No Era Penal

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

* deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

He deliberately put his arm down on top of the ball to support himself and then kept it there to push off and regain balance

That fits what you just put it there

Who in the Wide World of Sports deliberately places a hand on a round movable object to steady and support themselves when falling?

The Mexican player because he certainly was looking directly at the ball (the video confirms that) and he certainly used the ball as leverage to push himself back up (video confirms that)

If he wasn’t looking at the ball or if he touched the ball as he was falling and then actually fell then I get the no call…but this was not that

You cannot allow a player who was falling (one knee first down) to look at the ball, have his hand palm the ball, and use the ball as leverage to get himself up!!!

That’s what happened…it’s right there

There is no video of him falling and accidentally “touching” the ball…if that’s how you are viewing it your biased

If that's what happened, the rules expert Referee and rule experts VAR Referees looking at it repeatedly in slow motion and regular speed would have given a penalty.

You're emotionally creating a scenario that fits your needs

I don’t support the us national team. We all of eyes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

* deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

He deliberately put his arm down on top of the ball to support himself and then kept it there to push off and regain balance

That fits what you just put it there

Who in the Wide World of Sports deliberately places a hand on a round movable object to steady and support themselves when falling?

The Mexican player because he certainly was looking directly at the ball (the video confirms that) and he certainly used the ball as leverage to push himself back up (video confirms that)

If he wasn’t looking at the ball or if he touched the ball as he was falling and then actually fell then I get the no call…but this was not that

You cannot allow a player who was falling (one knee first down) to look at the ball, have his hand palm the ball, and use the ball as leverage to get himself up!!!

That’s what happened…it’s right there

There is no video of him falling and accidentally “touching” the ball…if that’s how you are viewing it your biased

If that's what happened, the rules expert Referee and rule experts VAR Referees looking at it repeatedly in slow motion and regular speed would have given a penalty.

You're emotionally creating a scenario that fits your needs

Yeah, looks like he aims his hand at the ball so it should be a handball.

Now if someone could post the foul on Luna— I heard that call was even worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

* deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

He deliberately put his arm down on top of the ball to support himself and then kept it there to push off and regain balance

That fits what you just put it there

Who in the Wide World of Sports deliberately places a hand on a round movable object to steady and support themselves when falling?

The Mexican player because he certainly was looking directly at the ball (the video confirms that) and he certainly used the ball as leverage to push himself back up (video confirms that)

If he wasn’t looking at the ball or if he touched the ball as he was falling and then actually fell then I get the no call…but this was not that

You cannot allow a player who was falling (one knee first down) to look at the ball, have his hand palm the ball, and use the ball as leverage to get himself up!!!

That’s what happened…it’s right there

There is no video of him falling and accidentally “touching” the ball…if that’s how you are viewing it your biased

Anonymous wrote:Handball x1000

300000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

* deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

He deliberately put his arm down on top of the ball to support himself and then kept it there to push off and regain balance

That fits what you just put it there

Who in the Wide World of Sports deliberately places a hand on a round movable object to steady and support themselves when falling?

Anonymous wrote:Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if a player:

* deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball

He deliberately put his arm down on top of the ball to support himself and then kept it there to push off and regain balance

That fits what you just put it there

According to the current guidance being given to refs, the call on the field was correct.
Whether you agree with this guidance, which has changed significanly over the years, is another story.
This would have been a sure penalty a few years ago.

Not a handball.

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

It is an offence if 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
* scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

He doesn't just randomly touch the ball with his hand. He fully palms it and gains full control in his own box. Blatant hand ball.

Videos help OP

https://streamable.com/ouqlx7

This is a tough one - homer in me says definitely handling, but he was also just falling down and US attacker is past the ball?

Handball x1000

Nice

Not trying to stir the pot as if it would have affected the outcome but more genuinely curious about the rules.

I'm hearing that it's not a handball because of how it played out, he was falling towards the ground and his hand touched the ball to support himself so it's not a handball? And that the handball rule applies more on if your hand or arm is affecting a ball being shot?

So many opinions and confusion but I guess I see how it kind of was inconsequential contact that likely didn't have any effect on a play.