4 points lost v Liverpool and Spurs...

[Blawarmy]

Down to sh*t VAR decisions. What an absolute joke!!

[Slaphead in Qatar]

The decision today was correct - it's the law that is nonsensical

[Radiowhite]

The decision today was correct - it's the law that is nonsensical

Laws have room to be interpreted. So in football the laws should be interpreted as to what the intention of those writing the laws were. No one can possibly say those writing the laws wrote them intending the handball today to be a handball. Completely nonsensical, referees need to apply their brains.

[Sting of the North]

The decision today was correct - it's the law that is nonsensical

Laws have room to be interpreted. So in football the laws should be interpreted as to what the intention of those writing the laws were. No one can possibly say those writing the laws wrote them intending the handball today to be a handball. Completely nonsensical, referees need to apply their brains.

The laws have some room in this case. The Official PL guidelines states the following:

"An accidental handball by an attacking player or team-mate will only be penalised if it occurs immediately before a goal or a goalscoring opportunity.

If an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand or arm and then scores a goal, or the ball goes to another attacking player and they immediately score, this is a handball offence.

But it is not a handball offence if after an accidental handball the ball travels some distance via a pass or a dribble, or there are several passes before the goal or goalscoring opportunity."

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough. But the bottom line is of course that it is a ridiculous rule. The ball hitting Lemina's arm made no difference to what happened afterwards, and as such the "handball" didn't lead to anything that wouldn't have happened anyway.

[Arthur]

No one can possibly say those writing the laws wrote them intending the handball today to be a handball.

That's exactly what they intended. The law-makers wanted the rule to be unequivocal. Any handball that leads to a goal is handball. It can't be made any simpler.

[Arthur]

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough.

But Maja didn't take the ball around the defender. He shifted it the side of him. To call that a dribble is wrong. The defender was always goal-side of Maja.

[RaySmith]

The ref didn't have to give that decision - he could easily have argued  that  our goal was legitimate under the rules, which are ambiguous and open to some interpretation,  when you read them.

[Sting of the North]

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough.

But Maja didn't take the ball around the defender. He shifted it the side of him. To call that a dribble is wrong. The defender was always goal-side of Maja.

Since there is no definition of what constitutes a dribble (surely it at least doesn't matter what direction you take the ball), or for that matter what constitutes "immediately" I don't believe that your comment is necessarily accurate, but more of an opinion from your side (albeit not a bad guess). Unless there are more guidelines that I have not found. This is the problem with so called unequivocal rules. Clearly not all handballs that leads to a goal are disallowed, because the goal has to be immediate, which is open to interpretation.

As for purpose of the law, the following is stated (by IFAB, not FA):

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

[Andy S]

I agree Ray

[Arthur]

The ref didn't have to give that decision - he could easily have argued  that  our gal was legitimate under the rules, which are ambiguous and open to some interpretation  when you read them.

While there will likely be many neutrals who will think the rule, itself, to be unfair and sympathise with us, I doubt you'll find even one who will think the ruling was applied incorrectly under the laws as they stand.

[Willham]

Personally I think once mama has taken a touch then it's under control and a new phase of playing I think back to the Aston villa defender and that goal for man city when Aston villas defender took control of the ball when the man city man was coming back from an offside position   if the fans deem that a goal because the one touch the defender had brought the ball under control then this should be applied to maja, he took two touches so it's a new phase of play meaning the handball was not directing involved in the making of the goal therefore the goal should stand.

[Arthur]

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough.

But Maja didn't take the ball around the defender. He shifted it the side of him. To call that a dribble is wrong. The defender was always goal-side of Maja.

Since there is no definition of what constitutes a dribble (surely it at least doesn't matter what direction you take the ball), or for that matter what constitutes "immediately" I don't believe that your comment is necessarily accurate, but more of an opinion from your side (albeit not a bad guess). Unless there are more guidelines that I have not found. This is the problem with so called unequivocal rules. Clearly not all handballs that leads to a goal are disallowed, because the goal has to be immediate, which is open to interpretation.

