Matty Cash handball - I checked the laws, should have been given

[benjii]

The law on handball taken from the FA website, states as follows (my emphasis added).

* * * * * * * * * *

It is an offence if a player: 

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

* * * * * * * * * 

The words "except for the above offences" make it quite clear that the criteria which are set out in the final four bullet points are not intended to apply to mitigate an offence listed in the first set of bullet points.

In the case of Cash, he seemed to deliberately handle the ball (his arm actually moved towards the ball with a small swiping action at the last moment) but in any event he clearly made his body unnaturally bigger by sticking his arm out to form a barrier above his head and that element of the foul does not require any intent.

So, in a nutshell, the grazing of the ball on some short fibres should not have mattered.

The Bundesliga guidance page on this makes the point clearly: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/rule-changes-2019-20-handball-penalties-sustitutions-wall-free-kick-4824

The page says (my emphasis added again): "Many in the game believe greater clarity is needed for referees when it comes to handballs, therefore the IFAB has re-worded a number of rules.

It stresses that a deliberate handball remains an offence but that the following scenarios will result in a free-kick even if accidental:

• if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand or arm
• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• a ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

 

However, the following will not usually be a free-kick unless they are one of the above situations:

• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
• if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
• if the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball"

* * * * * * * * * *

So, basically, to defend the failure to give a penalty against Cash, the PL would have to think that:

- it wasn't deliberate

or

- he didn't make his body unnaturally bigger.

The shorts thing is irrelevant, in accordance with the laws of football. If PGMOL / Premier League are taking any contact on the player's person as being an absolute defence to handball, regardless of the positioning of the arms or any consideration of intent, then they are making up their own rules as they go along.

In short, we were absolutely rodgered up the Gary.

 

 

 

[Saint Troy]

mad! so the law is actually quite sensible but the refs dont know them! 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Saint Troy said:

mad! so the law is actually quite sensible but the refs dont know them! 

Interpretation varies widely between Football Associations and countries.

[Saint Troy]

9 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Interpretation varies widely between Football Associations and countries.

im not sure what part of the above is open to interpretation though unless interpretation means ignoring. There's no subtle way of twisting the above to make it fit what happened given the explanation that i can see

[sydney_saint]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Interpretation varies widely between Football Associations and countries.

Thats from the FA's website. It actually reads pretty clear cut to me. We should send a copy of that to the FA, with a quick one sentence saying "No more Mike Dean."

[Jonnyboy]

That Walton was smirking last night whilst making out that the refs know best. 😡

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Jonnyboy said:

That Walton was smirking last night whilst making out that the refs know best. 😡

Well he didn’t want to engage in a conversation with Rio and the others about if it was a foul or not, after they all said it wasn’t as that would be calling out on of his Bredrin for ballsing up

[Jonnyboy]

Seen these going round today, any truth in it? 

[fanimal]

The point is though Cash deliberately moved his arm to block a goal bound effort result red card and penalty so in all likelihood Saints 1-0 up against 10 men and we all know what that can lead to

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, fanimal said:

The point is though Cash deliberately moved his arm to block a goal bound effort result red card and penalty so in all likelihood Saints 1-0 up against 10 men and we all know what that can lead to

1-1 when we’re involved 

 

Edited 3 February, 2021 by Turkish

[ant]

16 hours ago, Jonnyboy said:

Seen these going round today, any truth in it? 

Half of this quote was pieced together from a series of tweets by Halsey in 2016. Now seemingly deleted, but a little bit of sleuthing turns up the URLs of at least a couple of them. 🕵️

https://twitter.com/RefereeHalsey/status/771628305954975744
https://twitter.com/RefereeHalsey/status/771996466336456704

Interestingly the first of those tweets was still active as of yesterday - saw it with my own eyes. 

At that time, both could be accessed via the Wayback Machine (as I was going to post roughly this response on yesterday's conspiracy thread, where that image was posted - and somebody claimed it was a fake attribution).

That may tie into the 'gagging' narrative. Or perhaps somebody has just had 'a word' since this has resurfaced.

The second half of the quote was indeed falsified though, as reported in this article.

Edited 4 February, 2021 by ant

[Captain Jack]

The 'except for the above offences' phrase makes a massive difference doesn't it? I think very few are aware of this. The pundits in the studio and Dean Smith after the game were saying that the slight contact meant it was not a penalty, like it was a foregone conclusion. But when you add that phrase it changes everything. Heaven forbid, it might even mean Mason and Dean don't know the rules!