| Frey Goal 23:00 - Jan 6 with 4153 views | Malintabuk |
In real time I never saw the hand ball, it was only when it was analysed that I saw it... I thought it was a load of Bo!!ocks, but seeing the way Frey celebrated I wonder if he thought it was going to be chalked off |  | | |  |
| Frey Goal on 12:00 - Jan 7 with 745 views | Loyalitat |
Very tidy finish from Frey, handball or otherwise, with his weaker foot.
He's doing a good job in leading the line. Six goals in 16 games is a decent return and I expect him to score a few more in the next three league games this month.
Can use both feet, good header of the ball, generally, has good movement in the penalty area and occupies defenders. [Post edited 7 Jan 12:11]
| | | |
| Frey Goal on 12:30 - Jan 7 with 682 views | OxfordHoops |
Officials were bloody awful all night, we are in BL and they missed at least 2 handballs by Luton defenders before the goal. Yes a slight touch but completely unintentional and given the previous missed handballs, they were never going to give it! | | | |
| Frey Goal on 12:36 - Jan 7 with 669 views | QPROslo |
| Frey Goal on 05:28 - Jan 7 by kernowhoop |
I don't think that defenders appealed, either, did they? |
A couple did. | | | |
| Frey Goal on 12:45 - Jan 7 with 634 views | R_from_afar |
The handball rule has become incredibly complicated. I really don't envy refs trying to apply it, especially in games with no VAR. I reckon it might be better all round to just change it so *any* contact with an arm is a free kick.
On Sky last night, they showed the latest iteration of the rule. If the goalscorer handles accidentally or unavoidably, it's a free kick, but if a player providing an assist does, e.g. Joelinton, it isn't. Is that sensible? I'm not sure it is.
NB: I have simplified the rule here  |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Frey Goal on 12:48 - Jan 7 with 611 views | Juzzie |
| Frey Goal on 12:36 - Jan 7 by QPROslo |
A couple did. |
Watch any goal that is scored, defenders often put their hand up just in the hope/off chance it may get chalked off (rarely happens). |  | | |
| Frey Goal on 12:57 - Jan 7 with 570 views | Juzzie |
| Frey Goal on 12:45 - Jan 7 by R_from_afar |
The handball rule has become incredibly complicated. I really don't envy refs trying to apply it, especially in games with no VAR. I reckon it might be better all round to just change it so *any* contact with an arm is a free kick.
On Sky last night, they showed the latest iteration of the rule. If the goalscorer handles accidentally or unavoidably, it's a free kick, but if a player providing an assist does, e.g. Joelinton, it isn't. Is that sensible? I'm not sure it is.
NB: I have simplified the rule here |
from the LoTG*;
Rule 10, sub paragraph C, version 32, sub-amend IV;
"If the ball hits the players arm but the player is align with the winter/summer solstice (as appropriate), is facing westwards and into a downwind, has a tattoo of their kids birthday in roman numerals, has a haircut not out of place on the Muppet Show then the goal is disallowed".
Further sub-amends to follow each week.
*not actually accurate, all comments designed for comedic effect | | | |
| Frey Goal on 22:04 - Jan 8 with 283 views | stevenagehoop |
| Frey Goal on 00:20 - Jan 7 by Juzzie |
I really don’t see a problem with Frey’s goal but it seems modern football is a game where the authorities try to do everything they can to stop goals being scored. |
Agreed - nonsense that goals are chalked off for accidental handball but if you are going to introduce that rule it should also apply to defenders every handball whether intentional or not is given against the defender. Accidental is the same whether you be an attacker or a defender. |  |
| I never lie but I don't always tell the truth |
| |
| Frey Goal on 22:28 - Jan 8 with 197 views | SydneyRs |
| Frey Goal on 07:54 - Jan 7 by Tonto |
Ok lets clear this up.
The new rule is that if the ball touches the attckers arm in thr build.up to a goal, intentional or not, then it should NOT be a goal.
Therefore, we got lucky. |
But the Newcastle goal v Spurs was apparently fine because the handball wasn't intentional and that player didn't score, despite the fact that Newcastle got a huge advantage from it and it completely changed the direction of the ball leading to a goalscoring opportunity that otherwise would not have happened.
Meanwhile penalties are given all the time for balls deflected to arms with no opportunity for the defender to react etc.
Make it make sense! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Frey Goal on 09:46 - Jan 9 with 74 views | terryb |
| Frey Goal on 12:45 - Jan 7 by R_from_afar |
The handball rule has become incredibly complicated. I really don't envy refs trying to apply it, especially in games with no VAR. I reckon it might be better all round to just change it so *any* contact with an arm is a free kick.
On Sky last night, they showed the latest iteration of the rule. If the goalscorer handles accidentally or unavoidably, it's a free kick, but if a player providing an assist does, e.g. Joelinton, it isn't. Is that sensible? I'm not sure it is.
NB: I have simplified the rule here |
That is the reason why the Stoke "goal" was disallowed when we drew with them. Accidental handball & play on from the referee, until it was the same player who scored.
Like some have mentioned, my dislike is where the laws are different for defenders than attackers. My pet hate being that "saving a goal" by handling on the line is a sending off, but an attacker punching the ball into the goal is only a caution. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
