Preston Goal

[Finnans Right Peg]

Luck wasn't with us on that goal but I'm  if we had var in this league some of our goals from corners with the way we block defenders would have been disallowed.

Swings and round abouts we are still top .

COYW

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm  ?

[rebel]

The first handball knocked the ball into Evans path, it wasn't as if the ball was fired in at the first player it hit.

Sky commentary is a 'joke'.   

[rebel]

It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm  ?

I think it was arm, then I'm sure it flicked of his hand. It 'bizarre' that everyone on the touchline saw it, but the 3 officials missed it. 

[junior white]

It looked to me that Che thingy actually leaned forward and nudged the ball over the line with his arm.
He knows what he did, but what footballer would admit "Yes I nudged it in with my left arm  ?

I think it was arm, then I'm sure it flicked of his hand. It 'bizarre' that everyone on the touchline saw it, but the 3 officials missed it.

I think our lot saw it on an ipad they were looking at and not in real time. It beggars belief that there is not more tech in the championship. Given the change in the laws i do not think the handball decision would have changed but the foul or ffside would have been spotted

[Craven_Chris]

This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think  can justify the goal being given!

1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?

Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!

[Denver Fulham]

Evans' "finish" was the least illegal part of the goal. It may technically have been legal. Hard to say.

The other parts, though?
1. Riis backs into Rodak, obstructing him, and then elbows him. Obvious foul.
2. When Evans heads the ball, Riis is actually closer to the goal than Rodak, meaning there needed to be two Fulham defenders between Riis and the goal at the time. There were not. So when the header hit his arm, he was offside.
3. Riis handled the ball with his arm, and then handled it again with his hand, batting the ball back to Evans to score with his own arm. Clearly a handball.

Anyone can miss one call, but how do you miss three -- ON THE SAME PLAYER, NO LESS -- in the same sequence? That's pathetic.

(Anyway, we didn't deserve more than a draw ... but sometimes you get results you don't deserve both ways, and PNE didn't deserve to score.)

[ALG01]

This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think  can justify the goal being given!

1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?

Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!

the foul on rodak, and that is what ir was was a 100% rehearsed foul that they hope will not be seen. the keeper's movement is in the opposite direction to the way he wants to travel, It is a cynical foul, and part of what is wrong with football.

Mr kavanagh has a track record as a pathetic excuse for a referee and that makes him sound better than he is.

[simplyfulham]

This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think  can justify the goal being given!

I appreciate you're just putting forward the case for the opposition, but with all due respect you don't seem to understand the offside rule, or the handball rule for that matter.

It's astounding on so many levels that this goals was given. It's hard to think of many other levels of football where this would have been allowed.

[Craven_Chris]

This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think  can justify the goal being given!

I appreciate you're just putting forward the case for the opposition, but with all due respect you don't seem to understand the offside rule, or the handball rule for that matter.

It's astounding on so many levels that this goals was given. It's hard to think of many other levels of football where this would have been allowed.

Are there any particular misunderstandings there? I did look up the rule definitions, but keen to ensure I get it right!

[Andy S]

If 5here had been more technology Robinson might have walked

[RaySmith]

This is going to annoy people, but as a devils advocate exercise, I think  can justify the goal being given!

1) Riis doesn't really foul Rodak through most of the move, he mostly just stands his ground. I think he does throw an elbow or forearm at Rodak at the end, but given the speed it happened and how much was going on, it is hardly surprising that this was missed. We have probably done worse in our basketball routines
2) The Riis handballs are accidental, obviously. It makes no sense that a player would save a goal for his own team with his arm. The first contact is with his left arm, which is tucked into his body, and the second touch is with his right hand, which is away from his body, but in a natural position given he is in a physical tussle with the goalkeeper.
3) Last year it did not matter if the handball was accidental, if the ball struck hand leading to a chance for you or a teammate, the goal could not stand. But thanks to the Mario Lemina incident against Spurs, that rule was changed. So if the Riis handballs are accidental, as per point 2 above, then it should not lead to the goal being ruled out
4) Ched Evans is not allowed to score with his arm, whether accidental or not but doesnt it hit him on the sleeve? And isnt that regarded as 'shoulder' now?
5) As for the offside, does Rodaks foot extend back past Riis as he is falling, and that make him onside?

Anyway...I feel like it should have been disallowed for the forearm on Rodak, but hardly surprising that was missed!

Rodak when down as if he'd been shot, and it was Evans upper arm, rather than shoulder, he used to  push it into the net, I think.
"For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."

[ianthailand]

Foul on Rodak
One handball
Offside
Second handball.

How could the Officials miss all those offences?

Must be a World record for incompetence.

[toshes mate]

At least four solid reasons why the goal should have been disallowed and yet referee Kavanagh couldn't see any of them.  He cannot blame his assistant, who's view was blocked, but he really needs to get his eyes tested for the sake of the game.  Kavanagh was poor throughout as the handbags in the dugouts suggested. 

[copthornemike]

At least four solid reasons why the goal should have been disallowed and yet referee Kavanagh couldn't see any of them.  He cannot blame his assistant, who's view was blocked, but he really needs to get his eyes tested for the sake of the game.  Kavanagh was poor throughout as the handbags in the dugouts suggested. 

When it comes to 'handbags' it appeared only Silva and his team lost their tag, McAvoy was more measured and calm, and that includes the post match interviews! I didn't expect Silva to be all brightness and light afterwards but an acknowledgement that PNE' s fighting spirit was the main reason for not winning was a bit miserable
Mind you I guess I would have been miserable standing out in the open for an interview in this weather conditions  :016:

[bobbo]

Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.

your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.

[sarnian]

At the end of the day the moment the ball hits the guy on the goal line from Evans header ITS OFFSIDE.  Forget any handball it's offside.

[Stevieboy]

Even more galling is listening to the Sky 'experts' who, with dozens of slo mo replays, couldn't see any of the points being raised by so many on here.
And demonstrating their bias further by slating Mitro, saying he had no reason to get involved,for confronting the thug Evans who had just grabbed Harrison who was polaxed on the floor, which to them was feisty!

[Motspur Park]

Rodak has to get a defender between him and the guy who obstructs him. We can't really complain about players blocking at corners, we do it all the time and have scored several goals because of it.
Then Rodak has got to be stronger and railroad his way to that ball, floating in the six yard box.

your right he needs the defender in front of him. I actually think refs should make it clear to the players before the game ( I used to ) just two or three things not acceptable and standing in front of the keeper with no other intention other than obstructing him is one of them . They need to blowup the second the free kick/ corner is taken and award the free kick . It would soon puta stop to it . When do you ever see indirect free kicks ever gin for obstruction , the law still exists though.

Just found this........

In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."

'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'

The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?

UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.

"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."

"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."

So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.

[Whitesideup]

Just found this........

In a longwindedness drive, the offence 'obstruction' was removed from Fifa's Laws of the Game in 1997 and was replaced with "impeding the progress of an opponent."

'Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.'

The penalty for impeding remains an indirect free-kick. So why do we never see one given?

UEFA and Fifa qualified referee Padraigh Sutton tells us why. It's all about contact.

"I can't comment on any particular decision, but if there is contact between two players, and the referee considers it a foul, the referee may only award a direct free-kick or a penalty."

"There is no option to give an indirect free-kick."

So when there's contact between the players, 'impeding' is taken out of the equation.

There is clear contradiction between the law you cited and referee Sutton's interpretation of physical contact. One of them has to be wrong. From the standard of refereeing we witness,  I can take a punt on which is correct.