BorjeSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Jun 29, 2007
- 4,535
- 31,579
You can't go in to a situation like this (for no reason) and after the ball is hit by Kulusevski go "I'll take my arms down now, oops".
Match Threads Spurs vs Newcastle
- Thread starter Bulletspur
- Start date
- Date
- Jan 4, 2025
- KO Time
- 12:30 pm
- Score
-
1 - 2
DenverSpur
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2011
- 3,014
- 7,618
It was not the right call. The handball did not occur in the build up to a goal which is what the revised law is about. The handball, accidental or not, led to a turn over of the ball from Tottenham to Newcastle giving them an advantage that came about from an illegal body part interfering in Bergvall’s attempt to pass the ball. It’s an unfair advantage so it should be ruled as a foul. If the ball had hit his arm and just gone loose and they won the battle for it I would agree. Instead ball went directly from Joelenton’s hand to a Newcastle player just outside the area. One pass later it’s a goal. Without the handball they don’t gain possession let alone be put in a goal creating position. They gained an unfair advantage and officials have failed to interpret the laws correctly.
Last edited:
DenverSpur
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2011
- 3,014
- 7,618
We were lined up for a free kick and if I remember rightly Dier was pushed in the back and had no idea his arm hit the ball. As bad a decision as today’s was. The penalty was their winning goal.
Bluto Blutarsky
Well-Known Member
- Mar 4, 2021
- 22,953
- 102,609
Every ball that touches the hands/arm is not an offence
it has to be an intentional act. Typically this is moving you hand/arm towards the ball, or simply making yourself “bigger” in an unnatural way - See Burns above. When you are running and hands down to the side and the ball hits your arm - it’s not a hand ball offence.
it has to be an intentional act. Typically this is moving you hand/arm towards the ball, or simply making yourself “bigger” in an unnatural way - See Burns above. When you are running and hands down to the side and the ball hits your arm - it’s not a hand ball offence.
worcestersauce
"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
- Jan 23, 2006
- 28,885
- 50,280
60 years I've been going to matches and that has always been handball. Why do defenders put their hands behind their backs if they can just dangle them at their sides and get away with it, because they know they can't because it's handball. Everyone in the ground knew it was handball even the Newcastle fans who would have accepted it because even they knew.
DenverSpur
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2011
- 3,014
- 7,618
The intentional act isn’t a criteria any more even for penalties. The criteria now is more did you gain an advantage and in this case Newcastle certainly did.
As Steve Nichol on ESPN FC correctly explained if you were stood on the goal line with your hands by your side and the ball hit one of them preventing a goal they would give a penalty. Why? Because even though it was unintentional you gained an unfair advantage. So did Newcastle by turning over the ball with a hand. We’ll have to agree to disagree but I’m baffled that you don’t think the correct decision was a free kick to us as soon as the ball struck his hand and deflected to his teammate.
Last edited:
spurmin
Well-Known Member
- Feb 8, 2005
- 2,092
- 5,548
It’s not unusual in the Premier league for the referees and the VAR not to apply common sense.
They hide behind rules so that they are not reprimanded.
Yes by the letter of the laws now it’s not a handball but common sense tells you that this particular incident directly lead to a goal for Newcastle and should have been ruled out.
stormfly
Well-Known Member
- Dec 6, 2006
- 5,003
- 13,439
I’m not even sure how we are still arguing this to be honest. If it doesn’t hit his hand to ball goes to a Spurs player.
Oh Teddy Teddy
Well-Known Member
- Aug 10, 2017
- 7,492
- 19,069
This was the more galling of the situations, for me. The handball assist is ridiculous, and should be opened to common sense, but it’s still letter of the law bullshit.
This, however, he’s opened himself up to either prevent the ball or player from getting last him, which is a yellow in itself. Ref bottled the second yellow. Then bottled a proper look at Joelinton’s elbow.
Appalling officiating.
thecook
Well-Known Member
- Jan 17, 2009
- 6,744
- 14,382
I don't undertand people disagreeing with this. It's like admitting they know nothing about the rules.
