Clattenburg's 'shot at goal' spiel sounds like nonsense, if that's the case it should be specified in the law, but he must be getting it from somewhere.
 
The Graham Potter looking gimp only gave it because 6 City players crowded him... which you aren't allowed to do.

And it just isn't a penalty. Or maybe it is.

I've been watching football my entire life and I genuinely don't even know what the rules are anymore because these referees have muddied the waters so much.
 
RD2910 said:
If you were to read the law itself, nothing's been broken. Onana hadn't made himself 'unnaturally bigger' because his arm was directly in front of his body. If it hadn't hit his arm it would have hit him.

The issue is they have their precedents and secretive guidance as well, and from this they have decided that if a player's arm is 'up' and the ball hits it, it's likely to be a penalty. Clattenburg's 'shot at goal' spiel sounds like nonsense, if that's the case it should be specified in the law, but he must be getting it from somewhere.
Click to expand...
Just watched that ugly wee ballbag Gallagher say that the arm was above shoulder/head so it's a 'modern day penalty' whatever the hell that is.. but Onanas arm wasn't above his shoulder or head either so again complete pish.
But nobody's taking them to account when they roll out their narrative.
 

When we were kids about 7 we used to play football in the streets with jumpers for goalposts and refereed the games ourselves. Even at such a young age we knew what accidental handball was and the decision was made very quickly. What are the present officials doing to our great game, get back to your computers and analyse the date or play stalwarts. Leave our football alone.
 
He also said his mate messaged him on the way into the studio to tell him that the ball took 0.2 seconds to travel from boot to Onana's arm yet Onana had 1.1secs to react, you couldn't make this bollocks up
 
Kendal said:
When we were kids about 7 we used to play football in the streets with jumpers for goalposts and refereed the games ourselves. Even at such a young age we knew what accidental handball was and the decision was made very quickly. What are the present officials doing to our great game, get back to your computers and analyse the date or play stalwarts. Leave our football alone.
Click to expand...
Can't have one rule for defenders and one for attackers as they have now (any ball touching attackers hand which leads directly to a goal is handball) and also can't have different rules for handball occurring in different areas of pitch (in box it's a handball but outside only if intentional).
Same with silly offside nonsense.
Making black and white grey
 
He's less than 2 yards away from when the shot (which is clearing the park end roof btw) is taken.

It's just another farcical decision in a long line of farcical decisions given against us.

The referrew is a tit btw, he reffed us against the mancs and booked Doucoure for telling him that he should have booked a Utd player for kicking the ball away. Basically booked our player for tell him how to do his job properly.

They'll have him back at Goodison asap
 

DL100 said:
The thing is for me on last nights penalty...

We would be screaming for a penalty if that was against a team we was playing against and we would go mad if it wasn't given.

It was 100% a penalty. the rule just needs changing.
Click to expand...
I honestly think it wouldn't be given if the other way round.
I try to remain non-biased on these decisions when I can, but it seems clear to me that if there is room for interpretation we end up on the wrong side of the decision far more often than not.
It wasn't a 100% pen because it is based on whether his arm was in a natural position or not. I think it was, you obviously think it wasn't. That's not 100% concurrence
 
Toffeepot said:
I honestly think it wouldn't be given if the other way round.
I try to remain non-biased on these decisions when I can, but it seems clear to me that if there is room for interpretation we end up on the wrong side of the decision far more often than not.
It wasn't a 100% pen because it is based on whether his arm was in a natural position or not. I think it was, you obviously think it wasn't. That's not 100% concurrence
Click to expand...
We wouldve screamed for it, and been raging when we wouldnt have got it, but we 100% would not have got it.
 
wandyr79 said:
You know what I don't think I would. I definitely haven't in the past. My stance on these handball incidents have never changed. If the arm is close to the body in a natural position then it is not handball, especially when it in front of the body, which this was. I could understand more if it was out to the side but it wasn't, it was in front and likely to hit the face or body, if the ball did not hit the arm. It was also fairly high up on the arm, which again, was not stretched out wards away from the body.

People are saying the rule needs changing, no it doesn't it, it needs creating first.

Was never a penalty, regardless of who you support.
Click to expand...
Think Dyche summed it up perfectly saying something like 'it's weird seeing defenders running out with arms behind their back'
It was clearly not deliberate. Everyone knows it wasn't
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top