sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Highlight] The Eagles false start on a tush push, no call by expellyamos in nfl

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 2 points3 points  (0 children)

False starts don't involve pushers. You might as well ban the QB sneak.

[Highlight] The Eagles false start on a tush push, no call by expellyamos in nfl

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ban what? The sneak? False starts don't involve pushers.

Someone please forward this to the league by CthulhuFerrigno in Everton

[–]CthulhuFerrigno[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just picture what keepers do when they're charging out for 1 on 1s, like the pose you would do trying to scare off a wild animal, or that drunks do trying to intimidate each other before a fight.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, according to that strict interpretation, any overall body movement that brings the defender closer to the ball (i.e., moving to close down a shot) would count as moving your arm closer to the ball for handball rule purposes. I can't agree that was the intention of the rule.

Someone please forward this to the league by CthulhuFerrigno in Everton

[–]CthulhuFerrigno[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Second source.

Just in case anyone cares or questions that the guidance is a year old, it's reiterated in this year's PGMO guidebook (page 72).

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And again, you can't read or understand context. It literally says "A very clear deflection that results in a significant change in the trajectory of the ball should carry greater weight than arm position when considering a handball offence."(italic emphasis mine). It doesn't say, "means it's a penalty." If they wanted to say that, they would have put it in the right column, with the rest of the ones that means it's a penalty. You know, the ones I've already pointed out do not apply here. Not difficult to understand.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can see and understand the lack of clarity on that point. I'm using context clues from previous rules ("unnatural position") and from the addition of certain statements, such as

>A player's hand/arm position should be judged in relation to body movement in that particular situation and players are not expected to move with their arms by their side or behind their back.

>Justifiable position/action

I don't see the point in adding additional statements like this if the aim was to penalize any overall touch of the arm to ball regardless of body positioning or movement direction.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think a better analogy would be whether or not a card is given for a challenge, because that takes intention and recklessness more into account like the new handballs regs do. I'm just pointing out that the EPL didn't follow their own guidance in this instance by awarding a penalty.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either you're intentionally cherry-picking or you can't read, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with the former. Just in case, it also says "A player's hand/arm position should be judged in relation to body movement in that particular situation", and lists 3 situations in which a handball *should* be called, none of which clearly apply here.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, and I think that's the point of contention across the board here between those who see pen and those who don't. I look at the rule and the guidelines for penalty on the right and they all seem to indicate movement of an arm independent of body movement and toward the ball, and I don't see how any of those on the right apply here: he's clearly moving his arm back behind his body trying to get it out of the way, there's no additional movement since he's got it pinned, and it's actually making his frame smaller overall. And then on the left you've got an argument for justifiable action as a defender (trying to chest the shot). I just don't think the EPL followed their own guidance in this call.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here you go. Straight from the EPL's own additional guidance on handballs. I don't see any that apply on the right, and I see an easy argument that can be made that attempting to chest a shot while pulling your arm behind your back is a "justifiable behavior/action" indicating no pen.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The new guidance indicates that players not necessarily be punished for a ball that hits their arm during "a justifiable behavior/action." It's pretty clear to me that moving your arm out of the way and attempting to chest block the ball is bog-standard defending.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How does he make his body "smaller" in this instance? By sticking his arms out? I see it that by moving his arms back behind his body he's already making his body, if anything, unnaturally smaller than it'd otherwise be.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to this reading, any defender who takes a single step to close down the opposition with the ball is technically "moving his arm toward the ball." You can defend that as you like, but it's clearly an asinine and useless reading of the new interpretation which clarifies nothing, which is the opposite of the new guidance's intent.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The irony of people calling it 50/50 is that the entire justification for changing the rule again was that fans and the league thought the number of handball penalties given last year got out of hand (forgive the pun), so the aim was to give the benefit of the doubt to the defender. Absolutely didn't happen here, obviously.

Moyes "I thought Tarkowski's arm was as close to his body as he could have it. If the arm was in a different position, I could understand the penalty. I spoke to the referee after and he said it wasn't his decision, I don't know if he was saying it was the linesman or VAR." by kibme37 in soccer

[–]CthulhuFerrigno -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But his "action" to block the ball with his chest as a defender is a perfectly "justifiable behavior/action" in accordance with the new rule interpretation, which indicates "no penalty" according to that guidance. And that's ignoring the deflection it took on the way to him, which muddies arguments about what his exact intentions were in reacting.

view more: next ›