Jump to content

KWP “goal”


Kaiser Soze
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.”
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

che.png

 

Edited by The Kraken
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

che.png

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...