They changed it since Kewell’s red. At the time that was the way to do it, now it would probably only be a yellow
ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!
If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.
ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.
Players have started doing this ages ago.This fkin stupid way they put their arms behind them to prove to var (aka limit match fixing) they're not handballing is fkin massive joke and almost equivalent to trying to prove not diving for me. Refs are retards/political correctness gone wrong these days.
And how do you define intention? That's where things like 'natural vs unnatural position' have always been a consideration.But that never used to be the rule. Intention was what mattered.
That's still the best rule for me... by far.
The point really is that they shouldn't need to. The ref ought to be able to make a judgement call and if he can't then they have VAR to fall back on. However VAR have done such a poor job on some occasions (e.g. vs Adelaide last season) you end up with players holding their hands together behind their back. It looks ridiculous and demonstrates either the rules or the way they're being interpreted, need changing. Or maybe we should start putting pockets in the players shorts so they can put their hands in them! I don't recall seeing this behaviour in European matches, but I don't watch much of that these days.Players are just trying to avoid the grey area. You got any ideas how to write the law to remove that grey area?
That's exactly my pointThe point really is that they shouldn't need to. The ref ought to be able to make a judgement call
because it looks unnatural and comical, particularly running with arms behind back. It's football not Morris Dancing. I'll run up some comedy gifs when i get time.It's probably coming up more
Natural vs unnatural have always been a consideration - the 'additional instructions' at the back of the book listed a number of things to consider, one of which being the position of the arm. So, that is taken to mean natural vs unnatural position.But in trying to run or manouevre with your hands behind your back you're putting yourself at a disadvantage never intended by the original framers of the law.
In reply to message #42, the meaning of intention is simply the natural meaning of the word. Where it all went wrong was when people started trying to "clarify" what the components of manifest intention were instead of just letting the refs get on with it. Expressions such as natural and unnatural position were glosses added to the laws in comparatively recent times and all they've done is muddy the waters by giving refs (and fans) more things to consider instead of just making an instant judgment call on whether someone deliberately handled the ball.
In all honesty, how often in professional (or amateur) football do you think someone truly intends to handle the ball in their own box? It's actually pretty rare.
I completely agree with your analysis.But I am not a ref, just a frustrated ex-player and fan. I would love to hear from people who ref as to why that can't be the case?
Agree, but I'm completely okay with 'I tried to play it with a different part of the body and misjudged it' being a foulI've said it before, I'll say it again... I 100% believe Harry tried to get his chest or shoulder to the ball
Well, I reckon the ref there had a better angle than any of teh camerasd I still reckon it's impossible to tell on replay what part of his body it hit first.
So, very difficult for the ref to make the correct call on that in real time on just one view.
There would be far fewer arguments if we'd stayed with the old rule: has to be intentional and ref decides in real time with the assistance of his ARs.
If you play at the ball with your hand or arm - Handball
If you make a genuine effort to move in a direction and the ball is kicked at your arm or hand - Play on
But I am not a ref, just a frustrated ex-player and fan. I would love to hear from people who ref as to why that can't be the case?
To use a few examples I think Harry's was a red as whether deliberate or not it denied a clear goal . Pedj against wsw was ball to hand from a deflection but the wsw players was hand to ball.They changed it since Kewell’s red. At the time that was the way to do it, now it would probably only be a yellow
That probably is a foul through clumsiness / poor judgment but otherwise I disagree with your assertion the new laws are hardly different from the old laws. They are profoundly different.Agree, but I'm completely okay with 'I tried to play it with a different part of the body and misjudged it' being a foul
How so? Except for the 'accidental handling leading to a goal', of course. Even the previous year wasn't as significant as people were saying (this season we've almost entirely gone back to the old laws). In the last few seasons the only substantial difference was no discretion for arm above the shoulder, and the laws attempting to clarify a self-deflection (but completely failing to do so, and actually making that clause completely redundant as it was still subject to the natural position anyway!!). They are profoundly different.
Refs call, that's what they're there for, after all, they can utilise their better judgement in real-time or with a quick VAR check.And everything in between?
Like I said - take the example of a defender squatting in front to jockey. Arm, say, 6 inches out and gets struck? No foul. Sticks his arm out 90 degrees? No, that's on him, even if kicked from point blank. Foul.
What about everything in between?
I'd personally like the laws to be clearer - but IFAB tried that and screwed it badly.
Take the bad habit many players now have of jumping with arms out at 90 degrees. That does nothing for your body mechanics, yet we still have disputes over whether that should be a foul. The laws could be clearer.
The laws until this season did do one thing nicely which was deal with the difficult issue of a self-deflection. Well, the laws attempted to deal with it but the problem was they were written incredibly badly.
If somebody kicks the ball amd miskicks it onto their arm that's out at 90 degrees, is that a foul? Well, both answers could be an interpretation under the current law.
They did provide some nice guidance on players dragging the arm behind on a slide tackle/block.
Seriously, I get so sick of the sound of my own prose...Gee we really need the season to start up again, it’s a weird feeling of being the off season but it’s not and look at the depth of analysis in this thread. If there were games on this discussion would have died out ages ago