TeessideCleveland
Well-known member
Why is Keane not booked there?
Sticking your arm out to deflect a cross looks deliberate - and if not why was a penalty given?Probably because it wasn't deliberate.
Try slowing down without doing that, not even close to being deliberate.Sticking your arm out to deflect a cross looks deliberate - and if not why was a penalty given?
Everton shocking again - though Liverpool should have had a sending off too
No think you have missed the new interpretation of the handball law.Putting to one side the noise around the edge of the handball law, at its heart the fundamental remains the same - for handball to be an offence it has to be deliberate ergo not every handball is a caution. It’s often misunderstood is that.
I haven’t missed it. I’m a current referee. It’s what I meant when I said put to one side the noise around the edges of the law. The point is that handball being deliberate isn’t by default a caution because deliberate handball is at the heart of the offence.No think you have missed the new interpretation of the handball law.
“a handball in an “unnatural position” can be called, even if it is not done deliberately. It is usually not a handball if: The ball makes contact with the arm/hand in a “natural position.”
I'm not surprised there are confusing decisions if that's the sort of stuff refs are thinking about.The point is that handball being deliberate isn’t by default a causation because deliberate handball is at the heart of the offence.
The confusion comes from pundits using the phrase "deliberate handball" when talking about yellow cards - and that goes back to at least the beginning of the Premier League and Sky coverage - if not before. Ex-players not understanding the rules of the game they played accounts for almost all of the confusion amongst fans.I'm not surprised there are confusing decisions if that's the sort of stuff refs are thinking about.
It’s pretty much always down to sloppy language used by the pundits. As the earlier poster said, deliberate handball is still always handball, and is at the heart of the handball law, but there are now just certain circumstances where an action that is short of deliberate in the strict sense can also give rise to a handball offence. Deliberate handball is not as such a yellow. The card would be given for “unsporting behaviour”, and usually under the subheading of “handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack”.The confusion comes from pundits using the phrase "deliberate handball" when talking about yellow cards - and that goes back to at least the beginning of the Premier League and Sky coverage - if not before. Ex-players not understanding the rules of the game they played accounts for almost all of the confusion amongst fans.
What are you talking about? I’m explaining that ‘deliberate handball’ isn’t always a caution because ‘deliberate’ is at the heart of the offence and not every handball is a yellow. It’s not difficult.I'm not surprised there are confusing decisions if that's the sort of stuff refs are thinking about.
Maybe I just struggled with your syntax but your post wasn't clear to me. I didn't see any reference to a caution.What are you talking about? I’m explaining that ‘deliberate handball’ isn’t always a caution because ‘deliberate’ is at the heart of the offence and not every handball is a yellow. It’s not difficult.
He was clearly saying that the laws have always been that for a handball to be a handball you had to handle it deliberately. The laws as they are now have changed slightly but only to the point where they are making an objective decision on deliberate instead of subjective. E.g. hands being in an unnatural position are there to deliberately handle the ball. I think the only time it isn't a case of deliberate/deemed to be deliberate is when it leads to a goal and any contact with the arm automatically means the goal is disallowed.Maybe I just struggled with your syntax but your post wasn't clear to me. I didn't see any reference to a caution.
Or maybe I'm too thick to be a referee.
But never mind.
It’s in my very first post just a few up from here. In fact it’s clearly the very point of my post, as everyone else has been able to recognise and understand. Im not sure why you felt the sarcastic tone of your replies to be necessary. I can’t comment on your ability to be a referee, only on your ability to read posts on here properly. Must do better.Maybe I just struggled with your syntax but your post wasn't clear to me. I didn't see any reference to a caution.
Or maybe I'm too thick to be a referee.
But never mind.
I didn't understand your post. Everybody else obviously did so I don't know why you're so bothered about an individual self confessed thicko struggling with it.It’s in my very first post just a few up from here. In fact it’s clearly the very point of my post, as everyone else has been able to recognise and understand. Im not sure why you felt the sarcastic tone of your replies to be necessary. I can’t comment on your ability to be a referee, only on your ability to read posts on here properly. Must do better.
Here:I'm not surprised there are confusing decisions if that's the sort of stuff refs are thinking about.
Maybe I just struggled with your syntax but your post wasn't clear to me. I didn't see any reference to a caution.
Or maybe I'm too thick to be a referee.
But never mind.
for handball to be an offence it has to be deliberate
No think you have missed the new interpretation of the handball law.
“a handball in an “unnatural position” can be called, even if it is not done deliberately.
I haven’t missed it. I’m a current referee. It’s what I meant when I said put to one side the noise around the edges of the law. The point is that handball being deliberate isn’t by default a caution because deliberate handball is at the heart of the offence.
No sarcasm there, I meant what I said.
I thought Zoophonic was discussing whether handball had to be deliberate to be an offence, regardless of whether or not it also results in a caution.
This was the snippet of conversation I was referring to.
As a trained referee, the "noise around the edges of the law" and understanding the "heart of an offence" might make perfect sense to you.
But to me it isn't a straight forward thought process.
I thought it explained why a lot of fans don't understand why some decisions are made. Because I doubt most are considering the noise around the edges and the heart of the offence.
Apparently everybody else understood you perfectly well so it is obviously just me.
I have admitted I didn't understand the way you had worded your posts, or possibly would struggle to cope with the intricacies of thought a referee needs.
I'm not sure why you are getting all uppity and defensive. I'm the dafty.