Liverpool laughing stocks?

[Little Green Man]

If you look like you've done it on purpose, it's a penalty. If you've not done it on purpose but your arms are all over the show and the balls hit it after travelling some distance (like that Brum defender against us) it's a penalty.

Unless your name is Ugo Ehiogu and it's in the last few minutes of the League Cup final, in which case neither apply.

[Prufrock]

Don't!

Why is there no video of that btw?! Absolute travesty.

[mrkint]

Spot the difference between

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20948372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the sixth paragraph here

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... to_decide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not sure there are any grey areas TBH. If you look like you've done it on purpose, it's a penalty. If you've not done it on purpose but your arms are all over the show and the balls hit it after travelling some distance (like that Brum defender against us) it's a penalty.

The Suarez incident didn't come down to portrayal of the rules. It came down to simply not seeing it. Which is baaaad.

There are grey areas though. I'm not saying thats necessarily bad in itself. But there area.

Plenty of debates over whether it was "deliberate or not" for all sorts of incidents. Some are given some aren't. There is inconsistency. Some are blasted point blank at players and given, other times more "deliberate looking" ones are not.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Spot the difference between

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20948372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the sixth paragraph here

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... to_decide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good work. I am definitely stealing this.

[Annoyed Grunt]

Spot the difference between

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20948372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the sixth paragraph here

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/wa ... to_decide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Or Liverpool"

[malcd1]

Don't!

Why is there no video of that btw?! Absolute travesty.

Try this.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/lu ... liverpool/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[truewhite15]

Don't!

Why is there no video of that btw?! Absolute travesty.

Try this.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/lu ... liverpool/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I fear Prufrock may have been referring to a different game altogether. And no, please don't try to find it. I like my laptop, and to throw it across the room may set me back a little...

[boltonboris]

There's absolutely no way he can get his arm out of the way

[blurred]

Would we lose anything if handball became a strict liability offence?

it would certainly make things easier! and it would stop wanky commentators declaring that "the rules say hand-to-ball not ball-to-hand" - which they manifestly do not!

I think we would. It would be a full back's nightmare for instance. How do you go and close down a cross if any contact is going to mean a free-kick or even a penalty. Wouldn't affect ours too much though.

Hockey has it for an equivalent offence, and defenders just deal with it (or give away a penalty corner). I'm all for it being a strict liability offence - would ultimately lead to more penalties/goals.

[mrkint]

Idk. I think it works in hockey because although a penalty corner is obviously a good goal-scoring chance it is a lot less so than a penalty in football. If it became strict liability I'd imagine it we would see coaches encouraging people to just run up to defenders and blast the ball into their hand.

[Prufrock]

Would we lose anything if handball became a strict liability offence?

it would certainly make things easier! and it would stop wanky commentators declaring that "the rules say hand-to-ball not ball-to-hand" - which they manifestly do not!

I think we would. It would be a full back's nightmare for instance. How do you go and close down a cross if any contact is going to mean a free-kick or even a penalty. Wouldn't affect ours too much though.

Hockey has it for an equivalent offence, and defenders just deal with it (or give away a penalty corner). I'm all for it being a strict liability offence - would ultimately lead to more penalties/goals.

Let's get rid of goalkeepers then. F*ck me.

[mrkint]

And added time multiball

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Idk. I think it works in hockey because although a penalty corner is obviously a good goal-scoring chance it is a lot less so than a penalty in football. If it became strict liability I'd imagine it we would see coaches encouraging people to just run up to defenders and blast the ball into their hand.

Why try and hit that really small, difficult target instead of trying to score a goal in the usual fashion?

[Prufrock]

You wouldn't always, or by any means most of the time; however, every time you were at the by-line without much space you'd look for it. In the same way players now will just try to hit it hard and low across goal hoping for a touch in, but expecting it to be blocked and win a corner, you'd have wingers looking to chip it to the back post hoping for a header but knowing there is a good chance it will brush an arm, because, it isn't actually that small a target, both hands and arms.

This is only a reckon, given how many 'appeals' you see a season per team where the ball strikes a hand unintentionally either from close range, or a shot deflects up, or it hits a defender's side and then their arm, I reckon each team would see at least an extra ten penalties in their games per season. That's massive.

The other alternative would be to interpret 'deliberate' properly, because most deliberate handballs are nothing of the sort. The problem with that is defenders spreading themselves like goalkeepers. I actually think the current state on handball is as good as it gets. I honestly think strict liability would change the game massively, and in a really shit way. Any other way of doing it involves a measure of subjectivity, but so do so many aspects of refereeing. The main guide-line for whether a one off tackle should merit, firstly a yellow card, is, is it 'dangerous'? And secondly, for a red, is it 'reckless'? Ought we to have strict liability there: gone off injured is a yellow, broken bone a red?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

If you're at the byline and you try to hit somebody's hand rather than get a cross in or something, then you deserve to lose the ball the 9/10 times that will happen. It will never be the % play.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But I do take the point about how much subjectivity there is in refereeing other laws of the game.

I have always been impressed at the ambition of football's demanding the evaluation of mens rea in a split second, at any rate.

[Prufrock]

When at the byline in those situations, at the moment most players go for the hard and low option, knowing 9/10 you'll get a corner. You aren't aiming for the corner, you hope it flashes across goal and gets knocked in, but you know if you don't get the goal, you'll likely get the corner. Make it strict liability and you'd instead stand it up to the far post hoping for the header, which gives the defender more chance of clearing it, but also with a not terrible chance of brushing an arm on its way up. You'd still be hoping for the header, but the odds of getting a penalty would be much higher.

Do you disagree that the number of times the ball hits an arm or a hand in the box is large enough to lead to a large number of penalties if handball were made strict liability? I think it would be ridiculous. I don't have numbers to back it up, but my feeling is it happens at least once every other game.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The current numbers, even if we had them, would be of limited use because the current rules apply.

My utopia has defenders actively keeping their hands out of the way.

[Prufrock]

How? Running around with them both held together behind their back? No-one runs like that. I keep going back to full-backs defending crosses, because, if you watch them now, they close down with their arms as close as possible to tight by their sides. You need your arms to accelerate. We did a bit of sprint training as a sort of crossover to see how it could help footballers, and they do whole sessions on arm work. You can't have defenders with their arms behind their backs like roosting birds, they'd have less balance, and couldn't accelerate or change direction properly.

I would say Boris pretty much nailed the current 'definition' of handball earlier when he said something along the lines of 'on purpose, or with your arms flailing about all over the place'. That's right for me. It's subjective, but applied fairly well overall I think.