As for purpose of the law, the following is stated (by IFAB, not FA):

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

I'm going by your definition of Maja's dribble: that he took the ball around the defender. He didn't.

The unequivocal part of the rule is what constitutes handball: any contact between the ball and the arm does. This is unequivocal.

I agree the term 'immediate' is open to interpretation, but the threads and all the posts are about the handball.

[andyk]

Maja still had an awful lot to do, in order to score. Defender was still goal side and keeper was set.
If the incident had happened well outside the box and a player, let's say Gareth Bale, took one touch then volleyed it 30 yards into the top corner, is that disallowed?
The rule was intended for accidental handball which ended up in the net, or deflected the ball into a clear goalscoring position. I think this happened in the Brighton home game and we got the benefit.
But referees should be allowed a bit more leeway on these calls.

The rule will, probably, be amended. Kno

[Sting of the North]

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough.

But Maja didn't take the ball around the defender. He shifted it the side of him. To call that a dribble is wrong. The defender was always goal-side of Maja.

Since there is no definition of what constitutes a dribble (surely it at least doesn't matter what direction you take the ball), or for that matter what constitutes "immediately" I don't believe that your comment is necessarily accurate, but more of an opinion from your side (albeit not a bad guess). Unless there are more guidelines that I have not found. This is the problem with so called unequivocal rules. Clearly not all handballs that leads to a goal are disallowed, because the goal has to be immediate, which is open to interpretation.

As for purpose of the law, the following is stated (by IFAB, not FA):

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

I'm going by your definition of Maja's dribble: that he took the ball around the defender. He didn't.

The unequivocal part of the rule is what constitutes handball: any contact between the ball and the arm does. This is unequivocal.

I agree the term 'immediate' is open to interpretation, but the threads and all the posts are about the handball.

I have no idea what the point of your semantics lesson is, but whether he took the ball around, past or to the side of the defender was hardly the point I was making. Maja moved the ball away from the defender to create himself space and opportunity to score. Whether or not you classify that as a dribble is not the point I was making.

As for the broader point, I am pretty sure that most people don't care if the definition of handball applies, but whether or not said handball is punishable with a free kick. Since all handballs are not, the rules are still not unequivocal.

I agree with you though that it is easy for the referee in this case to lean on the rules to save his skin, but there is definitely room for interpretation.

[Arthur]

I have no idea what the point of your semantics lesson is, but whether he took the ball around, past or to the side of the defender was hardly the point I was making. Maja moved the ball away from the defender to create himself space and opportunity to score. Whether or not you classify that as a dribble is not the point I was making.

I won't accept you trying to make out I'm trying to be a pedant.

That Maja's movement of the ball could be classed as a dribble is exactly the point you made.

The laws have some room in this case. The Official PL guidelines states the following:

"But it is not a handball offence if after an accidental handball the ball travels some distance via a pass or a dribble, or there are several passes before the goal or goalscoring opportunity."

Thus, there is some leeway, and the referee could have stated that Maja taking the ball around the defender was enough.

The referee couldn't declare Maja to have passed the ball. Ergo, the 'enough'to which you refer that you think would have permitted the referee to allow the goal must be a dribble.

[Sting of the North]

Yes, and it is in this context not interesting whether or not you personally deem it to be a dribble or not. We do not know the definition of a dribble in this context. Maja moved the ball in order to be able to score. This movement of the ball took the defender out of the equation. Whether or not that is a dribble is anyone's guess without a definition. That was the point that you seem to miss. Since the only two examples are passes or dribbles, I would wager that it is extremely likely that a dribble in this case included just moving the ball without giving it to another player, since the point is that something should occur to a sufficient degree if the definition of "immediately" should not apply.

You instead seemingly got hung up on my wording of "taking the ball around the defender", which is exactly why it seemed like an attempted semantics lesson from my point of view. Apologies if that is not the case.

