Three Lions

43 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Disappointing for Farm.

Frome pen looked a dive, so glad that was saved, but 2 set piece goals and a defensive mix up gifted the game to Frome.

 

That said, Frome were the better side for most of the game and Farm got sucked into the hoofball in bad conditions.

BMF Long balls to small forwards!! Tedious head tennis even first half. Frome bossed the second.

And what a seriously lovely town Frome is!  

On 03/05/2024 at 19:12, redkev said:

Started off about 10-15 lads would come down from Bristol to meet the small group of Weston lads who would come up to support city . 
 

now turned into hundreds of city fans go down to Weston to have a drink , 

Started off with mainly boys from the City pub the Eagle in Old Market and Taunton's chaps meeting Bill and WSM mates.

Best team won and thought BMF were some way better than Cribbs last night. Thought Cribbs might have made it more of a battle . Manor Farm fans will be in Frome's clubhouse 2 by 2 trailing straw over the floors early doors next Monday!! 

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

You are missing the point.

The ref didn't think it even hit Grealish arm. That is a clear and obvious mistake.

You can be missing the point VAR can still check for handball as a serious missed incident they looked at it and decided no.

On 23/04/2024 at 23:51, arrytheb said:

I've already said its not about a goal kick, it's about a missed handball. The goalkick is pretty irrelevant in terms of whether var should have been involved. 

And I made no reference to arms being behind his back, they could very easily be besides him as the other 2 players do. 

 

Have a great week 

i made a point about the goal kick because you did and its not part of the five ( i think its five without checking) things that can get reviewed under VAR. Arms behind the back was about natural and unnatural arms behind the back is  not a natural position to jump. that pic shows arms in differing positions but justifiable by the players movement. 

1 minute ago, arrytheb said:

Grealish arm 100% isn't in a natural position when jumping in a wall. I know that's my opinion but nothing will change that. I've done it 100s of times and I've never stuck my arm out. Because there is literally no need to do it unless trying to make yourself 'bigger'.

Plus the referee did make an obvious error as he said (through actions) that the ball didn't strike anything on the way through. That is factually incorrect. The VAR should have said, hang on a sec, you've given a goal kick as you didn't think it hit anything, it did, it hit an arm. Probably best to take a look just so you can make the decision based on facts. It's not about the corner/goal kick. The ref didn't decide it shouldn't be handball because his arm was in a natural position. He just didn't see it was handball. That is a clear and obvious error.

I don't necessarily think the AWB decision is wrong in isolation. And certainly wouldn't expect VAR to overturn as seeing the reply I certainly wouldn't. But it definitely wasn't as obvious as the Grealish one. 

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.

11 minutes ago, arrytheb said:

Wait, so you agree Grealish shouldn't have been a penalty but Wan Bissaka should?

Grealish who was stood 10 yards away, with the shot starting from a 'stopped' position so no instinct reaction. When stood in a wall, the arms really really do not need to come out to the side. 

And to make the VAR decision worse, the fact a goal kick was given, the ref clearly thought the ball didn't hit anything on the way through, with is factually incorrect. On that basis they should, at the very least, inform the ref that ball has hit an arm on its way through, which you must have missed, so probably worth just taking another look. 

Absolutely terrible use of the VAR process. At least let the ref know it's hit an arm so he can then make a decision based on what actually happened rather than what he missed. 

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.  

57 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I would say it's not strictly "unnatural" (your arms do move when you jump) but I'm regularly told on a Saturday afternoon by referees when standing in the wall, that you can cover your bits but cant have your arms out by your side. I would say yes Grealish is making himself bigger.

It's ok to say take them in isolation, but this is what is most frustrating in football - and this rule in particularly - there's no continuity. What's a pen one week, isn't the next and it means no one has a clue what's going on.

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.

11 minutes ago, redkev said:

Give it a crack ? Wtf does that mean , thought I was pretty streetwise but never heard that before 

Give it a go. 

1 hour ago, redkev said:

Please some one tell me the difference between Aaron wan bissaka hand ball and Ashley youngs either both pens or no pens , one given one not , it’s an absolute shambles var

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!! 

