The mancityfans.net football forum

Would it not be better just to have handball as handball with just a few exceptions ?

I mean; you try to avoid your hand touching the ball no handball. Too close a distance from the ball delivered; no handball, deflection; no handball Otherwise, if you have time to react; move your fucking hand. If you try to score & it hits your hand & goes in; no goal, because otherwise it's just too silly; if you wave your hand in the air & the ball hits it; handball, if you leave your hand dangling & a cross from ten yards away hits it; handball etc. Is it so impossible, that 'careless hands' means handball an attempt to avoid it or an unavoidable accident means no handball ?

There is no consistency. John Terry deliberatley sticks his hands in the air when charging a ball down. He regularly handles the ball.

Just tell him he can't Etc.

isn't every handball (that's given) deliberate or not an automatic yellow card in spain or am i making that up?

Nigels Tackle wrote:isn't every handball (that's given) deliberate or not an automatic yellow card in spain or am i making that up?

Handball has to have an intention to gain an advantage to be handball.
But intentional handball is a bookable offence.
Strange.
Maybe this should be in 'things I don't understand about football'

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:

Nigels Tackle wrote:isn't every handball (that's given) deliberate or not an automatic yellow card in spain or am i making that up?

Handball has to have an intention to gain an advantage to be handball.
But intentional handball is a bookable offence.
Strange.
Maybe this should be in 'things I don't understand about football'

I think you're right, it's a rule that seems to have overcomplicated the game.

On the one hand, you could argue that if you didn't have the concepts of 'intentional' or 'ball to hand', the rule makers must be scared to death that players are actively going to run around the pitch belting the ball at folks' hands rather than playing football. On the other hand, if the rule makers are that cynical of footballers' intentions, then why would you not bring in video evidence for dives?

It's one of them rules that you can kinda see the point of, but makes the referee's job nigh on impossible (or at the very least a lot more difficult), and you just think well fuck it, if you are gonna complicate that rule, the offside rule etc to have a load of conditions, then you might as well do that with every aspect of the game. What would we do if we stopped giving corners because the defender's intention is to punt the ball up the pitch instead of shinning it into the stand......surely its the same fucking thing?

They should just make it that if it hits your hand it's a free kick. Maybe if your hand is directly in front of your body and it strikes it it isn't ie if it would have hit your chest anyway

Neymar's last night was clearly accidental but changed the flight of the ball, possibly stopping the keeper saving it. Why we have to complicate a simple game I don't know

I think you say, If you gain an advantage from the handball, play is stopped. If you've intentionally done it, you get a card ... unintentional, but advantage gained, foul.

kinkylola wrote:I think you say, If you gain an advantage from the handball, play is stopped. If you've intentionally done it, you get a card ... unintentional, but advantage gained, foul.

The trouble is though, this imposes a requirement upon the referee to either think or to even be allowed to 'interpret' the event in some way.

In the first instance, today's referees are solid from the neck upwards and don't have the capacity to think.

In the second instance, their powers of objective interpretation is marred and coloured by their media conditioning to lean over backwards for the Scum, as well as the other criminal outfits of the Premier League cartel, whilst disseminating only complete unfairness to sides such as City.

Because referees are biased dumbells, the rules should be set in simplistic concrete to never allow the slightest prospect of deviation from them.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

kinkylola wrote:I think you say, If you gain an advantage from the handball, play is stopped. If you've intentionally done it, you get a card ... unintentional, but advantage gained, foul.

The trouble is though, this imposes a requirement upon the referee to either think or to even be allowed to 'interpret' the event in some way.

In the first instance, today's referees are solid from the neck upwards and don't have the capacity to think.

Because referees are biased dumbells, the rules should be set in simplistic concrete to never allow the slightest prospect of deviation from them.

I very much disagree with the first two statements above as far too simplistic, but agree with your third if only in theory, to simplify the game. The ever increasing complexity of rules such as offside, handball when mixed in with intent, advantage all exist to allow the game to flow wherever possible, and these evolutions of rules really require the referee to think very quickly on their feet to arrive at a decision based on how they have been trained to interpret the rules in given scenarios.

The current rules are a clear concession to promoting football to be entertaining as a spectacle, wheras a flat interpretation of handball as handball, or offside as offside would result in considerably more stoppages in games and a dumbing down of the product, which the FAPL can't allow for obvious commercial reasons.

Sometimes the referee's interpretation may be wrong in the eyes of the fans of one or both teams, or even just plain wrong on occasion. The fact that controversial decisions on handball and offside can be endlessly debated by fans of opposing teams or even amongst fans of the same team as happens on here with neither side of the argument apparently ever conclusively right, shows just how impossible a job the referees often have in keeping the fans happy - but I'd wager that more often than not when we reckon they are wrong, they are very probably correct - remember they are all assessed all the way through the leagues and only the highest scoring in the entire football pyramid stay on the premier league list.

The bias question of course is another matter entirely