VAR for the handball

[hongkongfulham]

Sorry if I missed this discussed somewhere but do we know why we didnt get a Pen for that handball?

I thought any involvement of the hand preventing a goal in any capacity meant it was a pen? They had a decent look at it and it clearly hit his elbow, with open net behind him.

Can someone enlighten me?

[fulhamben]

The hand didn't prevent a goal in this case his arm was covering his stomach. Right decision for me. Surprised  tosin didn't give away a penalty though as it was exactly the same as mitros against Sheffield

[rebel]

A pundit said because his body was behind his arm, so the ball wouldn't have gone into the net. But I'm not sure that is the case.

[hongkongfulham]

A pundit said because his body was behind his arm, so the ball wouldn't have gone into the net. But I'm not sure that is the case.

Just watched it about 10 times and cant see how his body would have prevented it going in. Maybe my eyes deceive me as they are biased, but given he was moving to the right and the ball left seems a no brainer. Oh well

[rebel]

A pundit said because his body was behind his arm, so the ball wouldn't have gone into the net. But I'm not sure that is the case.

Just watched it about 10 times and cant see how his body would have prevented it going in. Maybe my eyes deceive me as they are biased, but given he was moving to the right and the ball left seems a no brainer. Oh well

I agree with you. The same pundits said our team looked pants against WBA team pre match from the team sheets. And they couldn't see us surviving, but WBA looked like they might. Go figure.

[RaySmith]

It could have been given in some cases, i think.

[alfie]

The hand didn't prevent a goal in this case his arm was covering his stomach. Right decision for me. Surprised  tosin didn't give away a penalty though as it was exactly the same as mitros against Sheffield
[/quote
Not sure, it hit his elbow that did not appear to be in front, I don't agree with this new handball stuff, but as it stands if it hits your arm/hand regardless of situation it's a pen. In saying that if that happened at our end we would all be having a go it a pen was given.

[JEEVES]

If that ball hadn't hit his arm it was in the net. The part of his arm it hit was not covering his torso it was next to it. At the very least it would have clipped his side and gone into the net.

[Tabby]

If that ball hadn't hit his arm it was in the net. The part of his arm it hit was not covering his torso it was next to it. At the very least it would have clipped his side and gone into the net.

The arm was by his side though. Not going to be able to get around players having arms.

I would have been livid if it was given against us.

[WindyCity]

After watching the first replay of that play, I thought for sure a penalty would have been given.  I thought these new rules changes made no allowance for even an 'accidental' touch in the box.  The ball clearly hit his elbow, which I believe would qualify as a hand ball.  Still a bit miffed penalty not given.

[fulhamben]

After watching the first replay of that play, I thought for sure a penalty would have been given.  I thought these new rules changes made no allowance for even an 'accidental' touch in the box.  The ball clearly hit his elbow, which I believe would qualify as a hand ball.  Still a bit miffed penalty not given.

when defending it has to be intentional which it wasn't or his body would have had to have been made unnaturally bigger. Which again it wasn't as his arms were tucked in, as tabby says above, I would also be livid if that was given against us. 

[Denzil Dexter]

Sorry if I missed this discussed somewhere but do we know why we didnt get a Pen for that handball?

I thought any involvement of the hand preventing a goal in any capacity meant it was a pen? They had a decent look at it and it clearly hit his elbow, with open net behind him.

Can someone enlighten me?

Being ultra critical BDR shouldn't have even given the defender a chance. PL strikers should be burying those chances 10/10 

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

[fulhamben]

Sorry if I missed this discussed somewhere but do we know why we didnt get a Pen for that handball?

I thought any involvement of the hand preventing a goal in any capacity meant it was a pen? They had a decent look at it and it clearly hit his elbow, with open net behind him.

Can someone enlighten me?

Being ultra critical BDR shouldn't have even given the defender a chance. PL strikers should be burying those chances 10/10 

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

totally agree with you, he reminds me a little of Zamora in his first season where he just smashed it as hard as he could every time. Needs a little composure as he had a lot of time to pick a spot or even have another touch.

[Craven_Chris]

After watching the first replay of that play, I thought for sure a penalty would have been given.  I thought these new rules changes made no allowance for even an 'accidental' touch in the box.  The ball clearly hit his elbow, which I believe would qualify as a hand ball.  Still a bit miffed penalty not given.

THe rule at the start of the season was that any contact with the hand, outside of the silhouette of the body would be a penalty. The FA then decided to soften its approach to that rule following the number of pens given out in the first few game weeks, so now they are likely to use judgement to think about whether it was a natural body position, speed of the ball and stuff like that. But in this case I think the defender did a reasonable job getting his arms into his body silhouette so I dont think this was a pen on either interpretation.

But I bet if we were a big 6 team is gets given... 

[ALG01]

If we were spurs OR played in red shirts it would have been given and the pudits would ahve agreed.

However I didn't think it was a penalty and incidents like that should not be . He had his arm well tucked in and it caught him quickly.

I hate the way the new interperatations work.

[Sgt Fulham]

I would have been embarrassed to get a penalty for that. We're not talking about Suarez vs. Ghana here. It was a great block and poor finish. For me, nothing else to see there.

[Jim©]

If he didn't have a right arm, it would have been a goal, without any doubt in the world.
Hence it's handball and a penalty.

I have no idea how many people accept that Joe Bryan's very slightest of touches on Bamford's back was a penalty yet a player preventing a certain goal when it hit's his elbow is not. Words fail me.

[Craven_Chris]

If he didn't have a right arm, it would have been a goal, without any doubt in the world.
Hence it's handball and a penalty.

I agree that if he didnt have arms it probably would have gone in, the question is whether that makes it handball.
The rules say it is not handball if the ball strikes the hand/arm 'directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close' unless ' the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger'

So the question is whether they have used their arm to make the body unnaturally bigger. As you point out, without his arm that shot probably goes in, so it has made his body bigger, but its the word 'unnaturally' that is key here: I think most referees would interpret that as meaning that if he made a reasonable effort to tuck his arms in, then it is not handball.

[sarnian]

Depends entirely who you play for. If Mitro had looked and backed into a defender like Kane did against Brighton it would have been a free kick against him. Because its Kane its given the other way as a penalty.

Pundits castigated Salah who was correctly given a penalty Saturday yet didn't mention their English hero Kane ( cheating bastard also dived to try and win another penalty ).

Unbiased, you must be joking.

[fcfulham55]

If it was Liverpool or a so called top 5/6 team appealing for the penalty, you bet your D..m Ass a penalty gets awarded.