KWP “goal”

[Kaiser Soze]

How the hell have opta awarded that goal to KWP when it clearly came off Adams? Backed Adams first goal scorer…

[SaintBobby]

It's definitely a Che goal, surely?

[Kaiser Soze]

1 minute ago, SaintBobby said:

It's definitely a Che goal, surely?

Been awarded to KWP….

[SaintBobby]

Surely that will be corrected?

[spyinthesky]

Didnt it hit Che's arm on the way in?

Also if Baz had attempted to wave the ball away like the Coventry's 'keeper did for our second goal, he would have been slaughtered on here.

[Saint_clark]

You really think they're going to award it to Adams drawing more attention to the fact that it went in off his arm? 

[S-Clarke]

It will be kept as KWP, otherwise we've scored an illegal handball goal. 

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

13 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

Also if Baz had attempted to wave the ball away like the Coventry's 'keeper did for our second goal, he would have been slaughtered on here.

Could you imagine 😅

[Nordic Saint]

14 hours ago, Kaiser Soze said:

How the hell have opta awarded that goal to KWP when it clearly came off Adams? Backed Adams first goal scorer…

Because it was deflected off Adams' arm and the officials have to pretend that didn't happen or the goal should have been disallowed for handball. 

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

Because it was deflected off Adams' arm and the officials have to pretend that didn't happen or the goal should have been disallowed for handball. 

Unless it wasn’t actually handball?

[coalman]

26 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Unless it wasn’t actually handball?

To be fair to the officials I'm pretty sure Adams knew nothing about it until it hit him.

[Master Bates]

[Saint_clark]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Unless it wasn’t actually handball?

You're kidding, right?

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

You're kidding, right?

Unless it ‘wasn’t considered’ handball.
 

Just a thought, although the point was raised elsewhere about goals not being allowed if an arm has been involved at a late stage is intriguing.

 

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Unless it ‘wasn’t considered’ handball.
 

Just a thought, although the point was raised elsewhere about goals not being allowed if an arm has been involved at a late stage is intriguing.

 

I found this,

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

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

 

[Saint_clark]

4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I found this,

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

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

 

So that goal from a few years back where it bounced up and hit Djenepos arm before he crossed would be fine. 

But deflecting in off an arm is still handball. You can't ever have a situation where a goal going in direct from a hand is allowed, it's ridiculous. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

So that goal from a few years back where it bounced up and hit Djenepos arm before he crossed would be fine. 

But deflecting in off an arm is still handball. You can't ever have a situation where a goal going in direct from a hand is allowed, it's ridiculous. 

That link is from 2021.

It’s not handball if it’s accidental. 
 

Not my decision but that appears to be the current definition. In general I agree with you. In football you shouldn’t be able to score a goal with your hand or arm, hence not being able to score from a throw-in.

[coalman]

Re-watching the highlights. Che moved his hand to the ball so I think we got away with one there. He put his hands above his head and handled it during the goalmouth scramble for the second one as well. I think VAR would have disallowed both of those.

[The Kraken]

12 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That link is from 2021.

It’s not handball if it’s accidental. 
 

Not my decision but that appears to be the current definition. In general I agree with you. In football you shouldn’t be able to score a goal with your hand or arm, hence not being able to score from a throw-in.

You left out the rest of the IFAB comments.  The bottom bullet point is the pertinent one.

Crucially, it has ruled that “accidental handball that leads to a team-mate scoring a goal or having a goal-scoring opportunity will no longer be considered an offence”.

IFAB has now clarified that it is a handball offence when 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.”

[Barsiem]

Reminds me of this goal "scored" against us by Saha all those years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kckbm78qiKU

[sledger]

it wasnt handball because the ref never gave it,its 100% adams goal

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, sledger said:

it wasnt handball because the ref never gave it,its 100% adams goal

Good god.

Just because the referee doesn’t see it doesn’t change the facts. It was handball. It wasn’t given as handball. Two entirely different things.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

Good god.

Just because the referee doesn’t see it doesn’t change the facts. It was handball. It wasn’t given as handball. Two entirely different things.

Not so. 

In your opinion it was handball but not in the opinion of the referee.

[The Kraken]

14 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not so. 

In your opinion it was handball but not in the opinion of the referee.

Not so. 

The video evidence of the incident shows without any doubt whatsoever that the ball struck Che Adams' arm then went into the goal (the photo below is quite clear but the video evidence is much clearer and leaves no room for doubt).  The fact therefore is that it was handball.  And, being so, the laws clearly state that the goal should be disallowed.  The referee's opinion was that it hadn't struck the arm.  He was wrong.  Therefore his opinion and the actual facts are two different things.

 

Edited 12 April, 2024 by The Kraken

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Not so. 

The video evidence of the incident shows without any doubt whatsoever that the ball struck Che Adams' arm then went into the goal (the photo below is quite clear but the video evidence is much clearer and leaves no room for doubt).  The fact therefore is that it was handball.  And, being so, the laws clearly state that the goal should be disallowed.  The referee's opinion was that it hadn't struck the arm.  He was wrong.  Therefore his opinion and the actual facts are two different things.

 

Ball touching arm or hand does not constitute handball.

I’d be interested to know how you know what the referee’s opinion was. He had a clear view of the incident.

Despite that, the decision of the IFAB (not actually a football Law) is that the goal should not have stood.

[The Kraken]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Ball touching arm or hand does not constitute handball.

In this specific case (ball touching arm of striker then immediately going into the goal) and according to the laws, it very clearly does. Maybe I’d suggest having another look at the law as the other day you posted about it and got it wrong.

[Whitey Grandad]

26 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

In this specific case (ball touching arm of striker then immediately going into the goal) and according to the laws, it very clearly does. Maybe I’d suggest having another look at the law as the other day you posted about it and got it wrong.

No, you don’t understand. 
 

It shouldn’t be disallowed because it was ‘handball’, which it wasn’t according to the general Laws of the Game, but because of the special circumstances relating to this instance namely that the ball went into the net direct from the contact. If the ball hadn’t gone direct into the net then it wouldn’t have been considered as handball. Possibly that’s why the referee didn’t consider that the contact with the arm was not an infringement.

You might like to consider that I was the person who posted that link.

[The Kraken]

[sledger]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

give it up youre digging yourself a bigger hole,anyway good news for us we won

[davefizzy14]

In the training video on the OS the media team say to KWP that the EPL have given it to him 🙂