Kante’s handball in the Chelsea game

[perry geyton]

Defending in his own box he raises his arms and stop the ball pretty blatantly with his hands, 10 X more blatant then the Leminas hand ball,
It goes to VAR and penalty not given,

Now you tell me where is the consistency that VAR is apparently supposed to be giving us ? 

[Sting of the North]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

[Bill2]

It would appear that the FA have a separate definition of handball for Chelsea than anyone else, look at the Hudson-Odoi incident the other day.

[LittleErn]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

True, but as I have said on another thread, to be a foul, an attacking player's accidental handball has to result in a immediate goal. In tonight's case there was a clear delay between the "handball" and the goal as Maja had to manoeuvre the ball out from under his feet and move it into space before getting his shot away. He did it very quickly as all good strikers will, but it wasn't immediate.

[perry geyton]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

[Willham]

Said it in other threads, phase of play, aston villa and an city goal, that explains why our goal should have stood, to be immediate as someone else said would be off lemina into the goal, or off lemonade and first time finish. Neither of these happened as maja had to control the ball creating a new phase of play then he scored. All about the rules on 'phase of play' here. A big part of refereeing.

Its incorrect morrarally at some times, I.e. the aston villa goal, if the defender had miscontroled the ball then it wpuldnt have been a new phase of play, but because he controlled the ball safely, probably because he knew the attacker was there, this meant it became a new phase so the attacker was no longer offside meaning the referees made the right call.

Today they did not.

[RaySmith]

The decision in our game was absolutely shocking, a total travesty of justice, however they want to spin it as being technically an infringement of the laws.
The 'offence' wasn't even a technical infringement, and not even an offence, just a blatant  manipulation of the Laws of the Game   in favour of one side over another.

VAR, with its attempt to sanitise the  game, and rule out human error, is destroying the game.

[Porthogs FC]

The decision in our game was absolutely shocking, a total travesty of justice, however they want to spin it as being technically an infringement of the laws.
The 'offence' wasn't even a technical infringement, and not even an offence, just a blatant  manipulation of the Laws of the Game   in favour of one side over another.

VAR, with its attempt to sanitise the  game, and rule out human error, is destroying the game.

I'm not even sure how they can justify that it's a handball. Crazy crazy.

[Montague]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I'd more compare the Chelsea handball to the Fulham v Liverpool handball that was given (by VAR) - total inconsistency

[Whitesideup]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I'd more compare the Chelsea handball to the Fulham v Liverpool handball that was given (by VAR) - total inconsistency

I agree. How on earth can VAR have different conclusions for Kamara's arm and Kante's? If anything, Kamara's was in a more natural position as you have to lift your arms when you are jumping. It just highlights to me that the penalty against Kamara should not have been given. Instead we get a ref just replicating the position of Kamara's arm and shrugging his shoulders as if to say nothing else he could do. Clearly wrong. He could have judged the arm to be in a natural position and there was no intent - therefore no handball, and two more points to Fulham. Robbed.

[Bill2]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I'd more compare the Chelsea handball to the Fulham v Liverpool handball that was given (by VAR) - total inconsistency

I agree. How on earth can VAR have different conclusions for Kamara's arm and Kante's? If anything, Kamara's was in a more natural position as you have to lift your arms when you are jumping. It just highlights to me that the penalty against Kamara should not have been given. Instead we get a ref just replicating the position of Kamara's arm and shrugging his shoulders as if to say nothing else he could do. Clearly wrong. He could have judged the arm to be in a natural position and there was no intent - therefore no handball, and two more points to Fulham. Robbed.

I made this point on another thread yesterday. Think it was AK, he jumped with his arm across his chest the ball seemed to hit the next player to AK then on to his arm, nothing he could do about it.Yet Chelsea get two let offs in the space of a week for far more blatant handballs. In the end as with yesterday's incident we got the messy end of the stick and what has happened will not be changed, am I happy the answer is no.

