|
Arsenal are going to lose this and I'm going to make a face
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I'm not denying it was handball by the way, but Sanchez's first should have been ruled out for the same reason You know the rules say deliberate handling is an offence, right? Sanchez was leaning back, his arms in the air for balance, and the ball ricocheted around and happened to rebound into the net off his hand. It was not a goal reminiscent of Maradona or Henry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:the standard of refereeing in the PL is a farce I, for one, can't wait until roboref becomes an actuality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Lmao Spurs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
PirateBob posted:Arsenal got lucky. Clear handball for the first goal, no red card? Undeserved loss for Hull imo. Seeing as it wasn't a handball for Alexis' first goal and clearly DOGSO for the second, plus Hull didn't actually score, I would say it was a pretty deserved loss.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Amazing 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Byolante posted:So the ref admitted in the tunnel at half time after seeing a replay it was clearly a handball. So yes it was obvious. Secondly the second handball given a pen the arm was by his side. Then not giving gibbs a red for Dogso. It was obvious bent reffing mate. Byolante posted:If your hand is raised above your shoulder its probably safe to say its in an unnatural position. Why are you commenting on what is legal and what is not when you have absolutely no understanding of the laws of the game? Law 12 (page 37) posted:
Additional considerations for Law 12 (page 120) posted:
First, Sanchez didn't deliberately handle the ball. He was stretching his leg forward to kick the ball into the net and his arm moved up instinctively to balance himself. His only intent was to kick the ball. Second, his hand did not move toward the ball at all during this move, it ricocheted twice after he kicked it and unfortunately for Hull it last struck his hand and ended up goalbound. Everything was so close that he had no chance of knowing the ball would bounce up as it did (unexpected ball) and had no way of reacting quick enough to move his hand regardless. Finally, the rules clearly state "the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement" meaning it's not safe to say anything about unnatural positions because "unnatural position" isn't even in the laws. Handling is a foul because it's easy to gain an advantage from moving your arm into the ball. Just because you have arms hanging off your body does not mean that if the ball hits them then play should immediately be stopped. Don't forget that the assistant ref had a view clear as day that the ball struck Sanchez's had and yet he advised Clattenburg to let it stand. And the red card for Clucas was also bang-on correct. If you actually bothered watching the replays he does in fact move his arm back toward the ball (when his body is going away from it) and stops the ball from entering the net; again, the position of the arm has nothing to do with the infringement. It does everything that Sanchez's hand didn't and therefore it was a good call. Just because Clattenburg is an idiot and broke the rules by watching replays at halftime and proceeded to speak out of line by apologizing to the Hull players doesn't mean he got the calls wrong in this case. All it takes is actually looking at the facts and having a base level of critical thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:The referees organization said it should have been disallowed as well And they're just as incapable of understanding the rules as Byolante is. Just because they feel morally outraged (or just plain biased) doesn't make the goal illegitimate. Also, tasty loving free kick from Brady. Lovely stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Byolante posted:That's possibly the dumbest post ever made on these forums and that includes some of Woobi's greatest hits. If the match official's organisation aren't the people with the greatest authority to rule the laws of the game then we may as well just put football out of it's misery now. Football's already dead, they're just kicking the corpse. The PGMOL stated that the goal should have been disallowed not because it violated a law of the game, but because "it doesn't sit well in the game." What a load of bollocks. It was just as unfortunate as if the keeper tried clearing a ball, hit he ref, then rebounded into his net. Hull should be bitterly disappointed in either case because neither broke any laws. https://twitter.com/7amkickoff/status/830487733135044609
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
blue footed boobie posted:I'm not sure I believe you. I can't find a source, but I think it was a reply to a direct inquiry from NBC over the incident. NBC reported that the PGMOL explanation for why it shouldn't stand is because it "doesn't sit well with the game."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Well done, Burnley.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 16:22
|
|