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Another shocker yesterday IMO

Chelsea free kick hits Grealish’s outstretched arm in the wall.

Ref doesn’t even give a corner, but a goal kick.

Now I didn’t see it in real time but I saw the replays and discussion after. On the basis of what is given these days I can’t understand how it isn’t. Every free kick these days the wall are told you can use your hand to cover your face, or your bits, but anything out to the side is in danger.

I don’t understand how it’s not a penalty, especially compared to the one we got last week.

Also, I know VAR can’t over rule goal kicks but that conversation must have been amusing. Hold on Ref, you’ve given a goal kick but we’re just checking a possible handball.

Check complete, it did hit Grealish but no penalty - stick with the goal kick  it makes no sense.

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. 

35 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

So, if it had struck his other arm, no handball. Waving arm for balance, even though not deliberate, handball. 

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. 

55 minutes ago, Colemanballs said:

His hand is above his shoulder which, as far as I am aware, is never considered to be in a natural position.

 

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,.  

31 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I thought I'd get pulled up on that as I typed it.

What I meant , and this is coming from someone who only played at a shite level , when you dive into challenges your arms come out naturally . You never put them out other than to give you balance.  Now for the new VAR years they tend to think if the arm is out it is un natural when it comes to Penalties. 
So what I meant , and put it really badly , for me the guys arms are in a natural position as they go where they go in thoase circumstances. 
Then , as the arms are away from the body and they arm stops a cross it's going to be given as handball quite often.
The ball was prevented from going into the box and possibly creating a chance , that's what I meant by him gaining an advantage . I wasn't referring to the advantage rule . 
Not sure I've explained myself much better now. 

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. 

51 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is a snapshot of the incident . Is this the split second the ball hit hand or a fraction of a second after when the hand has moved after being hit ? I'd say she had a decent view.

Clear view of the arm out . Now I'd say a natural position for trying to block, but that changes when it stops the cross as he has gained an advantage.

Cross on it's way and you can clearly see raised arm.

Still able to see his arm after the ball has hit it.

I can't download this to slow mo it , I'll try and find it somewhere I can but I'm not hopeful.

 

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.

14 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Ok - if it’s away from your body at the time of impact it is - as in this case. 

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.

33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Three Lions only after your opinion,

Q.1. do you think this is a natural position?  If you think it is, that’s fine by me.

Q.2. Do you think the defenders method to block the ball was risky, in terms of potential for ball striking hand / arm, and ref giving a penalty?

FWIW, seen them given, seen them not.

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.

1 hour ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

It’s a penalty if the ball connects with your arm regardless of intent. 

wrong. its not always an offence if the ball connects with an arm. 

6 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

His arms were out and it was a penalty 

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?

16 minutes ago, MelksRed said:

Un-natural is the ball striking your hand (see photos above in this stream) when your whole body is travelling the other direction making your body un-nautrally bigger. 

 

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!!! 

10 minutes ago, MelksRed said:

All irrelevant- 

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.  

5 hours ago, MelksRed said:

A bent / raised elbow is not a natural position, Pen

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).

27 minutes ago, MelksRed said:

Why are people so intent on disproving the penalty?

It's almost like we can't bear to get something out of a game if it could be construed as positive. 

I'll take the point thanks. The defenders left arm was raised...not the arm he was landing on either....professional footballers keep their arms pinned in whilst in the box ..he didn't.....penalty. 1-1 game over.

At the end of the day only one person's opinion matters.....and she said Pen. 

Onwards and upwards to Rotherham who are likely to win in the 101st minute with a pen against us. Swings and roundabouts I'm afraid. 

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.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

When I heard SSN saying GO was furious with the offside, I was expecting something very different to what I was then showed.  Even more so when I heard GO use “anyone who’s played the game will know it’s offside”.

And then I watched it.

Offside.  I honestly couldn’t believe GO or SSN thought it wasn’t .

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. 

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

That wasn’t the VaR explanation Malt. The official VaR reckoned that the player ‘was blocking the keepers view’ 

How ridiculous is that?

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!! 

6 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

The keeper only had to step either way Why?

because a player who was in an offside position was blocking his vision

so that player was interfering with play 

So off side

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!!