Leveller

If this isn’t handball, then the current rule needs changing … again. The point of the rule is to stop a player controlling the ball deliberately with their hand or arm. You can’t really do that with your shoulder, but you can with your upper arm, as he clearly did in this instance. He definitely controlled it and I’m 90% sure it was deliberate.

Was that the Midlands one? Rings a bell.

ITV had several regional football programmes. I remember living in Brum and watching Gary Newbon covering local games.

Imagine if Willie Boly was our goalie, Bradley Dack at right back, a second keeper playing sweeper … … err, Dennis Hopper as a stopper, Sean Penn at number ten, a Hairy Biker (useless striker)… … err, that’s it.

NP said he wasn’t doing very well and was going to be subbed, then he scored

Some do though. They still revel in “seeing off” some other bunch of tossers, decades ago.

There’s definitely some hypocrisy. This forum is often full of old blokes looking back fondly on the lovely battles they had forty or fifty years ago.

Prince Henry started for Taunton today but was subbed off at half time.

Yeah but it was pretty much limited to servicemen and convicts in those days!

Now being scouted by Celtic apparently who - allegedly - think they can reduce our asking price of £15M. All highly speculative of course.

Well exactly. SL will no doubt try to make a profit from Bristol Sport overall if he can, but to suggest that was the best investment available, or his primary motive, is pretty laughable.

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest LJ as manageress!

Not if the ref judged it accidental. Unfortunate a lot of them are cowards and give penalties when an accident gives the defender an advantage (incorrectly).

Basically the handball rule has always required intent, and “ball to hand” accidents have never been offences. The controversy arises where an accident leads to an advantage. Free kicks for accidental contact are relatively recent and only introduced to prevent goals. That rule was - in my view- rather unfair and has sensibly been toned down.

You haven’t commented on what the law is designed to prevent - cheating or accidents. What if your defender is hit on the elbow by a ball from behind? You’re happy to concede a penalty? If not, why not? What’s the difference? Use some logic.

No, it would have been disallowed without intent - which is different. See my other post - I prefer a law that prevents cheating, not accidental advantages.

And the law is better than one penalising any accidental contact of the ball with the arm - the sort of thing that would lead to ludicrous penalties where a ball hits a defenders elbow from behind. You can’t have it both ways - either you need intent or you don’t. My view is that the law was created to prevent cheating, which makes intent crucial.

Was it deliberate in your view?

To be an offence, handball has always had to be deliberate surely, until they started mucking about with the rules relatively recently. All the stuff about the hand being in an unnatural position was just to help decide whether there was any intent. I’m all for handball being restricted to deliberate cheating, not just accidental contacts. Then it’s just the ref’s honest opinion whether the player deliberately cheated or not. At the moment it still appears goals will be ruled out for accidental handball if the contact puts the ball into the net. So, I presume, if a defender lashes a clearance at an attacker, it will be a goal if it hits the attacker’s chest and goes in, but not if it hits his elbow. That would also be nonsense.

Seriously, I don't think his motives should be questioned, even if the results (in terms of football performance) leave much to be desired. Yes, he's probably aiming to make Bristol Sport, and its facilities, an added value project. But a man of that wealth didn't need to spend his money on this and doesn't really need to make an profit. nor will he, unless he sells. He just needs to recruit better people - and perhaps he already has.

Too me.

I did actually post my comment at half time! It was pretty poor though, so I didn’t really follow the second half closely.

You must have nodded off and had a little dream. Cameroon had 60% possession in the first half hour. Egypt hardly got out of their half. Arguably Egypt decided to let them and just to defend.

Cameroon all over Egypt so far but 0-0.

Unless of course they say “poor me”, continue to plead innocence then get found not guilty on appeal!