Liverpool laughing stocks?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The media seem to be falling over themselves to have a go at Suarez over this. Whatever his faults (& they appear to be many) is there a striker anywhere that would have stopped the game and said "hang on ref, I handballed it there - free kick to them"

Steve Davis. (oops, wrong game).

Savis???

more like Bavis as in Steve 'Boring' Davis.

[malcd1]

I feel a bit sorry for him. Honestly!

In my opinion, it was unintentional. And I've never ever seen a player stop a game and say "yeah, I handballed it" or whatever.

Best bit for me is all the Yonited fans going ape shit. They're obviously referring back to when Roy Carroll generously told the linesman that the ball went over the line against Spurs.

It happened earlier this season when Klose scored a goal with his hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye3RA0ULXUQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Report here:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/klos ... 42496.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe it is just the Germans sense of fair play as the only other one I can find is Marius Ebbers when playing for St Pauli.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzXmBCkjvXM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Few and far between and I'm sure most players would have claimed the goal. It does look like Suarez was expecting the ref to disallow the goal but when he doesn't he celebrates. He is still a cheating feck though.

[boltonboris]

He is normally. But in this instance, I don't think he cheated. It was accidental handball in my opinion. The goal should never have stood, but it did. That's not Suarez's fault

[BWFC_Insane]

He is normally. But in this instance, I don't think he cheated. It was accidental handball in my opinion. The goal should never have stood, but it did. That's not Suarez's fault

This.

If Van Persil did it, everyone would say what a great predatory striker he was.

Cos its Suarez he's being battered from pillar to post.

I don't like Suarez. But it was one of those things, instinctive.

If it really bothers people the only real answer is video technology.

[bobo the clown]

He is normally. But in this instance, I don't think he cheated. It was accidental handball in my opinion. The goal should never have stood, but it did. That's not Suarez's fault

This.

If Van Persil did it, everyone would say what a great predatory striker he was.

Cos its Suarez he's being battered from pillar to post.

I don't like Suarez. But it was one of those things, instinctive.

If it really bothers people the only real answer is video technology.

Though, my view that 'goal-line technology' would be simply the thin end of the wedge is shown here. It's a game played at speed where some decisions are matters of judgement not simply fact. My view here is that Saurez did something out of pure instinct, it led to a goal & the handball wasn't spotted or given. Suck it up.

None of that stops him being a tit though !!

[thebish]

He is normally. But in this instance, I don't think he cheated. It was accidental handball in my opinion. The goal should never have stood, but it did. That's not Suarez's fault

This.

If Van Persil did it, everyone would say what a great predatory striker he was.

Cos its Suarez he's being battered from pillar to post.

I don't like Suarez. But it was one of those things, instinctive.

If it really bothers people the only real answer is video technology.

I agree that this is all overblown - but I'm not sure why the only real answer is video technology - not even video technology can reveal intention... another real answer is the one we have now - simply letting the ref and his assistants make the decision.

(also I am not as sure as you that people wouldn't slate Camper Van Persie!!)

[BWFC_Insane]

He is normally. But in this instance, I don't think he cheated. It was accidental handball in my opinion. The goal should never have stood, but it did. That's not Suarez's fault

This.

If Van Persil did it, everyone would say what a great predatory striker he was.

Cos its Suarez he's being battered from pillar to post.

I don't like Suarez. But it was one of those things, instinctive.

If it really bothers people the only real answer is video technology.

I agree that this is all overblown - but I'm not sure why the only real answer is video technology - not even video technology can reveal intention... another real answer is the one we have now - simply letting the ref and his assistants make the decision.

(also I am not as sure as you that people wouldn't slate Camper Van Persie!!)

Well yes, but it seems that people aren't happy with goals being allowed like that. And as much as I agree that it would be sometimes hard to decide even with a replay on decisions, that particular Suarez handball was surely pretty clear cut?

As for Van Persie, I suppose what I meant was the majority of the media's reaction to it more than anything else.....

[thebish]

Well yes, but it seems that people aren't happy with goals being allowed like that. And as much as I agree that it would be sometimes hard to decide even with a replay on decisions, that particular Suarez handball was surely pretty clear cut?

but we have seen all the video angles and people ARE still arguing about it.... some say it was handball and he is a dirty cheat - others say it was accidental, get off his back.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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

[ChrisC]

Personally I think he meant to handball it.. He clearly looks at the ball and knows the only way to stop the ball going past him is to use his hand to knock it back towards goal.

[thebish]

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!

[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.

As for the commentators, the rules (shush AT) don't mention ball-to-hand, but the guidelines do, so that is a relevant factor, rightly so IMO, but not they only factor.