[perry geyton]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

So if this is the case this should encourage defenders to just smash the ball towards players hands in the future. Then ?
I repeat it was NOT a handball his hands were firmly planted against his side and the player smashed it at him from a yard away, it gave us zero advantage what so ever

We were conned end of

[Sting of the North]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

So if this is the case this should encourage defenders to just smash the ball towards players hands in the future. Then ?
I repeat it was NOT a handball his hands were firmly planted against his side and the player smashed it at him from a yard away, it gave us zero advantage what so ever

We were conned end of

It is a handball according to how the rules are defined. End of. Also, according to the FA there doesn't need to be an advantage, because they obviously don't care about the purpose of the rule.

And if the defenders are good enough to be sure to hit the arm of an attacker they are likely good enough to do something better with the ball instead.

[Sting of the North]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I don't need to watch it to understand that the situations are not at all comparable, which was the point I was clearly making. Not my fault that the rules are stupid, but they are in fact not the same for those two situations. This is not open to interpretation at all. Doesn't mean that the Chelsea call was correct.

[perry geyton]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I don't need to watch it to understand that the situations are not at all comparable, which was the point I was clearly making. Not my fault that the rules are stupid, but they are in fact not the same for those two situations. This is not open to interpretation at all. Doesn't mean that the Chelsea call was correct.

Obviously wasn't the CORRECT decision was it cos they've changed the rules immediately after, it was a BS decision and as I said IT WAS NOT A HANDBALL in the first place,
Can't believe your defending the FA, If it was other way round and spurs would've scored they'd of given it

End of

[Sting of the North]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I don't need to watch it to understand that the situations are not at all comparable, which was the point I was clearly making. Not my fault that the rules are stupid, but they are in fact not the same for those two situations. This is not open to interpretation at all. Doesn't mean that the Chelsea call was correct.

Obviously wasn't the CORRECT decision was it cos they've changed the rules immediately after, it was a BS decision and as I said IT WAS NOT A HANDBALL in the first place,
Can't believe your defending the FA, If it was other way round and spurs would've scored they'd of given it

End of

I have not defended either the FA or the rules. I haven't even stated that either decision was correct or not according to the rules. I have merely pointed out that the rules currently are not the same for those two situations, since you seem completely unfamiliar with said rules. Therefore the comparison is poor and pointless. You can rage all you want and use convincing arguments such as "end of", but it doesn't change simple facts.

Also, that they had to change the rules does imply that the decision might have been correct, but not desirable.

[RaySmith]

Yes, but how could a ball kicked hard from a couple of yards away, striking an  arm  tight by someone's side who couldn't possibly move out of the way, ever be defined as  handball in the first place?

[perry geyton]

The rules about handball leading to goal scoring opportunities is clear (in so far as intent has absolutely nothing to do with it). The rule about defensive handball is more open to interpretation. As such, these situations are not very comparable. That is not a fault of VAR. I haven't looked at the Chelsea handball, but it should not be viewed in the same light as our disallowed goal, because there are different factors to analyze because of the rules being different.

Mate watch it then come and talk too me

It's friggin ludicrous that VAR said it wasn't a penalty yet ours was a hand ball
I don't care if it led to a goal or not it's pure  💩

I don't need to watch it to understand that the situations are not at all comparable, which was the point I was clearly making. Not my fault that the rules are stupid, but they are in fact not the same for those two situations. This is not open to interpretation at all. Doesn't mean that the Chelsea call was correct.

Obviously wasn't the CORRECT decision was it cos they've changed the rules immediately after, it was a BS decision and as I said IT WAS NOT A HANDBALL in the first place,
Can't believe your defending the FA, If it was other way round and spurs would've scored they'd of given it

End of

I have not defended either the FA or the rules. I haven't even stated that either decision was correct or not according to the rules. I have merely pointed out that the rules currently are not the same for those two situations, since you seem completely unfamiliar with said rules. Therefore the comparison is poor and pointless. You can rage all you want and use convincing arguments such as "end of", but it doesn't change simple facts.

Also, that they had to change the rules does imply that the decision might have been correct, but not desirable.

A handball is a handball mate and that was not a handball, I'm very familiar with the rules of football
Who are you Daniel Levy ?

[ron]

Oh for the old days, when offside was when "not interfering with play" didn't play a part, and handball was "hand to ball", and never the other way round.

Football was meant to be a simple game. Its simplicity was its beauty. Now the rules have been convoluted by opinions rather than absolutes, It is ruined.