So again, to be perfectly clear, I believe there is definitely room to interpret Maja's movement of the ball as a dribble in this context. I don't even believe it is in the slightest controversial to do so. The only unclear factor to me is whether or not the goal was scored immediately following the handball, which I would assume is likely given the short amount of time passed and the few events between the handball and the goal.

But in my interpretation the referee could have easily said that Maja having to do some work with the ball meant that the goal was not scored immediately. That is the wiggle room left by the guidelines, and in my opinion a referee should have taken the chance bearing in mind the purpose of the rules.

I am not familiar with the discussions between officials behind locked doors however, so I cannot say whether or not the referee's hands were tied or not in this case. That is the problems with rules that are open to interpretation (which unfortunately includes most rules).

[Arthur]

Yes, and it is in this context not interesting whether or not you personally deem it to be a dribble or not. We do not know the definition of a dribble in this context. Maja moved the ball in order to be able to score. This movement of the ball took the defender out of the equation. Whether or not that is a dribble is anyone's guess without a definition. That was the point that you seem to miss. Since the only two examples are passes or dribbles, I would wager that it is extremely likely that a dribble in this case included just moving the ball without giving it to another player, since the point is that something should occur to a sufficient degree if the definition of "immediately" should not apply.

You instead seemingly got hung up on my wording of "taking the ball around the defender", which is exactly why it seemed like an attempted semantics lesson from my point of view. Apologies if that is not the case.

So again, to be perfectly clear, I believe there is definitely room to interpret Maja's movement of the ball as a dribble in this context. I don't even believe it is in the slightest controversial to do so. The only unclear factor to me is whether or not the goal was scored immediately following the handball, which I would assume is likely given the short amount of time passed and the few events between the handball and the goal.

But in my interpretation the referee could have easily said that Maja having to do some work with the ball meant that the goal was not scored immediately. That is the wiggle room left by the guidelines, and in my opinion a referee should have taken the chance bearing in mind the purpose of the rules.

I am not familiar with the discussions between officials behind locked doors however, so I cannot say whether or not the referee's hands were tied or not in this case. That is the problems with rules that are open to interpretation (which unfortunately includes most rules).

Thank you for your reply and for the offer of an apology. Not everybody on here would do so.

I do not dispute you are entitled to think the game's law-makers didn't intend for our disallowed goal to be disallowed. All the same, in my opinion, it is only in your final three paragraphs above that you make it clear why you think this. Had you been clearer sooner, I wouldn't now be accused by you of being 'hung up' on wording (Maja 'taking the ball around a defender') that you didn't intend to have a literal meaning.

As we have reached an impasse, I shall only endeavour to defend my claim Maja didn't dribble the ball against your assertion that there being no definition of what constitutes a dribble is enough to dismiss my argument. ('in this context not interesting' was your somewhat uncharitable description.)

Simply because there is no definition does not mean I cannot apply reasonable parameters as to what is classed as a dribble based on previous evidence. Following contact between ball and arm, I have seen both disallowed goals and goals that have been allowed to stand. On no occasion have I seen a goal not be disallowed when a player - as did Maja - moves the ball less than two yards before scoring.

It is not the case that the absence of a definition makes all interpretations equally worthwhile or worthless. If this were true, then all manner of ridiculous statements would gain parity. By way of example: In that there is no definition of a dribble in the law book, I suspect there is no definition of a pass either. Therefore, to mimic a line of yours above: 'Maja moves the ball in order to be able to score... Whether this is a pass is anyone's guess without a definition.'

In my humble opinion, this exemplifies the fallacy in your belief that no view of tonight's incident can be more accurate than any other.

But thank you for the exchange; I have found it enjoyable.

[Sting of the North]

Yes, and it is in this context not interesting whether or not you personally deem it to be a dribble or not. We do not know the definition of a dribble in this context. Maja moved the ball in order to be able to score. This movement of the ball took the defender out of the equation. Whether or not that is a dribble is anyone's guess without a definition. That was the point that you seem to miss. Since the only two examples are passes or dribbles, I would wager that it is extremely likely that a dribble in this case included just moving the ball without giving it to another player, since the point is that something should occur to a sufficient degree if the definition of "immediately" should not apply.

