Jump to content

Football Thread 2020/2021


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, dr_manhattan^ said:

Ah @cowfieldsyou were doing really well with that post until you said you supported both teams. 

 

Sorry. 

 

I live in Tottenham, my uncle has always been a spurs fan. My wife is half geordie and sadly that allegiance, plus the support of that entire side of the family tends to win out normally. As I say, it's only tough to be both two times a year. 

 

If I didn't live here I'd probably not have been much of a Spurs fan but the new stadiums sausage rolls are just too fucking good to pass up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Waggo said:

 

Only problem is that the Ref is applying the rules of the game as stated.  It is the rule which is a load of wank, not the poor old Ref's who are having to implement it.


Had the ref not been incompetent all game I would almost be with you but the ‘foul’ that’s in the buildup isn’t a foul and he had a bad game and not just shafted by current rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole handball thing is really weird. Everyone keeps calling it a "new handball rule" but there is nothing in the laws of the game that says that anytime the ball hits an arm it is a handball. The law change clarifies that the area you can commit a handball with is anything below the armpit. I'm not sure if that is new - that was in the laws last season, wasn't it? I seem to remember complaining bitterly about Ollie McBurnie's bicep being considered to be above his armpit. Anyway, the point is that all the laws around not being penalised for accidental handball, as long as the arm isn't in an unnatural position, are still in there. 

 

I'll quote the laws - 

 

Quote

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. 

 

It is an offence if a player: 

*deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

*scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

*after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:

*scores in the opponents’ goal

*creates a goal-scoring opportunity

*touches the ball with their hand/arm when:

*the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

*the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm

*The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

*directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

*directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

*if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger

*when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.  However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.  

 

So you can't score or set up a goal with a hand or arm, even if it is accidental. If the ball hits your arm when your arm is in an unnatural position, it's a handball. The same applies even if the ball came off someone right next to you, so the distance the ball has travelled is irrelevant. 

 

The problem is that the officials seem to have been instructed to ignore all this and just give any contact with the hand or arm as a handball. Why? It's absolutely stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

The whole handball thing is really weird. Everyone keeps calling it a "new handball rule" but there is nothing in the laws of the game that says that anytime the ball hits an arm it is a handball. The law change clarifies that the area you can commit a handball with is anything below the armpit. I'm not sure if that is new - that was in the laws last season, wasn't it? I seem to remember complaining bitterly about Ollie McBurnie's bicep being considered to be above his armpit. Anyway, the point is that all the laws around not being penalised for accidental handball, as long as the arm isn't in an unnatural position, are still in there. 

 

I'll quote the laws - 

 

 

So you can't score or set up a goal with a hand or arm, even if it is accidental. If the ball hits your arm when your arm is in an unnatural position, it's a handball. The same applies even if the ball came off someone right next to you, so the distance the ball has travelled is irrelevant. 

 

The problem is that the officials seem to have been instructed to ignore all this and just give any contact with the hand or arm as a handball. Why? It's absolutely stupid. 

Chelsea scored a goal yesterday that was setup by an accidental handball. The commentators were saying that last season it would have been ruled out - so they seem to have changed something. It's fucking shit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Chelsea scored a goal yesterday that was setup by an accidental handball. The commentators were saying that last season it would have been ruled out - so they seem to have changed something. It's fucking shit. 

 

Did they? I missed that. The laws are what I quoted, and all the stuff about a handball leading to a goal is still in there. That should have been disallowed then, no question. You have to remember that the commentators usually don't have any idea what the letter of the law is. They have been briefed by the Premier League, who will give them their gist of changes to the laws, and more importantly the Premier League's interpretation of those changes. The Premier League seems to have reacted to the general feeling that a few goals were unjustly disallowed last season because of that rule. Think about that one for Bournemouth where the ball grazed Josh King's (I think, from memory) arm on the way in. I don't know why they think the way they're doing things now corrects that. 

 

My point is that the laws haven't had this massive change that people are assuming has happened. It's just the interpretation by the Premier League which has gone completely mad. They're not even sticking to the letter of the law. So when the pundits tell you that under the letter if the "new rules" that bullshit handball against Ward yesterday, when his arms were by his sides in a perfectly natural position, is a penalty they're talking bollocks. 

 

Oddly, the Dier one today might actually be a penalty by the letter of the law, as the laws specifically state that if your arm is above the shoulder level then that's always a handball. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

City haven't been great here - the goal was superb, but since then they've been playing into Leicester's hands. I'm not sure what the default formation is supposed to be for them, but it seems to be a 424, with the 2 being a double defensive pivot, and the 4 all trying to play centre forward. It's just so narrow, Leicester have been able to crowd them out easily, and because of City's high line they look extremely vulnerable when they do lose the ball, playing against probably the best striker to exploit those conditions.

 

They'll come out and win 5-1 now, just to make me look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Chelsea scored a goal yesterday that was setup by an accidental handball. The commentators were saying that last season it would have been ruled out - so they seem to have changed something. It's fucking shit. 

I think they said that was to do with the length of time between the infringement and the goal being scored. All seems very arbitrary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

 

Did they? I missed that. The laws are what I quoted, and all the stuff about a handball leading to a goal is still in there. That should have been disallowed then, no question. You have to remember that the commentators usually don't have any idea what the letter of the law is. They have been briefed by the Premier League, who will give them their gist of changes to the laws, and more importantly the Premier League's interpretation of those changes. The Premier League seems to have reacted to the general feeling that a few goals were unjustly disallowed last season because of that rule. Think about that one for Bournemouth where the ball grazed Josh King's (I think, from memory) arm on the way in. I don't know why they think the way they're doing things now corrects that. 

 

My point is that the laws haven't had this massive change that people are assuming has happened. It's just the interpretation by the Premier League which has gone completely mad. They're not even sticking to the letter of the law. So when the pundits tell you that under the letter if the "new rules" that bullshit handball against Ward yesterday, when his arms were by his sides in a perfectly natural position, is a penalty they're talking bollocks. 

 

Oddly, the Dier one today might actually be a penalty by the letter of the law, as the laws specifically state that if your arm is above the shoulder level then that's always a handball. 


The changes are that it is now an absolute, there is no leeway and the prem league does not allow for any accidental strike only the below shoulder aspect of the clarification.

 

There have been two amendments to the long standing law so not a new law just amended and clarified, the prem taking it too far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ryodi said:

How is City’s defence still so bad? It’s hilarious but City know how Vardy plays so this can’t have been a shock.

Thing is they're not really dealing with Barnes and Castagne when they attack down the wings. And Garcia's fabric helmet presumably stops him having any peripheral vision. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Keiths_Dad said:

City haven't been great here - the goal was superb, but since then they've been playing into Leicester's hands. I'm not sure what the default formation is supposed to be for them, but it seems to be a 424, with the 2 being a double defensive pivot, and the 4 all trying to play centre forward. It's just so narrow, Leicester have been able to crowd them out easily, and because of City's high line they look extremely vulnerable when they do lose the ball, playing against probably the best striker to exploit those conditions.

 

They'll come out and win 5-1 now, just to make me look stupid.

 

Was actually 5-2 mate

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ryodi said:

Three near identical tackles conceding three penalties :lol:

The second one in particular looked very similar to the second Brighton one yesterday that was ruled out. 
 

Mad score line this, well done to Leicester. City look a shadow of the team that battered us first half on Monday. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.