• 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

It was so clearly handball, how could the official not pull that back? To add insult to injury possibly offside too.

Only consolation is how average those clams looked.
 
Last edited:
Looking at it again, Chamberlain actually misses completely, so no offside. Just a blatant handball. The only reason the ref paused for a second was that he couldn't believe his luck. Ten seconds past the indicated 2 minutes of extra time. Had Burnley taken a short corner the game would have been over.
 
The ball was flying into the stratosphere until Koscielny got the second touch with his hand. It wasnt on purpose, but it happened all the same.
fudging Henry trying to defend it though. We all know that if Burnley had scored in that manner he'd be raging, then again he's a winner who will do anything to win (just ask ROI fans).

That said, Burnley have themselves to blame for letting Walcott win a free header on the edge of their six yard box.
 
massively fortunate but it wasn't a foul, handball has to be intentional and koscielney didn't have a clue where the ball was

the crime was burnleys defending, they let two go unmarked to the far post and didn't challenge the initial cross correctly
 
galeforce said:
massively fortunate but it wasn't a foul, handball has to be intentional and koscielney didn't have a clue where the ball was

the crime was burnleys defending, they let two go unmarked to the far post and didn't challenge the initial cross correctly
Click to expand...

How do you judge whether a handball was deliberate? What if you just happened to have your arms stretched out in front of you and then misskick the ball into them? You didn't mean to handle it.
 
Jordinho said:
How do you judge whether a handball was deliberate? What if you just happened to have your arms stretched out in front of you and then misskick the ball into them? You didn't mean to handle it.
Click to expand...

...and the ref plays on

as the rule is written intent is required

we scored a similar goal through Robbie Keane a few years back (against Boro iirc)
 
galeforce said:
massively fortunate but it wasn't a foul, handball has to be intentional and koscielney didn't have a clue where the ball was

the crime was burnleys defending, they let two go unmarked to the far post and didn't challenge the initial cross correctly
Click to expand...

Are there not plenty of examples where intent isn't the deciding factor? I mean there are plenty of handball's given against players who unintentionally handle the ball but have their arm's in unnatural positions. Koscielny didn't have his by his side, they were raised up by his head.
 
Cochise said:
Are there not plenty of examples where intent isn't the deciding factor? I mean there are plenty of handball's given against players who unintentionally handle the ball but have their arm's in unnatural positions. Koscielny didn't have his by his side, they were raised up by his head.
Click to expand...

hundreds i'm sure, but are they examples
of the law being applied as written?
 
galeforce said:
hundreds i'm sure, but are they examples
of the law being applied as written?
Click to expand...

Not at all, but this is where the hand ball law becomes contentious. I always feel like there should be an element of common sense when deciding on these things, especially taking into account how much advantage is gained from it. Every case can be different and open to debate.
 
Cochise said:
Not at all, but this is where the hand ball law becomes contentious. I always feel like there should be an element of common sense when deciding on these things, especially taking into account how much advantage is gained from it. Every case can be different and open to debate.
Click to expand...

do you not think the original wording should be respected though?

"deliberately" is implicit
 
galeforce said:
do you not think the original wording should be respected though?

"deliberately" is implicit
Click to expand...

Personally, no. I say that because I don't think the law can be so black and white. The referee cannot always know if a player has handled the ball by design or on accident, a clever player could manage it whilst looking innocent after all.

I mean should defenders be able to defend with their arms out? We could argue both sides, one saying that by doing so they are providing an obstacle to the path of the ball whilst on the other saying that they need their arms out to keep them balanced and agile.

I still believe that when a clear benefit has been gained (blocking a freekick at head height or guiding the ball into the net when it was going sky high) then a foul should be given.
 
Cochise said:
Personally, no. I say that because I don't think the law can be so black and white. The referee cannot always know if a player has handled the ball by design or on accident, a clever player could manage it whilst looking innocent after all.

I mean should defenders be able to defend with their arms out? We could argue both sides, one saying that by doing so they are providing an obstacle to the path of the ball whilst on the other saying that they need their arms out to keep them balanced and agile.

I still believe that when a clear benefit has been gained (blocking a freekick at head height or guiding the ball into the net when it was going sky high) then a foul should be given.
Click to expand...

i'm sure most agree with you on that

i'm not looking at this from what I think should be the case, i'm looking at how the law is written and how it applies in this instance

it makes me wonder, why after years of scrutiny on so many handball incidents, why have the lawmakers stuck so solidly with this wording
 
galeforce said:
i'm sure most agree with you on that

i'm not looking at this from what I think should be the case, i'm looking at how the law is written and how it applies in this instance

it makes me wonder, why after years of scrutiny on so many handball incidents, why have the lawmakers stuck so solidly with this wording
Click to expand...

Probably because it's easier that way. If they left it as I have said I would, then every decision would become an even bigger talking point. Referee's would have an even harder job if the law left them free to determine which handball's they wanted to penalise and there would be a complete lack of continuity. This way they have shield to stand behind and fans like us can squabble all day long but only have the laws to blame. No human for a mob to chase after.

So far as the wording of the law goes though, Koscielny is innocent (even he didn't feel it touch his own hand's).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back