• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2016/17 Premier League Thread

they should trial a tournament with a "if the ball touches your hand it's a FK, whatever the circumstances, protecting your genitals, facing the other way, asleep, etc"
 
"It struck him and we are stuck with the rule where it has to be deliberate"

Sounds like even he doesn't like rule.
 
parklane1 said:
I was wondering if it would have gone round in circles if it was not the Arse involved.
Click to expand...
It's a bit harsh to label galeforce "the Ar.se" but fair enough, I'll go with it.

Regarding Dermot Gallagher, he is obviously wrong. He says "Handball has to be deliberate, but I don't think it's handball. It struck him and we are stuck with the rule where it has to be deliberate. People said his arms were up but that's because he used his arms for elevation. He has actually mis-kicked it, it has flown up and hit him, so it's not hand to ball, it's ball to hand. There is nothing wrong in the law with what happened."

There have been loads of times a defender gives away a foul for the ball striking his arm which is away from his body. It isn't deliberate, it is very hard to keep your arms by your side whilst sprinting stopping turning sprinting blocking turning... Gallagher is wrong, and the Ar.se is wrong
 
Bullet said:
It's a bit harsh to label galeforce "the Ar.se" but fair enough, I'll go with it.

Regarding Dermot Gallagher, he is obviously wrong. He says "Handball has to be deliberate, but I don't think it's handball. It struck him and we are stuck with the rule where it has to be deliberate. People said his arms were up but that's because he used his arms for elevation. He has actually mis-kicked it, it has flown up and hit him, so it's not hand to ball, it's ball to hand. There is nothing wrong in the law with what happened."

There have been loads of times a defender gives away a foul for the ball striking his arm which is away from his body. It isn't deliberate, it is very hard to keep your arms by your side whilst sprinting stopping turning sprinting blocking turning... Gallagher is wrong, and the Ar.se is wrong
Click to expand...

You've just described those fouls that were given as wrong, not Gallagher.

Just because refs don't always interpret to the rules doesn't mean that when the rules are applied then they are wrong.

Truth is, there are very few actual handballs (by the wording of the law) in football. It's very rare for a player to deliberately handle.
 
Problem with rules in a lot of sports is that they were formulated when players wouldn't be trying to break or bend the rules. Sport was something gentlemen did in their spare time.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
You've just described those fouls that were given as wrong, not Gallagher.

Just because refs don't always interpret to the rules doesn't mean that when the rules are applied then they are wrong.

Truth is, there are very few actual handballs (by the wording of the law) in football. It's very rare for a player to deliberately handle.
Click to expand...

If Gallagher interprets the rules robotically and unlike the rest of the refereeing community, that makes him wrong as there is a tacit understanding of the meaning of the laws, as with all laws in life. All laws are interpreted. E.g. speeding
 
I can't see how that could be given As a handball when the ball bounced of his body onto his arm... Where is the intent?!?

The issue is though he gained advantage by the ball hitting his hand which is clearly against the "essence" of that rule.
 
Bullet said:
If Gallagher interprets the rules robotically and unlike the rest of the refereeing community, that makes him wrong as there is a tacit understanding of the meaning of the laws, as with all laws in life. All laws are interpreted. E.g. speeding
Click to expand...

...he's a brilliant referee

thats the only way we'll get consistency
 
Bullet said:
If Gallagher interprets the rules robotically and unlike the rest of the refereeing community, that makes him wrong as there is a tacit understanding of the meaning of the laws, as with all laws in life. All laws are interpreted. E.g. speeding
Click to expand...

The laws are in black and white.

There has to be intent to handle.

The only interpretation is whether he did it deliberately or not (he didn't). You don't interpret the very essence of the law; its meaning is clear.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
The laws are in black and white.

There has to be intent to handle.

The only interpretation is whether he did it deliberately or not (he didn't). You don't interpret the very essence of the law; its meaning is clear.
Click to expand...
Why is jostling on corners ok? Every where else would be free kicks, written rules are free kicks.

Precedence is the law not written rules, written rules are excuses to hide behind
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
Why is jostling on corners ok? Every where else would be free kicks, written rules are free kicks.

Precedence is the law not written rules, written rules are excuses to hide behind
Click to expand...

is it not more likely a case of weak refereeing than it being ok?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back