Hand Ball

[crookesey]

It appears that any hand/ball contact within the box will constitute as a penalty offence. I much preferred the pre VAR days when a human being made the decision. I’m waiting for the day that a player covers his crown jewels with his hands in order to avoid injury and pain when he sees the ball coming straight for them. 

[Alextopman]

15 minutes ago, crookesey said:

It appears that any hand/ball contact within the box will constitute as a penalty offence. I much preferred the pre VAR days when a human being made the decision. I’m waiting for the day that a player covers his crown jewels with his hands in order to avoid injury and pain when he sees the ball coming straight for them. 

Neither penalty decision yesterday at Luton were correct in my opinion.

Edited February 11 by Alextopman

[Ronson]

Then that would be hand ball in more ways than one.

[Vrsaljko]

The rules now are ridiculous. How can you give a penalty when someone is facing in the opposite direction and the ball hits their arm from a yard away? Just go back to how it was before, and only give a penalty when there's a deliberate arm movement towards the ball.

[Ronson]

13 minutes ago, Vrsaljko said:

The rules now are ridiculous. How can you give a penalty when someone is facing in the opposite direction and the ball hits their arm from a yard away? Just go back to how it was before, and only give a penalty when there's a deliberate arm movement towards the ball.

I’d go along with most of that but for me you also have to look at if the offender got a definite advantage from the hand ball. The Luton one looked harsh yesterday. Didn’t see the united one but it sounded similar.

[Alextopman]

22 minutes ago, Ronson said:

I’d go along with most of that but for me you also have to look at if the offender got a definite advantage from the hand ball. The Luton one looked harsh yesterday. Didn’t see the united one but it sounded similar.

What a surprise he didn't see the United one.

[Baron99]

4 hours ago, crookesey said:

It appears that any hand/ball contact within the box will constitute as a penalty offence. I much preferred the pre VAR days when a human being made the decision. I’m waiting for the day that a player covers his crown jewels with his hands in order to avoid injury and pain when he sees the ball coming straight for them. 

To be honest, watched the Luton v Blades game today on MOTD & thought neither hand ball was a penalty & before VAR, neither would have been given & very few in the crowds would have noticed them. 

 

It's clear that because of VAR we need a few more new rules.  It can't be considered a penalty is the ball flies over a defender's head then an attacker mi's-heads it back on to his arm. 

[Alextopman]

5 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

To be honest, watched the Luton v Blades game today on MOTD & thought neither hand ball was a penalty & before VAR, neither would have been given & very few in the crowds would have noticed them. 

 

It's clear that because of VAR we need a few more new rules.  It can't be considered a penalty is the ball flies over a defender's head then an attacker mi's-heads it back on to his arm. 

The penalty we got was soft, the penalty they got was ridiculous.

[echo beach]

1 hour ago, Ronson said:

I’d go along with most of that but for me you also have to look at if the offender got a definite advantage from the hand ball. The Luton one looked harsh yesterday. Didn’t see the united one but it sounded similar.

The Luton player’s hand interfered with a header that was goal bound and the player was facing the ball.

With the  one given against the Blades the ball was not headed goalwards and the United player had his back to the ball when the ball hit his hand.

Hardly the same situation but both were given as penalties by VAR officials.

I think they live on a different planet!

 

echo.

 

[Hopman]

Is there any reason why a referee, after looking at the monitor, can use his common sense and suggest the VAR is misguided?