The penalty

[Three Lions]

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.  

[MelksRed]

This decision has genuinely created some good stuff on the forum. For me it has demonstrated that we all are passionate about the game, we care deeply for the rules (unlike our opposition who sought to bend them with time wasting etc) and we care about the right thing being done. 

Who is to say that the cross (had it not have hit the defender) wouldn't have been converted and we drew 1-1 anyway? 

[slartibartfast]

2 minutes ago, MelksRed said:

This decision has genuinely created some good stuff on the forum. For me it has demonstrated that we all are passionate about the game, we care deeply for the rules (unlike our opposition who sought to bend them with time wasting etc) and we care about the right thing being done. 

Who is to say that the cross (had it not have hit the defender) wouldn't have been converted and we drew 1-1 anyway? 

FFS don't tell the HTFC fans that, there'll be another 300 comments on the Beeb site !

[MelksRed]

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. 

Let's agree to disagree. I respect your viewpoint - I just don't see it the same way - the joy of opinions I guess 

Have a pleasant weekend! 

[Bobtherobin]

21 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I left with 30 seconds to go of the 5 added minutes , who knew She meant 10 ffs

But looking at the highlights , the guy doesn't complain much , the Ref gives it straight away and every City player appeals . It seems a good shout , even though I still can't see it.

'She' quite rightly added time for the time being wasted in the added minutes. Best thing to do is wait for the final whistle.

[redkev]

Let’s be fair no one has a clue about what is and what isn’t hand ball any more different refs have different opinions 

we have had so many not given it’s about time we had a few go our way 

[slartibartfast]

What was interesting was the fans in the South Stand immediately called for a penalty and it wasn't just a hopeful shout, either, it was a demand .

Edited April 14 by slartibartfast

[Three Lions]

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!!! 

Edited April 14 by Three Lions

[slartibartfast]

50 minutes ago, pongo88 said:

That’s what I thought at the time. I’ve just watched the highlights and this confirms my opinion. The first screenshot shows the position of the Huddersfield’s players arm which is definitely not in an unnatural position. Therefore no penalty. The second shows the referee’s position. From where she was she couldn’t possibly see what really happened so the penalty award was just a guess 

Where's Mr & Mrs Zapruder when you need them ?

[frenchred]

35 minutes ago, MelksRed said:

All irrelevant- the ref (who must know the laws) gave it - end of.

What a weird statement, have you never complained about the ones we didn't get?

You know the stone walkers, but then again the refs know the rules

[wendyredredrobin]

His arms were out and it was a penalty in my biased view, but in reality, I've seen as many similar examples waived away as often as given.

TBH we have had much clearer penaly shouts including several stone wall pens turned down in the last couple of years.

I did like the fact that Rebecca wouldn't stand for professional fouls and waived a yellow for all of them right from the start.  Much better ref than most of the blokes I've seen officiating down here lately.

Edited April 14 by wendyredredrobin

[Three Lions]

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?

Edited April 14 by Three Lions

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Maybe yesterday was an example of why time wasting isn’t always the best way to go though 

Exactly! I think it was a pen some don’t! Either way if all that time wasting up to the point the penalty was awarded hadn’t had Happened there would not have been that chance. 
 

on top of that I keep reading about all the added time but some of that was trying to get in Wells head. Without going back to look at it, there was time added at the end of the game three minutes of which was takeN up by time wasting. The amount added after the award (and subsequent scoring) of the pen is a bit irrelevant. 
 

I suspect those with a sad life/time on their hands can count out from 90 what was added and how much was wasted add it back before the handball. 

Edited April 14 by REDOXO

[JakeOTIB]

Re. extra time, does anybody else think the whole issue around added time could be solved by scrapping it completely and just stop the clock when the ball isn’t in play, when there’s an injury, substitution, goal etc. just like rugby? That way there can’t be any complaints and the game just finishes when it reaches 90 minutes.

[JakeOTIB]

34 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

What was interesting was the fans in the South Stand immediately called for a penalty and it wasn't just a hopeful shout, either, it was a demand .

As per my OP, I called for it because it looked stonewall to me.

[bcfcredandwhite]

25 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

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?

