Today’s Football 25/26 Season

[Alan Whittle]

Big point at home to relegation threatened Hammers for plucky little Brighton.

 

[MACCA75]

It was in the same passage of play. A matter of seconds...

Yeah that’s not the rule though, has to directly be the same player.

 

[DanB90]

Good result for us that.

 

[Old Blue 2]

1. Still in 5th.

2. Brighton's point drops the RS down a place...

 

[ToffeeTim]

Harsh on West Ham

Those late equalisers really hurt when you're down the bottom, but still 2 good away draws.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Yeah that’s not the rule though, has to directly be the same player or a teammate.

Sorry, handball is handball.

 

[MACCA75]

Sorry, handball is handball.

That was an accidental handball, so don’t agree.

 

[MACCA75]

they have made the rules too complex adding more and more stuff every year, it should be it's handball or not, none of this if the action carries on etc

What if the ball is just blasted against your arm which is by your side? Has to be some subjectivity in the handball rule.

 

[Lee Smith]

I can understand that the handball wasn't "directly before the goal", and that's why it was given, BUT the fact that a player miscontrolled a ball, only retained possession of it because it hits their arm, which then lets them then have a shot that leads to the keeper needing to make a save which then leads to them scoring the rebound, is sheer lunacy. Such a moronic law.

If the ball had rebounded off an opposition player onto his arm, then yeah I'd get it, but the fact it hit his arm because of his own poor control is mental.

 

[HKContractDave]

Come on Wobs

 

[Tommy Chong]

….i don’t understand the rules anymore, i even thought the overhead kick was dangerous

You’re not alone in that thought process, Eggs…

 

[MACCA75]

I can understand that the handball wasn't "directly before the goal", and that's why it was given, BUT the fact that a player miscontrolled a ball, only retained possession of it because it hits their arm, which then lets them then have a shot that leads to the keeper needing to make a save which then leads to them scoring the rebound, is sheer lunacy. Such a moronic law.

If the ball had rebounded off an opposition player onto his arm, then yeah I'd get it, but the fact it hit his arm because of his own poor control is mental.

You could change the rule so any accidental handball in the lead up to a goal means the goal is disallowed but personally think that would be dreadful.

They already go back to try and find reasons to disallow goals enough without giving them something else to find.

 

[Lee Smith]

You could change the rule so any accidental handball in the lead up to a goal means the goal is disallowed but personally think that would be dreadful.

They already go back to try and find reasons to disallow goals enough without giving them something else to find.

I personally don’t like seeing goals chalked off either, but I also don’t like seeing piss-poor ball control like that being rewarded.

Yes technically the goal should have stood by the letter of the law, but I guarantee if a midfielder miscontrolled a ball like that in the centre circle and it hit his arm, and the ref saw it, then 9 times out of 10 he would blow and award a free-kick to the opposition.

 

[Tommy Chong]

Big point at home to relegation threatened Hammers for plucky little Brighton.

Are your lot ready to take on the might of Craven Cottage, Al?

 

[MACCA75]

I personally don’t like seeing goals chalked off either, but I also don’t like seeing piss-poor ball control like that being rewarded.

Yes technically the goal should have stood by the letter of the law, but I guarantee if a midfielder miscontrolled a ball like that in the centre circle and it hit his arm, and the ref saw it, then 9 times out of 10 he would blow and award a free-kick to the opposition.

Very possibly. I just think we give too many handballs, very rarely does a player deliberately handle the ball. If Rutter was defending would you have given a penalty for it? Would be very harsh.