Three Lions

Grealish's arm is in a natural position for jumping and for that specific situation, Check law 12. putting your arms behind your back and jumping isnt natural. VAR doesn't look at goal kicks. VAR would look to a potential serious incident missed and review and as they don't goal kick the on field decision stands. If you stick a ? up i will answer it but i'm off posting till the weekend.

Looking at Bissakas arm positions their? I'm not gospel their natural. VAR has a look at it and evaluates if its a clear and obvious error and if it is not the on fleld decision stands and thats what they went with. When you jump you are allowed to use your arms and using your arms is natural so Grealish's arms moving when he is jumping thats natural and the ball striking a natural arm position for that specific situation = No offence. VAR isnt there to look at goal kicks and thats where the refs on field decision stands again.

Where in the laws of games does it say you cant have arms that stick out the side of your torso by your side?? Save you the time it doesnt. Steady with the first I biggering sticking your arms right out locked out above your head flapping them around natural? It isnt and thats whats highlighted in the law 12 hand/arms in a unnatural position runs the risk of being struck by the ball and its an offence. Your saying Grealishes arms are not in a unnatural position so yes he is bigger but its natural and then justifiable for that specific situation. If its unnaturally bigger for the specific situation and ball hits arm band its an offence. Theres that thing there specific situation so each situation is specific, and specific situation is in the laws and that’s the continuity that should chucked at each decision.

Give it a go.

Give it a crack two are clearly different Youngs arm was in justifiable natural position and hes really close to the ball with no time to react Bissaka was weird running round with his arms out like Jesus Christ!!

Forget about City v Huddersfield look at each situation and that was miles off look at each incident as unique chuck the law at each incident. You can have your arms out to the side of you if its natural in the laws of the game. Is Grealish making himself unnaturally bigger for what he is doing? Grealish is jumping arms move when you jump. Dont think the ref is miles out and for it to be reviewed it should not be marginal. I dont think it was a penalty too marginal not convinced that is a unnatural position.

Robbo your referring to guidance to law 12 from ifab prior to 2022 and law 12 handball was rewritten since then. Edit checked. Handball laws changed twice since 2021.

natural can be above shoulder and the ball striking a arm/hand above the shoulder doesnt have to be a offence. Its never been a never but there was a law about above the shoulder years back which is not in the laws of the game anymore. Doing a gert star jump and ball strikes arm would be an offence. Running around arms pointing north ball hits arms offence. Its not natural and its making the body unnaturally bigger,.

Welcome to the same level club fella. You made perfect sense with that one and you are right. The players arms are 100% all day long in natural position and that's in the laws. Not moving them would be unnatural and the player isn't putting them above his head waving them about they are in natural position for his body and his movement and justifiable using the laws of he game. Advantage isn't a law there. Whats happening is here a ref has applied something that isn't in the laws her interpretation and your right it happens frequently, too frequently and should be better. In EUFA games everything seems to be a handball offence in the box but not outside it refs there again have applied something that isn't in the laws its their interpretation. At the top ifab who are the bosses of the laws of the game send out reminders and examples of what are handball offences, they've changed wording of offences maybe too much trying to improve how the laws get applied. and took the focus on distance away from the ball which i dont think was a great idea.

but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage. that not totally correct advantage in the box applies to scoring a goal although the word advantage is not used in the laws. doesnt apply to the defending team. example slide tackle? arm in natural position but stops cross from one two metres away offence? no. advantage gained doesn't apply.

the question should be is the players arm position justifiable by the players movement. yes its a natural movement. what else how far are they from the ball? two metres away? no time to to move arms in that specific situation. so no offence. increase the distance and the players arms will be in a position where its not justifiable as they have time to react and move their arms. That would be an offence.

Q1 the player is moving, Its not natural to move without moving arms. Its natural above. did you play football without moving your arms? no you did not. Q2 lots of movement have risk of ball striking hands and arms so the ? is the movement justifiable by the players movement for that specific situation. yes it was. wrong. its not always an offence if the ball connects with an arm.

if a players brings their arms out to protect their face from a strong shot two metres way and the ball hits an arm is it a penalty?

not it is not. thats not in the laws of the game or ifab guidance. if you are feet away from a player and you turn away and the ball hits your hand as a result of a natural movement is not an offence. same as a slide tackle and the ball hits an arm in a natural position. reflex actions are not to be penalised!!!

your point was elbows being bent are not natural. natural in the laws of the game relates to movement that is justifiable to body movement. so yes the player bending his arms would be a natural movement.

Sn12 may breed them differently but when you run or jump or do all sorts of things arms bend at the elbows. The players arms were in a position justifiable by his body movement (its in the laws).

i am reffing this afternoon and wont be using that law because its not one. Its a forum. debate? The law contains natural position. So was the players arms in a justifiable position for the movements hes making? Yes all day long. No penalty.

No. Too close. Not unnatural.

O'Neil reckoned the keeper could see over the offside Wolves players head. The FA need to be telling O'Neil to stop being such a belter and being able to see the ball over a offside players head isnt in the laws of the game, and to stop making his own laws up.

Yeah it is ridiculous hes in an offside position and backs into the keeper to block his view and deny his team an equaliser with a tactic he will have been tod to do by his manager O'neil who is then out of shape with the ref!!

The player as a tactic is blocking the keeper off in a OFFSIDE position. The motd pundits might want to debate how stoopid that numpo tactic is!!

yes and the player is in an offside position and walking back into the GK nearly stood on the keepers toes and clearly effecting A. the keepers ability to make a save B the keepers vision. its not offside once its offside twice if this wasnt offside i dont know what is. Once the ref sees it on Var he can see its a . massive offside a lord of offsides. pundits dont seem to know the laws of the game poor for the big money their on time they sat some tests on the game!!

Good to see some young have been very young first time I went to Tilburg in 2008.

Goes to two people Elko De Jong who visited Bristol and the late great man Scooter. Some went over there with Elko to watch Willem II some came this way to watch City. In 2008 more came over for a City game and Scooter took 28 over for a trip and that grew from there with Scooter doing more trips which became popular to groups sometimes 100+ and now our kids go.

The contact was initiated. It doesnt matter. it immaterial here how Gordons leg got there under the lotg Phillips cant smack the players leg away from him there. its careless play and a penalty is the correct decision. No pop the offence you would be looking at would be impeding. If Gordon has made no attempt to play the ball and that is subjective Phillips still cant give him a whack. The picture on here shows Gordon isnt in a position to block his opponent slow him down and hes a right to that position under the laws of the game. Both payers are in a playable distance of the ball and for impeding to be an offence one has to block the other or slow them down, one player has to be away from a playable distance and that cant happen when both players are there in that playable distance. You might say Gordons leg is in the way doesnt matter its in a legal position as per lotg close to the ball Phillips cant whack it and he does!! I rarely post this much so will be off till early next week if you have a ?? i will give it a go then.