*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[dontcloseyoureyes]

A hollow victory, we should've been playing Tranmere today tbh.

 

[roseboy64]

The humiliation continues - we really are the only team in Europe that can't beat Liverpool.

The fact that it's their seasonal cup consoles me.

 

[Ikki]

Hmm you're the first person I've heard contend the offside. Supposedly it was close but his white boots showed he was offside?

You mean apart from the commentators? Also the Guardian live-update said it was onside too. Was pretty clear IMO too.

Virtually every game of football has wrong adjudged offsides anyway. Usually ones that favour the defending side.

Anyway Liverpool back to their losing ways. Good good.

I know, I wish we could play United every week .

Thoughts on the penalty shout in injury time?

bias aside, I think it was.

 

[Matteh]

Is defending his face and trying to pull his arm into his body if anything like the wussy neutral Swiss he is.

 

[duffer]

Yes, great decision by the ref.

 

[Uppercut]

bias aside, I think it was.

Don't know how even you can call that a deliberate handball.

 

[GIMH]

A hollow victory, we should've been playing Tranmere today tbh.

Indeed, wag

 

[sledger]

Don't know how even you can call that a deliberate handball.

96% pass completion rate.

 

[Ikki]

Don't know how even you can call that a deliberate handball.

Arms wider than the sides, in the air, have been interpreted as handball. It's one test of deliberateness. I refer to David Elleray:

"Referees look at two specifics - did the hand or arm go towards the ball or in a manner which would block the ball, or is the hand in a position where it would not normally be?" Elleray told BBC Sport.

"The challenging decisions are if the defending player spreads their arms to make themselves bigger.

"If the ball hits the arm then the referee must decide whether this action was to deliberately block the ball or whether the player has raised their arms to protect themselves - especially if the ball is hit at speed."

96% pass completion rate.

Wasn't funny the first time, but keep bitching.

 

[duffer]

I think what he meant to say was he didn't see how anyone could construe what Phil did as anything but trying to protect himself.

 

[Ikki]

I think what he meant to say was he didn't see how anyone could construe what Phil did as anything but trying to protect himself.

I'm not sure, to be honest, and it's hard to be. Referees these days tend to give penalties as to discourage players from making themselves bigger and stopping goal-bound shots, even if there was an element of self-protection. Although I can see what you guys are saying, I've seen them given often enough. That's probably my take on it as essentially you can judge it either way.

 

[Johnners]

Thought it was pretty clear he was trying to protect himself tbh.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Reminds me of Eto'o against Chelsea.

 

[Ikki]

Where it struck Eto'o is actually close to his body, his arm-pit IIRC. This one, Senderos' right arm is away from his body. Anyway, goes to show you how contentious penalty decisions are. I come here many think it isn't, in other discussions with other friends they think it is. Anyway, it's the Carling cup ffs, moving on.

 

[Uppercut]

Thought it was pretty clear he was trying to protect himself tbh.

Yeah, me too. You can't possibly give a penalty for that. There's no waaaaay he put his arm there to try to block the shot.

 

[Matteh]

Where it struck Eto'o is actually close to his body, his arm-pit IIRC. This one, Senderos' right arm is away from his body. Anyway, goes to show you how contentious penalty decisions are. I come here many think it isn't, in other discussions with other friends they think it is. Anyway, it's the Carling cup ffs, moving on.

Is why it should be made less subjective. Hits your hand, free kick/penalty end of, in the same way hockey is with the ball hitting feet.

 

[Ikki]

I actually agree, other than if your hands are clearly in the line of your body (i.e. protecting yourself) and would hit your body otherwise, it should be a handball. That's why I think it's making it too difficult to assume he was protecting himself when his arm is so wide of his body. Maybe he was and it was inadvertant, but then again maybe it wasn't. IMO, it's unnatural to have your arms splayed like that so it's a penalty, regardless if it isn't deliberate. It's even worse when the ball is going towards goal.

 

[Uppercut]

Is why it should be made less subjective. Hits your hand, free kick/penalty end of, in the same way hockey is with the ball hitting feet.

You'd get the situation where wingers would try to flick the ball up and hit the defender on the hand or arm to get a penalty.

 

[Matteh]

You'd get the situation where wingers would try to flick the ball up and hit the defender on the hand or arm to get a penalty.

Doubt you would, if you're in the box and are more interested in flicking against a defender's hand instead of shooting/laying off properly you'll look like a prat when you miss and the ball rolls to the keeper.

 

[Loony BoB]

If that happened, you just know that every football side in the world would spend less time shooting at goal and more time shooting at the arms of the opposition once they're in the box. Would be pretty terrible.

While protecting face is not going to be a reason to get away with things (See: Scholes, Ronaldo), if it's that close to a player and the ball isn't on target towards the net, then I think there's every reason to let it slide.