You instead seemingly got hung up on my wording of "taking the ball around the defender", which is exactly why it seemed like an attempted semantics lesson from my point of view. Apologies if that is not the case.

So again, to be perfectly clear, I believe there is definitely room to interpret Maja's movement of the ball as a dribble in this context. I don't even believe it is in the slightest controversial to do so. The only unclear factor to me is whether or not the goal was scored immediately following the handball, which I would assume is likely given the short amount of time passed and the few events between the handball and the goal.

But in my interpretation the referee could have easily said that Maja having to do some work with the ball meant that the goal was not scored immediately. That is the wiggle room left by the guidelines, and in my opinion a referee should have taken the chance bearing in mind the purpose of the rules.

I am not familiar with the discussions between officials behind locked doors however, so I cannot say whether or not the referee's hands were tied or not in this case. That is the problems with rules that are open to interpretation (which unfortunately includes most rules).

Thank you for your reply and for the offer of an apology. Not everybody on here would do so.

I do not dispute you are entitled to think the game's law-makers didn't intend for our disallowed goal to be disallowed. All the same, in my opinion, it is only in your final three paragraphs above that you make it clear why you think this. Had you been clearer sooner, I wouldn't now be accused by you of being 'hung up' on wording (Maja 'taking the ball around a defender') that you didn't intend to have a literal meaning.

As we have reached an impasse, I shall only endeavour to defend my claim Maja didn't dribble the ball against your assertion that there being no definition of what constitutes a dribble is enough to dismiss my argument. ('in this context not interesting' was your somewhat uncharitable description.)

Simply because there is no definition does not mean I cannot apply reasonable parameters as to what is classed as a dribble based on previous evidence. Following contact between ball and arm, I have seen both disallowed goals and goals that have been allowed to stand. On no occasion have I seen a goal not be disallowed when a player - as did Maja - moves the ball less than two yards before scoring.

It is not the case that the absence of a definition makes all interpretations equally worthwhile or worthless. If this were true, then all manner of ridiculous statements would gain parity. By way of example: In that there is no definition of a dribble in the law book, I suspect there is no definition of a pass either. Therefore, to mimic a line of yours above: 'Maja moves the ball in order to be able to score... Whether this is a pass is anyone's guess without a definition.'

In my humble opinion, this exemplifies the fallacy in your belief that no view of tonight's incident can be more accurate than any other.

But thank you for the exchange; I have found it enjoyable.

First off my apologies for the late reply on this, been busy all day. Secondly, in order to not start any more unnecessary arguments I will just give you the benefit of the doubt from here on and assume that your misinterpretations of my posts are unintentional, however surprising said interpretations are to me. Maybe I just fail to make myself clear, even though I have tried to by quite concise. My apologies if that is the case. Thus, just a few clarifications in the best of faith:

- Firstly, I called your opinion of whether or not it was a dribble "not interesting" not because I don't believe you are entitled to an opinion and not to be rude, but because we won't come to a conclusion on that discussion because we can't know the intended definition in this case (even though we can guess) and also because the point in my opinion is not that a well defined dribble has to occur (see below). Apologies if you found it offensive.

- Secondly, and this is my subjective opinion, I am almost entirely sure that Maja's actions are deemed a dribble within the context of the comment on handballs leading directly to a goal scoring opportunity. To me it seems absolutely crystal clear that the point of the comment is to clarify that actions taken in between the handball and the goal (or goal scoring opportunity) may lead to the goal (or goal scoring opportunity) to be deemed not to have immediately followed the handball.

There are (very broadly) two things that may happen (which still keeps the ball with the attacking team and does not constitute an attempt at a shot on goal), which either is

i) that the player with the ball manages to get the ball to a team mate (passing, in the wider sense) or
ii) that the player himself does something with the ball (dribbling, in the wider sense).

