Bad ref decisions - for and against - season 2025/26

Man City 2 Everton 0

Echo article...

Handling Everton penalties

Everton started the season by giving away penalties for handballs in each of their first two games. The decision to award what proved to be a late match-winning spot-kick for Leeds United was particularly controversial with captain James Tarkowski, who the decision was given against, telling the ECHO: “I was confident when he was giving the decision that it was going to get overturned. I asked the question to the referee: ‘If my arm is by my side, is it a penalty?’ to which he said: ‘No,’ so I don’t understand how it’s been given.”


Then, the following Sunday, in the Blues' first competitive fixture at Hill Dickinson Stadium, home debutant Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall conceded a spot-kick for a similar offence.

However, when a shot by James Garner was blocked by Manchester City substitute Bernardo Silva’s arm on Saturday, referee Tony Harrington waved away the visitors’ claims, with his decision incurring the wrath of ex-refereeing chief Keith Hackett.

Former FIFA-listed referee Hackett, who took charge of Everton’s 1-0 win over Liverpool at Wembley in the 1984 Charity Shield before replacing Philip Don as the general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Board, told Goodison News: “I have written on many occasions that the handball law is poorly written and open to a level of subjectivity that leads to an inconsistent application.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the player had his arm in a position to make his body larger with the view of stopping the ball.

“It is a decision that should have seen VAR intervention, and the referee invited to review at the pitch-side monitor. It should have seen the award of a penalty kick.

“Everton again on the wrong end of a decision.”
 

It was a pen.
If it was at the other end by Tarks or keggers it would have been a pen and we’d be fuming at them (rightly or wrongly).
It will happen again this season (or as good as identical) and that will be deemed a pen.

The rules are so grey, and the referees so inconsistent and susceptible to Sky bias (even if unconsciously) it’s inevitable.
 
I think the only way to sort all the different interpretations of the handball rule is to make it easier for these incompetent refs to understand. If it hits your hand it's a penalty. Wherever your hand is, whether deliberate or not, however far the ball travels, whatever the colour of your shirt, penalty. Stupid, I know. But these decisions now keep changing every week.
 

Blast_of_Cannock said:
I think the only way to sort all the different interpretations of the handball rule is to make it easier for these incompetent refs to understand. If it hits your hand it's a penalty. Wherever your hand is, whether deliberate or not, however far the ball travels, whatever the colour of your shirt, penalty. Stupid, I know. But these decisions now keep changing every week.
Click to expand...
They did have that for a spell a few years ago didn't they, then changed it again?
IIRC that’s when the arms behind the back business first started (maybe wishful thinking)
 

Blast_of_Cannock said:
I think the only way to sort all the different interpretations of the handball rule is to make it easier for these incompetent refs to understand. If it hits your hand it's a penalty. Wherever your hand is, whether deliberate or not, however far the ball travels, whatever the colour of your shirt, penalty. Stupid, I know. But these decisions now keep changing every week.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t go that far, as it makes a mockery of the game, but there absolutely needs to be consistency. Some clubs very clearly get decisions ahead of others (see also pushing and pulling at corners).
 
banno said:
I thought it was a pen. The shot was on target and blocked by an arm. The arm was away from the body and the natural position of the arm should not even come into it if on target and away from the body.
Click to expand...
The guy on commentary gave some B reason about it being "his supplementary arm (or something like that) that was in a natural position because he wanted to prevent himself from falling to the ground, so no penalty" - they get fed this rubbish from the VAR HQ to make it sound legit.

Absolute BS.
 
Rooney_Tunes said:
The guy on commentary gave some B reason about it being "his supplementary arm (or something like that) that was in a natural position because he wanted to prevent himself from falling to the ground, so no penalty" - they get fed this rubbish from the VAR HQ to make it sound legit.

Absolute BS.
Click to expand...
Commentary i had justified it as his ‘supporting arm’ which must, of course, be legal, unlike a balancing arm (KDH) or a leaning arm (Tarky) which of course are illegal
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top