It's a weird one though, because what is described by the guidelines, and applied by all referees is manifestly not 'deliberate' handball. Since Crayons has gone all legal, it is much more of an intention or reasonable foreseeability test. 'Well, he had his hands up, he was asking for it'.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Handball. The new Offside Rule test for real football supporters.
I admit - I don't know the exact wording, hence I'm not a real supporter. it was only recently that I realised that handball was an interpretable offence, I just thought that refs were applying some liberal rule bending when they didn't punish the 'ball-to-hand' incidents...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

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.

As for the commentators, the rules (shush AT) don't mention ball-to-hand, but the guidelines do, so that is a relevant factor, rightly so IMO, but not they only factor.

It's a weird one though, because what is described by the guidelines, and applied by all referees is manifestly not 'deliberate' handball. Since Crayons has gone all legal, it is much more of an intention or reasonable foreseeability test. 'Well, he had his hands up, he was asking for it'.

I think it would be a good thing for defenders actively to try and keep their hands and arms out of the way.

Yes, there would be the occasional sense of unjust harshness, but it would be worth it for all the nonsense cut out, in my opinion.

[boltonboris]

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.

As for the commentators, the rules (shush AT) don't mention ball-to-hand, but the guidelines do, so that is a relevant factor, rightly so IMO, but not they only factor.

It's a weird one though, because what is described by the guidelines, and applied by all referees is manifestly not 'deliberate' handball. Since Crayons has gone all legal, it is much more of an intention or reasonable foreseeability test. 'Well, he had his hands up, he was asking for it'.

I think it would be a good thing for defenders actively to try and keep their hands and arms out of the way.

Yes, there would be the occasional sense of unjust harshness, but it would be worth it for all the nonsense cut out, in my opinion.

Did you see Chelsea's fifth against Southampton the other day? Lampard is stood a yard away from a defender. He flicked the ball up a him intentionally looking for a handball. It brushed his stomach then hit his hand and the ref gave it!

Lampard stepped up and equalled some goalscoring record.

If the rules are changed as you said above, people would play for handballs the way they play for fouls.. It'd get ridiculous. You could just imagine (with benny hill music playing) a load of players running in little circles trying to kick the ball at eachothers hands.

[BWFC_Insane]

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.

As for the commentators, the rules (shush AT) don't mention ball-to-hand, but the guidelines do, so that is a relevant factor, rightly so IMO, but not they only factor.

It's a weird one though, because what is described by the guidelines, and applied by all referees is manifestly not 'deliberate' handball. Since Crayons has gone all legal, it is much more of an intention or reasonable foreseeability test. 'Well, he had his hands up, he was asking for it'.

I think it would be a good thing for defenders actively to try and keep their hands and arms out of the way.

Yes, there would be the occasional sense of unjust harshness, but it would be worth it for all the nonsense cut out, in my opinion.

I think what it would do is take any grey areas out of the rules. Which is usually a good thing.

A ref would only have to decide if the ball had hit the arm or hand or not rather than having to see "intent" or a deliberate movement or whatever.

It would be the same for both sides and relatively clear cut.

I can see a few issues with it, players in the wall for instance using their hands for ermmm protection. Would freekick takers deliberately smash balls into the wall to win penalties?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Did you see Chelsea's fifth against Southampton the other day? Lampard is stood a yard away from a defender. He flicked the ball up a him intentionally looking for a handball. It brushed his stomach then hit his hand and the ref gave it!

Lampard stepped up and equalled some goalscoring record.

If the rules are changed as you said above, people would play for handballs the way they play for fouls.. It'd get ridiculous. You could just imagine (with benny hill music playing) a load of players running in little circles trying to kick the ball at eachothers hands.

I didn't see that incident, but I really can't imagine playing for handball catching on in the way that you suggest (especially if players are redoubling their efforts to keep their hands out of the way).

Basically, I just think it would be too hard to do, and there is much bigger chance of simply giving the ball away?

[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.

As for the commentators, the rules (shush AT) don't mention ball-to-hand, but the guidelines do, so that is a relevant factor, rightly so IMO, but not they only factor.

It's a weird one though, because what is described by the guidelines, and applied by all referees is manifestly not 'deliberate' handball. Since Crayons has gone all legal, it is much more of an intention or reasonable foreseeability test. 'Well, he had his hands up, he was asking for it'.

I think it would be a good thing for defenders actively to try and keep their hands and arms out of the way.

Yes, there would be the occasional sense of unjust harshness, but it would be worth it for all the nonsense cut out, in my opinion.

Defenders closing down crosses already do. Full-backs with their arms by their side. You have to put them somewhere though. It means every time a defender closed down a cross they'd risk giving away a free kick or often a penalty.

Also how many times do you hear the crowd appeal for a handball when somebody blocks something and it ricochets up and hits an elbow or an arm. There'd be a penalty a game!

[boltonboris]

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.

[Prufrock]

Aye, I think it's right as it is. The problem is refs. I got one given against me on Saturday where I charged down a shot which twatted me in the face then straight down onto my hand. Fecking handball. Cheers ref!