Ream Handball

[jayffc]

Suprised this seemed to be fairly unmentioned...

Given how up in arms we all were about the handball goals we conceded against West Ham earlier this season.

Did we get some payback on that with the Mitro handball leading to Reams goal? VAR called it that their player hit the ball with his arm first but to me it seemed very obviously the other way round, Anyone else think we got away with one there?

[Somerset Fulham]

I thought this was explained?

It would have been handball if had it gone from Mitro's head to arm for him to bury it, but because it went from Mitro's head, to arm to Tim then it's not considered to be handball.

[Forever Fulham]

Adjudicating intent. So hard. 

[Sting of the North]

This would normally not be called as handball in any other case out on the pitch. The major mitigating factor is that the ball came off Mitro's head first (this it came from a short distance with little time to react, with Mitro's hand not in any real unnatural position). This is what would often be called accidental handball.

Two seasons ago, when leading directly to a goal, either by the same player or by a teammate, these were called off even though the handball was deemed accidental (thus making it an exception to the general handball rule). The rule was then amended (partly following the absolutely ridiculous called off goal involving Lemina and Maja), and now it only applies if the player himself scores, I believe.

Doesn't matter whether it struck Mitro or the defender first. 100% correct decision, nothing controversial at all. At least that is my take on it, and it doesn't make up for the two incorrectly awarded West Ham goals. A correct decision never makes up for incorrect ones.