It’s a penalty if the ball connects with your arm regardless of intent. The ‘ball to hand’ rule was scrapped years ago. 
If the ball hits the hand it’s a penalty. If it’s deemed deliberate it’s also a red card. If accidental then it’s a penalty but no card. 
Rebecca gave a penalty but no card - which indicates she knew and acknowledged it was accidental but it was still a ‘foul’ and awarded the penalty. 

[NcnsBcfc]

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Hits his hand.

@NcnsBcfc did not hit upper arm.

Thanks @Davefevs, as i said on the FBC podcast this morning, i was half way down Ashton Road at this point .

From this screen shot, the ref got her sightlines absolutely spot on. Shame a few Huddersfield supporters have chosen to take it personally.

[Cowshed]

32 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

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?

 

5 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

It’s a penalty if the ball connects with your arm regardless of intent. The ‘ball to hand’ rule was scrapped years ago. 
If the ball hits the hand it’s a penalty. If it’s deemed deliberate it’s also a red card. If accidental then it’s a penalty but no card. 
Rebecca gave a penalty but no card - which indicates she knew and acknowledged it was accidental but it was still a ‘foul’ and awarded the penalty. 

The answer is no. I cheated.

IFAB rules show Rangers vs Celtic penalty was called right by Beaton | The Herald (heraldscotland.com)

[Portland Bill]

16 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

It’s a penalty if the ball connects with your arm regardless of intent. The ‘ball to hand’ rule was scrapped years ago. 
If the ball hits the hand it’s a penalty. If it’s deemed deliberate it’s also a red card. If accidental then it’s a penalty but no card. 
Rebecca gave a penalty but no card - which indicates she knew and acknowledged it was accidental but it was still a ‘foul’ and awarded the penalty. 

There are basically two hand ball laws nowadays, one in the penalty area, and one on the rest of the pitch. 
Personally I’m not convinced yesterdays was hand ball, but there is far more chance of that being given in the box, it would never have been given anywhere else on the pitch though. 
 

Edited April 14 by Portland Bill

[bcfcredandwhite]

16 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Shame a few Huddersfield supporters have chosen to take it personally.

If this is real then it’s an outrage. 
I get they would be upset and angry, but to try and ruin someone’s career due to a decision you don’t like is pathetic and wrong. 

Edited April 14 by bcfcredandwhite

[AppyDAZE]

15 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Thanks @Davefevs, as i said on the FBC podcast this morning, i was half way down Ashton Road at this point .

From this screen shot, the ref got her sightlines absolutely spot on. Shame a few Huddersfield supporters have chosen to take it personally.

Pathetic.

She had more balls than most refs for dealing with blatant cheating by time wasting.

Good on her, I say.

Huddersfield fans saying things like this and far worse are disgusting.

[pongo88]

1 hour ago, slartibartfast said:

Where's Mr & Mrs Zapruder when you need them ?

Only the OTIB forum could link JFK with Huddersfield 

[Davefevs]

@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.

[Back of the Dolman]

34 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Pathetic.

She had more balls than most refs for dealing with blatant cheating by time wasting.

Good on her, I say.

Huddersfield fans saying things like this and far worse are disgusting.

Let’s hope the referees they have for the rest of the season agree and don’t show them any leniency 

[Calculus]

1 hour ago, JakeOTIB said:

Re. extra time, does anybody else think the whole issue around added time could be solved by scrapping it completely and just stop the clock when the ball isn’t in play, when there’s an injury, substitution, goal etc. just like rugby? That way there can’t be any complaints and the game just finishes when it reaches 90 minutes.

Rugby doesn't finish when the clock reaches 80 though - the ball has to go out of play and that can take quite a while. 

[Ronnie pickering]

Credit where credits due,it has to be tough for her to call that from the kitchen 

[IAmNick]

Just now, Ronnie pickering said:

Credit where credits due,it has to be tough for her to call that from the kitchen 

Brilliant joke, how on earth did you come up with that one? Just fantastic.

Woman = kitchen. Really, just inspired.

[JakeOTIB]

13 minutes ago, Calculus said:

Rugby doesn't finish when the clock reaches 80 though - the ball has to go out of play and that can take quite a while. 

I’d have that in football too.

[Three Lions]

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. 

 

Edited April 14 by Three Lions

[bcfcredandwhite]

2 minutes ago, Three Lions said:

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 ball connects with an arm. 

 

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