The point of the comment is in my opinion clearly not that you have to pass or dribble according to any definitions, but that something should occur (not very subjective) to a sufficient degree (quite subjective). Thus it is my interpretation that Maja's touches clearly constitute a dribble in this particular case.

- Thirdly, I have at no point in this discussion stated anything remotely like "the absence of a definition makes all interpretations equally worthwhile or worthless" or that I have the "belief that no view of tonight's incident can be more accurate than any other" that you ascribe to me. If I thought that to be the case I would just have written that, or maybe stated that "your guess is as good as mine".

In this case (because we are discussing a particular case) Maja took control of the ball and moved it sideways in order to avoid the defender and create a chance for himself. Without a definition of what constitutes a dribble within the context at hand it is therefore my assessment (in this particular situation) that we can only assume whether it would be covered by the clarifying comment on what might make a goal (or goal scoring opportunity) being not immediate. Therefore I used the expression of "anyone's guess", perhaps incorrectly since I am not a native English speaker. To my mind it means that since we don't know for sure it is open to interpretation.I am however fairly sure it doesn't mean that all guesses are inherently equally good or bad. Thus I didn't say that all guesses would be equally good. As an example I personally believe that your guess is not as good as mine, for the reasons presented above. I do not think your guess is worthless though, but to me it feels less thought through.

- Moreover, your undefined examples of situations leading to goals or not does not to my mind in any way impact whether or not Maja's actions (or the actions in those other situations, if there were any actions) might constitute a dribble. This is because a dribble (or a pass/passes) is in itself not enough to deem the goal (or goal scoring opportunity) to not be immediately following the handball. The occurrence of dribbles or passes (likely in the very wide sense of those words, in my opinion) has to be sufficient enough. This is were the subjectivity for the referee comes in, and this has been my point all the time. That is the wiggle room, however small one believes it is.

- Lastly, for what it's worth I find it likely that the short movement of the ball, the low number of touches and the lack of time passed may very well be (unofficial) indicators of not being sufficient enough to deem the goal not being immediately following the handball. This is also indicated by the "some distance" part of the clarifying comments. As far as I know we do not know however what the referees are being told, but we can look at similar situations (which you have done according to your post) and therefore it may very well be reasonable that the goal was disallowed based on the "case law" and unofficial guidelines available. But since there is a line that has to be drawn, it cannot be argued that the decision is not subjective, however reasonable it may seem. This is in line with most decisions on the pitch, since the rules are quite open to interpretation, and too often very lacking in common sense to begin with (as perfectly shown by this particular case).

TL;DR (as the young ones say):
- There is a subjective part to the decision which is that the referee has to decide whether or not the goal immediately followed the handball (this is a fact),
- I do not believe all comments and opinions on a subject or situation without a clear definition are inherently equally good or bad (this is also a fact).

[Statto]

As for purpose of the law, the following is stated (by IFAB, not FA):

"What we are looking at particularly in attacking situations is where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of it making contact with their hand or arm."

This IMO ends the debate... with the inescapable conclusion that it was a bad decision.

In law (ie, a far more sophisticated system of rules, written and enforced by altogether more competent people than the football community) any interpretation of a rule is quite rightly guided by the 'spirit' or intention behind it.

Any half-intelligent person charged with officiating a football match would aim to apply the laws of the game in the same way.

The text you quote shows that this particular rule was explicitly intended to prevent situations "where the player gets a clear unfair advantage by gaining possession or control of the ball, as a result of [a handball]" and plainly that isn't what happened with Lemina.

The ref is a pleb, applying the letter of the law whilst failing to understand, or just totally disregarding, the spirit of it.

[Arthur]

Thank you for your latest reply. Although we have both put forward our arguments, I have not considered us to be arguing in the hostile sense of the word.

From the first occasion I quoted you, I have been focusing on your reason for saying the referee could have allowed the goal to stand.

