Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Rules question - Church's Goal
MuttleyCAFC
Posts: 47,733
I have been thinking about Church’s goal from a rules perspective. It went in off his elbow, but he was clearly trying to head it so pretty sure it wasn’t deliberate. As it wasn’t deliberate, was it handball, but had it not hit his elbow, it wouldn’t have gone in! Ok, you could cop out of it and say it was deliberate – but taking as read that it wasn’t – what is the correct decision the ref should make by the laws of the game?
If a player blocks a cross with his arm that puts a player in undeliberately, the ref doesn’t give a penalty. But what if that undeliberate arm stops the ball crossing the line?
If a player blocks a cross with his arm that puts a player in undeliberately, the ref doesn’t give a penalty. But what if that undeliberate arm stops the ball crossing the line?
1
Comments
-
Who gives a f*ck?12
-
Rules?
Surely you mean Laws?
Schoolboy error :-)3 -
I clearly do - it doesn't bother me in the context of the game - but an interesting question I think as on the face of it feels like the ref missed it - but maybe he didn't!2
-
DaveMehmet said:
Who gives a f*ck?
This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
If it goes into the opposition goal off a charlton player as in this instance then it stands, however if it had been Best it would have been a clear and blatant hand ball6
-
It should have been disallowed i believe but do I or any other Charlton care, nope!
On a different note, Church becoming a cup hero, two winning goals and two assists in 3 FA Cup wins this season if im not mistaken.0 -
hand ball no goal, however not a hope would the ref or lino or anyone else known it was handball at the time, its only through replay it is apparent, the sheff weds players are appealing for offside not hand ball and they are feet away let alone the distance of the ref and lino
me i am in the who gives a f**k camp0 -
I don't care - in many ways I prefer the fact it should have been disallowed because it is funnier. But, it highlighted a gap in my knowledge so why not try and fill it?
I found this online when checking the handball Rules -sorry laws!
•Q: Is it a hand ball if the player unintentionally handles the ball and it affects the play of the game?
A: No. Whether the play is affected or not has nothing to do with the hand ball rule. It doesn't matter even if the ball were to go into the goal, if it was unintentional there is no hand ball1 -
This. Unintentional handball & therefore the goal stands.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't care - in many ways I prefer the fact it should have been disallowed because it is funnier. But, it highlighted a gap in my knowledge so why not try and fill it?
I found this online when checking the handball Rules -sorry laws!
•Q: Is it a hand ball if the player unintentionally handles the ball and it affects the play of the game?
A: No. Whether the play is affected or not has nothing to do with the hand ball rule. It doesn't matter even if the ball were to go into the goal, if it was unintentional there is no hand ball0 -
The referee's decision is final (thank God!)0
-
Sponsored links:
-
The hand of God?0
-
.0
-
Better still, the elbow of God! Let's be original.0
-
I always go by the fact, did he gain an advantage by the use of the hand......YES, so no goal 100% imo.
Could i give a fck, no.0 -
and lets be thankful that Hillsborough doesn't have Hawkeye installed for goal line decisions0
-
That's how I would have decided, but the laws of the game say clearly that if it is unintentional, it is not handball and the FAQs I have checked says that this applies if the ball goes in the goal. now I know th emost likely scenario is that the officials missed it, but if they didn't and Clatternberg took this decision - it could be a very rare example of awsome refereeing.Charltonparklane said:I always go by the fact, did he gain an advantage by the use of the hand......YES, so no goal 100% imo.
Could i give a fck, no.0 -
If its good enough for Maradona....0
-
itv did and it wasn't over the line0
-
Gods conducts himself through the church.MuttleyCAFC said:The hand of God?
1 -
It's a pretty basic flow chart.
DID THE BALL STRIKE THE HAND - Yes - WAS IT INTENTIONAL - No - WAS AN ADVANTAGE GAINED? - Yes = FOUL0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Interpretation of Law 12:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement
It's a tough one to call. It's clear from the replay that it wasn't deliberate - Church tried to head the ball and missed. I also don't think the arms were in an unnatural or unreasonable position to aid the jump. So no handball for me.0 -
Is that your own flow chart or the one included with the laws of the game?JiMMy 85 said:It's a pretty basic flow chart.
DID THE BALL STRIKE THE HAND - Yes - WAS IT INTENTIONAL - No - WAS AN ADVANTAGE GAINED? - Yes = FOUL
See it is quite an interesting question - unless you have no desire to understand the laws of the game of course.0 -
are you sure it went in off his elbow? watched the stream last night and was too quick to see and haven't seen a slow mo or pic confirming it. The wendies didn't appeal it.0
-
Easiest way to figure it out is to ask yourself if you would be happy for it to count if it had been the other way. Handball.0
-
Where is that bit in the laws?
Handball, like all fouls, has to be deemed intentional. If unintentional, then it is not a foul. Unfortunately because of the pressure of the media, refs have been “blessed” with the ability to contravene this once vital principle and now make a decision based on the possible potential effects of the unintentional action. But by doing so, they are technically not abiding by the laws of the game - they are also misleading fans into what th elaws of the game actually are! I couldn't resist the opportunity to knock refs there.0 -
its not deliberate should of stood no doubt about it. I'm a referee.0
-
The rules state that if you don't know your a*** from your elbow, it can't be deliberate. Goal stands.1
-
The laws say it stands because of Sheffield Wednesdays chite defending I'd have thought ;-)0
-
I only watched it the once but from the angle, to me it looked like it struck him on the shoulder = GOOOAAAAAALLLLL0
-
MuttleyCAFC said:
I clearly do - it doesn't bother me in the context of the game - but an interesting question I think as on the face of it feels like the ref missed it - but maybe he didn't!
Well, we clearly don't!
0
