Hand rules

[TheFinnFan]

Whats your opinion about todays hand rule.

Im old school.

If your hand aint tightly next to your sides and ball hits it in peno area IT SHOULD BE PENO FULL STOP.



Whats your stance?

 

[Woolly Blue]

If your hand aint tightly next to your sides and ball hits it in peno area IT SHOULD BE PENO FULL STOP.

This would make decision making easier for the refs but I don't like it. If your arms are slighly away from your body in a natural position and the ball hits your arm it would be very harsh for that to be given as a penalty.

I think the rule now is about right, it just means that mistakes will be made, and we have to live with that.

 

[TheFinnFan]

This would make decision making easier for the refs but I don't like it. If your arms are slighly away from your body in a natural position and the ball hits your arm it would be very harsh for that to be given as a penalty.

I think the rule now is about right, it just means that mistakes will be made, and we have to live with that.

I see your point. But refs cant handle this rule imo...too many examples of it.

 

[Woolly Blue]

I see your point. But refs cant handle this rule imo...too many examples of it.

If you make any hand / arm contact a free kick or penalty then you'll get situations where a striker can get a shot away which has no chance of going in, but has a fair chance of striking someone's arm.

We'd have defenders running round in straitjackets mate, which would be fun to watch for a couple of matches but would soon lose it's novelty effect.

 

[blue4eva77]

Using Barry as an example.

If that effort that hit him in the arm, had happened in the center circle, ref would of blew for a freekick.

You used to always see players trying to block shots with their arms behind their backs or by their sides in a deliberate attempt to not give away a penalty. Its slowly changing and players are flinging all limbs at the ball, because refs are not blowing for them.

 

[TheFinnFan]

If you make any hand / arm contact a free kick or penalty then you'll get situations where a striker can get a shot away which has no chance of going in, but has a fair chance of striking someone's arm.

We'd have defenders running round in straitjackets mate, which would be fun to watch for a couple of matches but would soon lose it's novelty effect.

hehe youre right...maybe i have overreacted a bit but still theres something wrong with it...refs need schooling ffs

 

[Seamus Colemole]

hehe youre right...maybe i have overreacted a bit but still theres something wrong with it...refs need schooling ffs

It's not just refs, its players, fans and managers who need schooling over the handball rule.

Pretty much anytime a player blocks the ball in the area with the top of his body and handball shouts go out. Or the ball is clearly hit from close range into a players arm by his side and the handball shouts go out.

The law states it has to be deliberate handball, there are guidelines to help decide how thats determined.

A player can move his hand towards the ball but it doesn't mean its a foul. A player can have his arm outstretched above his head but it doesn't mean its a foul.

Unless its totally blatant then it shouldn't be given. Atkinson was right not to give handball against Barry yesterday. If someones blasting a ball at you from a couple of yards away its perfectly natural to bring your arms up to protect your face. And the ball hit under his armpit so wouldn't have travelled towards goal even if his arms were down by his sides.

If the ball had hit the part of his arm over his head sure, you'd say its pretty certain his arm was only there to block the ball. His arm wasn't outstrecthed to block the ball going towards goal, it was in front of his face to protect his face and the ball hit his armpit from close range.

The vast majority of handball shouts should not be given.

 

[Donald Twain]

I'm of the opinion no such thing as ball to hand ! If the defending team gain an advantage from the hand ball its a pen! In fact to save any doubt, if it touches your arm in the area it's a pen ( we may get one at analfeild then as the refs wont be open to interpretation, ie bottling it) and it was a pen against us.

 

[Donald Twain]

It's not just refs, its players, fans and managers who need schooling over the handball rule.

Pretty much anytime a player blocks the ball in the area with the top of his body and handball shouts go out. Or the ball is clearly hit from close range into a players arm by his side and the handball shouts go out.

The law states it has to be deliberate handball, there are guidelines to help decide how thats determined.

A player can move his hand towards the ball but it doesn't mean its a foul. A player can have his arm outstretched above his head but it doesn't mean its a foul.

Unless its totally blatant then it shouldn't be given. Atkinson was right not to give handball against Barry yesterday. If someones blasting a ball at you from a couple of yards away its perfectly natural to bring your arms up to protect your face. And the ball hit under his armpit so wouldn't have travelled towards goal even if his arms were down by his sides.

If the ball had hit the part of his arm over his head sure, you'd say its pretty certain his arm was only there to block the ball. His arm wasn't outstrecthed to block the ball going towards goal, it was in front of his face to protect his face and the ball hit his armpit from close range.

The vast majority of handball shouts should not be given.

all very well but if its in the last minute of the FA cup and their players on the goalline and raises his arms to protect his overpaid face and stops a certain goal , see where you'll be then.

 

[degsy]

I've been in the position ( and looked on in amazement ) where my hand, seemingly of it's own volition, just went out and stopped the ball on the line, so unless there is an element of deliberate hand movement... none of this blast it at the defender and hope to hit his hand.

It also seems from my observations that as a % of NOT GIVEN pens hand ball is way down the list, way behind trips, holding, pushing/nudges etc

and don't even get me started on the push and shove at corners, free kicks etc

 

[rascal]

When arms are tucked into sides it isn't a free kick offence IMO.

 

[Eric Djemba-Djemba]

No hand jobs on the pitch.

 

[ijjysmith]

If it hits the hand on the way in, or deliberate then it's handball.

Unless it's Everton. Then it never is.

 

[arch stanton]

i think everyone (including refs etc) are overthinking it. Last time I saw a rulebook it simply stated that it was an offence to deliberately handle the ball. In Barry's case, OK his arm was up but he wasnt even looking at the ball as it came to him. However, the way this is interpreted now i would expect them to be given like that. Shame, terrible shame. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[Groucho]

I feel it would have been harsh to have awarded a penalty against us for Gareth Barry's incident. I think he was covering his face but I've only seen it once so may be wrong.

Also, for all those saying that any instance of a ball touching a hand should be given as hand ball, what if the player is facing away and doesn't know about it?

I'd say that was harsh.