[tenpoless]

Seems like they change the definition of handball every week and this time the ref didn't even bother to look at the replay. Rashford's goal should be allowed.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Tbf I get what he's saying as I've felt it sometimes too.

I think it isn't intentional, rather mental (at the back of their minds).
When they have Ronaldo on, sometimes they pass it to him even if someone else is in a better position and Ronaldo is being marked.
Its like "that's Ronaldo, he'll do something with the ball, lets give it to him". Fernandes does this a lot I feel.

And this isn't meant to be negative towards anyone. I feel its subconscious.

I think there has been a few occasions, there was 1 game a few weeks ago where I think we were ahead and Bruno should have just passed to Rashford or someone to his left and instead he smashed a long ball to a marked Ronaldo

But against Everton I just didn't see it and thought it was a good team performance.

 

[Mr PG]

Watching the game with Martinez / Erickssen on the pitch raises an important question. What on gods green earth our scouting team and Woodward doing for over a decade?

Yes we spanked 80m on Maguire and Chased Sancho for eternity when Antony could have been had for approx 40m and Martinez even less.

 

[Mr PG]

Everton started off very well. Our second game in a week in a ground we always struggle yet we weren't flustered. We got them nervous as we almost scored like every time we went forward and actually scored 4 goals so they could't get out of their half due to fear. We're just so much better technically. Watch Arsenal's game against Brentford looked similar they mad Brentford look very poor considering Arsenal are playing a similar style to ours.

 

[Longlivekeano]

Let’s raid more (ex) Ajax talents. Seems to be working. Can we splurge for De Light and fdJ for 150-200 million pounds and finally have a settled spine to challenge for honours

 

[lex talionis]

Let's revisit the alleged handball offense.

https://www.theifab.com/news/annual-general-meeting-2021/

Following this clarification, it is a handball offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball;
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised; or
• scores in the opponents’ goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

Accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal-scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence.

When the ball grazed Rashford's forearm -- which no one argues was deliberate -- he did not score "immediately after the ball touched [his] hand/arm". There was still more work to be done to score the fukking goal.

The intent of this revision to the handball offense rule (or "Law", as the rules are gloriously referred to in football) was to disallow goals that resulted from a deflection off the arm of an attacking player in any way that "immediately" resulted in the goal being scored. If the accidental/non-deliberate touching of the ball to hand/arm occurred in the buildup, the resulting goal stands.

 

[justsomebloke]

Let's revisit the alleged handball offense.

https://www.theifab.com/news/annual-general-meeting-2021/

Following this clarification, it is a handball offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball;
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised; or
• scores in the opponents’ goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

Accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal-scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence.

When the ball grazed Rashford's forearm -- which no one argues was deliberate -- he did not score "immediately after the ball touched [his] hand/arm". There was still more work to be done to score the fukking goal.

The intent of this revision to the handball offense rule (or "Law", as the rules are gloriously referred to in football) was to disallow goals that resulted from a deflection off the arm of an attacking player in any way that "immediately" resulted in the goal being scored. If the accidental/non-deliberate touching of the ball to hand/arm occurred in the buildup, the resulting goal stands.

That is also my understanding, which is why I didn't understand this decision. Sky Sports' Ref Watch however has a completely different understanding of the rule than what you write above:

INCIDENT: Marcus Rashford scores what looks like a third goal for Manchester United, but is penalised for controlling the ball with his hand after Everton defender James Tarkowski came in to challenge him. VAR rules the goal out for handball.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision.

DERMOT SAYS: It does strike his hand but he's the only player involved in the move. He scores and it doesn't go to any other player. You can argue that he's still got to go on and score but there's not another player involved. The fact that an Everton player plays it onto him is immaterial. It's about whether it strikes his hand or arm. And it does strike his arm.

Ref Watch: Was Arsenal's winning penalty against Liverpool soft and what is the handball law? | Football News | Sky Sports

Which leaves me asking, is it even clear what the fecking rule is here?

 

[lex talionis]

That is also my understanding, which is why I didn't understand this decision. Sky Sports' Ref Watch however has a completely different understanding of the rule than what you write above:

INCIDENT: Marcus Rashford scores what looks like a third goal for Manchester United, but is penalised for controlling the ball with his hand after Everton defender James Tarkowski came in to challenge him. VAR rules the goal out for handball.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision.

DERMOT SAYS: It does strike his hand but he's the only player involved in the move. He scores and it doesn't go to any other player. You can argue that he's still got to go on and score but there's not another player involved. The fact that an Everton player plays it onto him is immaterial. It's about whether it strikes his hand or arm. And it does strike his arm.

Ref Watch: Was Arsenal's winning penalty against Liverpool soft and what is the handball law? | Football News | Sky Sports

Which leaves me asking, is it even clear what the fecking rule is here?

As I see it, this is pretty simple.

If the referee determines that Rashford deliberately used his hand or arm on the ball, it’s a handball offense. No ambiguity to work out other than whether Rashford in fact deliberately used his arm (in this case) to control the ball. Any rational human being would agree that it was “ball to arm” and not a deliberate use of the arm to control the ball.

So, we’re left with the new variant on the rule, which applies only when a goal is “immediately” scored after the incidental touching of the ball by a hand or arm.

How much time must elapse before an act to no longer be “immediate”? There’s no definition to work off of, but common sense comes in handy. The shot on goal did not occur immediately after the touching of the ball and the arm. He was well outside the box and had work to do before reaching a goal scoring position.

 

[DSG]

I agree. For years the lad has been touted inside and outside OT as a 'Carrick in the making', so it doesn't make sense. I would have loved to see him have at least one season alongside Matic, 'old head + young legs' sort of thing.... guess that is now going to be Casemiro + ???

Perhaps he 'blotted his copy book' somehow, or got tired of waiting? Suppose we will have to await the 'memoirs'.

Was there a buyback clause inserted in there? Everton kind of paid real money for a player that hasn’t proven it every week in the PL. Looked pretty nifty on the ball in the cameo last week I thought…

 

[Maticmaker]

Was there a buyback clause inserted in there? Everton kind of paid real money for a player that hasn’t proven it every week in the PL. Looked pretty nifty on the ball in the cameo last week I thought…

I don't know about 'buy back'... tbh didn't even realise he had gone!
However, I do have that sinking feeling we have not done the right thing with Garner, but then from the outside its so difficult to know what's going on...actually rephrase that... even inside the club I doubt they know what's going on!

 

[justsomebloke]

As I see it, this is pretty simple.

If the referee determines that Rashford deliberately used his hand or arm on the ball, it’s a handball offense. No ambiguity to work out other than whether Rashford in fact deliberately used his arm (in this case) to control the ball. Any rational human being would agree that it was “ball to arm” and not a deliberate use of the arm to control the ball.

So, we’re left with the new variant on the rule, which applies only when a goal is “immediately” scored after the incidental touching of the ball by a hand or arm.

How much time must elapse before an act to no longer be “immediate”? There’s no definition to work off of, but common sense comes in handy. The shot on goal did not occur immediately after the touching of the ball and the arm. He was well outside the box and had work to do before reaching a goal scoring position.

I agree completely. But the ref community evidently doesn't, so the rule seems to be in need of clarification.

 

[lex talionis]

I agree completely. But the ref community evidently doesn't, so the rule seems to be in need of clarification.

Apparently. The word “immediately” shouldn’t need a definition as it’s self-evident that if an intervening act is required before the shot is taken then it’s therefore not “immediate”, but it appears English referees need this spelled out for them.