Ouattara non goal

Watching it live, it never occurred to me for a second that the keeper committed a foul. Given what I understand about how the handball rule is interpreted now, I see why they disallowed it. I do think that the rule as interpreted now has been stupidly twisted to accommodate VAR, which itself is stupidly twisted, and the deserving subject of another, long-lived thread.
 
NWCherries98 said:
Does no one else think he was fouled by the goalkeeper?

I don’t actually know what the rule is there tbf. If advantage is played, and then a foul is committed during the advantage, that’s caused by the initial foul - who’s supposed to benefit from the decision?

To me, our offence (the handball) only happens because of a foul. So surely the best way to approach it is to give the initial foul our way?
Click to expand...
I had to watch the goal again (a few times to be sure), but imo the keeper gets the ball and Dango has to hurdle the follow through. The ball skips up off Onana's touch and as DO is trying to stay on his feet the ball inadvertently touches his arm. No foul, as such, for me. But certainly a stupid rule that richly deserves to be binned.
 
Last edited:
DJ said:
The whole handball rule was only changed to try and facilitate VAR. “People” wanted consistency and with that clear binary decisions.

And so common sense was thrown out of the window.
Click to expand...

Yep as I said... wood from trees.

In order to accommodate, fine tune etc they've created more of a tangled mess of rules/'processes'. common sense/intuition has gone out the window. Feels overly managed imo.

They need to strip it all back to 'basics'.

But that likely mean an ego hit for some at pgmol so unlikely to happen.
 
If only Dango could have controlled the ball better.

His first touch let him down.

Probably why he only gets cameos.
 
I get the feeling from these comments on the BBC website that Howard Webb isn’t a fan of the handball rule either particularly but says they have to adhere by it.

“
The law states that any contact with an attacker's hand or arm - even accidental - which then leads to a goal being scored immediately has to be penalised," said Webb.

"You're not alone in not liking this particular law, but this is actually a really good on-field decision by the referee, in that respect. The law requires him to penalise when he sees that contact on Havertz's arm.

"It's not intentional, but it still has to be penalised. I think the idea was that if it comes off the arm, it can't be a fair goal - that was the reason why this law came in.

"It was decided by the International Football Association Board [Ifab]. The laws are always under review, maybe it will change, but in this circumstance, the referee did absolutely the right thing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;