The decision was right and the goal should have stood. It is a different argument whether the rules should be changed, but that doesn't affect the decision made yesterday.
stormfly
Well-Known Member
- Dec 6, 2006
- 5,003
- 13,439
I can guarantee we will do something similar to this in a game soon and it’ll be stopped for hand ball. There is no consistency so it doesn’t really matter if you know the rules or not because the rules are only there for the refs if they try to justify their lack of common sense.
The handball was just one decision amongst a shambolic reffing performance, especially in that first 30 or so.
Re: Bergval, I actually think the sub was a smart one. Bergval had a good start to the half and decent game overall, the sub allowed him to leave on a high with a great reception. We didn't lose anything with him going off IMO as Bissouma was very good himself in the role and Maddison positively impacted our attack.
Means those 3 + Sarr and Bentancur should all be fresh for Liverpool.
Re: Bergval, I actually think the sub was a smart one. Bergval had a good start to the half and decent game overall, the sub allowed him to leave on a high with a great reception. We didn't lose anything with him going off IMO as Bissouma was very good himself in the role and Maddison positively impacted our attack.
Means those 3 + Sarr and Bentancur should all be fresh for Liverpool.
spurmin
Well-Known Member
- Feb 8, 2005
- 2,092
- 5,548
Thanks Dermot
Dragusin
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2009
- 586
- 642
Why? Are you 100 percent it even hits his arm and not armpit shoulder?
easley91
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 21,826
- 63,427
Maddison and Sarr are suspended for Liverpool.
But this is literally what Joelinton was doing. He lowered his point of gravity to make himself bigger, with his arm away from his body, and successfully stopped the pass with a body part you're not allowed to play with. That is a very deliberate action, in my book.
To me it's a completely different situation from a player just being hit by a ball with the hand in this position. Joelinton actively makes it happen in this situation, even if he is not hoping to stop the ball with the hand in particular.
I thought the rule violation was as clear as day, but since quite a few of us seem to disagree, I guess not.
thecook
Well-Known Member
- Jan 17, 2009
- 6,744
- 14,382
Joelinton was running towards Begvall at the point of impact. Every single freeze frame image of he contact clearly shows at the point of impact his arm was not making him unnaturally bigger.
This is the freeze frame from the TV broadcast, a moment BEFORE the handball. Where is his left arm? It's barely visible by his side, because he wasn't unnaturally extending it
spurmin
Well-Known Member
- Feb 8, 2005
- 2,092
- 5,548
thecook
Well-Known Member
- Jan 17, 2009
- 6,744
- 14,382
I'm still not having it that that was intentional when he was running towards Bergvall, before Bergvall played the ball and then continues forward after impact. So of course his left arm moved, he was running. Do you run with your arms in a fixed position directly at your side or behind your back? No, they're out at your side in a natural position for balancing, as demonstrated by Bergvall's arm position at impact, which were actually more extended than Joelintons!
And if you still claim he moved his arm in reaction to deliberately block Bergvall's pass from about 2 yards away then he has super human reaction times, which on average are about 1/4 of a second, being less time that it took the ball to reach him from Bergvall's foot.
Also what people don't realise about the rule is that even if he did make his body 'unnaturally bigger' it is still not always an infringement if the balls hits hm. If that action making his body bigger was part of a natural movement then it's not a foul if it hits his hand (and it doesn't go in directly off his arm or he scores immediately after it touches the arm). Again, he was running towards the ball so of course his arm is going to be there as he doesn't run with is arms behind his back either. It is not unreasonable for the ref to come to that conclusion,nor for VAR to conclude that there has been a clear and obvious error in allowing play to continue.
So, were he stationary at the point of impact then I submit it was a handball offence, as the arm being in that position of slightly away from body may not be natural (eg if he is in a defensive wall). But because me was running forward then that's just not an unnatural position making him bigger.
I won't labour my point further as I also made it in the match thread. The goal sucked regardless of how it happened, but the rules are quite clear and that is all that can be applied. They just need to be viewed objectively.