I agree that, as there has to be an immediate advantage and there are no official definitions of 'immediate', 'dribble', 'pass' or 'distance', a referee could, theoretically, allow any goal to stand following a handball. But this can only occur if a referee has no idea how to interpret any of the terms ('immediate' etc) that affect the decision.

Moreover, I do not disagree that, in the absence of definitions, not every referee will make the exact same judgement as to what constitutes 'immediate' etc.

I am surprised you are surprised that I took, as literal, your assertion of 'Maja taking the ball around the defender' as being the justification for allowing the goal to stand (with the word 'around' meaning 'to go past'). Why wouldn't I? I simply observed the defender was always goal-side of Maja - therefore Maja didn't take the ball around him. (And hence, by your own definition, this wasn't 'enough' (of a dribble) for the referee to allow the goal.)

You replied by saying my comment wasn't necessarily accurate because there was no rule-book definition of a dribble. But this ignored the fact you had previously described an action worthy of being regarded as a 'dribble' - Maja taking the ball around the defender - and that this was what I was referring to.

I am slightly disappointed that you (again, somewhat uncharitably) will only 'just give (me) the benefit of the doubt' as to the earnestness of my views. As English is not your first language, should you not consider, more than you have, that the misinterpretations may be more yours than mine? (Not to say your English is not good; it is. Yet so is mine; and I have the advantage of it being my native language.)

Dare I say so, but a key instance of your not fully understanding the meaning of the phrases you are using occurs in your most recent reply:

- Thirdly, I have at no point in this discussion stated anything remotely like "the absence of a definition makes all interpretations equally worthwhile or worthless" or that I have the "belief that no view of tonight's incident can be more accurate than any other" that you ascribe to me. If I thought that to be the case I would just have written that, or maybe stated that "your guess is as good as mine".

When, in an earlier post, you wrote...

Maja moved the ball in order to be able to score... Whether or not that is a dribble is anyone's guess without a definition.

...you are saying 'your guess is as good as mine'. Which, in turn, implies 'all interpretations (are) equally worthwhile'.

In the next paragraph, ironically, you acknowledge that you 'used the expression 'anyone's guess' perhaps incorrectly'. Fair enough. With this amendment comes greater clarity. But the fact you used this phrase without, at the time, fully appreciating its meaning is a mistake on your part, not a misinterpretation on mine. (I took the phrase to mean what it means.) And yet, you failed to return to the previous paragraph to amend your claim I had wilfully misrepresented your views.

You seem, here, to be accepting that to disallow the goal was, on balance, the correct decision:

- Lastly, for what it's worth I find it likely that the short movement of the ball, the low number of touches and the lack of time passed may very well be (unofficial) indicators of not being sufficient enough to deem the goal not being immediately following the handball. This is also indicated by the "some distance" part of the clarifying comments. As far as I know we do not know however what the referees are being told, but we can look at similar situations (which you have done according to your post) and therefore it may very well be reasonable that the goal was disallowed based on the "case law" and unofficial guidelines available. But since there is a line that has to be drawn, it cannot be argued that the decision is not subjective, however reasonable it may seem. This is in line with most decisions on the pitch, since the rules are quite open to interpretation, and too often very lacking in common sense to begin with (as perfectly shown by this particular case).

If I have interpreted this correctly, you have my respect for being prepared to shift your opinion such that it now leans in the other direction.

My focus is on the same aspect of this that I questioned at the beginning: Could the referee have allowed the goal on the basis Maja dribbled the ball before scoring? As I wrote in my previous post, even though what constitutes a dribble is subjective, this does not mean that nothing cannot reasonably be ruled out. Or, of course, ruled in.

If a player runs 50 yards with the ball at his feet, going past three opponents who attempt to tackle him, I strongly believe 99% of referees would regard this as worthy of the description 'a dribble'. On the other hand, if a player - even one playing for Fulham - takes one touch, which moves the ball less than two yards and doesn't take him goal-side of any defender, I expect 99% would not class this as 'a dribble'. And I say this, of course, because referees do have some idea of how to interpret 'dribble', 'pass' etc.

This is my opinion.