GWT: PL Matchweek (mostly) 17

[bluesfan94]

The DOGSO rule I’d say is a “clear” rule and yet there’s tons of subjectivity in what constitutes an “obvious goal scoring opportunity” when you take into account potential cover from other players.

What I think they don't take into enough consideration is the player who's through. Timo Werner this year should never be considered to have been denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

 

[bluesfan94]

They shouldn't be asked to do anything.

Such as offsides and geometry?

 

[hatterson]

They shouldn't be asked to do anything. Again, I don't get why handball is something that has to be interpreted.

I just can't fathom anyone watching the first few weeks of the PL this year and thinking "yes this is an improvement on the handball rule"

Literally every week a penalty was being given where everyone just rolled their eyes and acknowledged it was deeply stupid.

 

[bluesfan94]

I just can't fathom anyone watching the first few weeks of the PL this year and thinking "yes this is an improvement on the handball rule"

Literally every week a penalty was being given where everyone just rolled their eyes and acknowledged it was deeply stupid.

"I mean, yeah, I guess that's a penalty under the rules, but come on" was said all the time.

 

[Savant]

 

[Machinehead]

I just can't fathom anyone watching the first few weeks of the PL this year and thinking "yes this is an improvement on the handball rule"

Literally every week a penalty was being given where everyone just rolled their eyes and acknowledged it was deeply stupid.

I've been doing that the last few weeks

I agree it could be improved over where we were but this ain't it. This is turning into volleyball.

 

[Havre]

I think the "perception" of handball is changing. Not necessarily a bad thing. For tackles we used to say "he took the ball" implying that whatever happened after was irrelevant. Now that is considered ridiculous (even if getting to the ball first still matters). I think it has gone too far now, but I would still say that today's game is better in that department than it used to be. So even if we went back to the old handball rule (in terms of text) I don't think it would be interpreted in the same way by someone age 20 vs. someone age 60.

Just the last couple of days I was pleased to see that Liverpool weren't given a penalty for that handball. And the same in the Dortmund - Wolfsburg game. I get why Liverpoolfans (some) and probably also Wolfsburg-fans are slightly upset, but to me this is a much better standard than the "Dier-standard".

I'm also quite positive to the upper arm not being considered handball any longer. Back in the days we even used to talk about "active shoulder" being handball. To me the new way of regulating that part of handball makes more sense. Yes. I'm sure in some extreme situations you can then on purpose guide the ball with your upper arm, but to control that in such a way that you are not risking to touch the ball with the lower arm is extremely difficult. Unfortunately it will probably lead to more VAR trying to determine where the sleeve ends etc., but that is more of a VAR issue than handball in my opinion. The arm has to start somewhere in any case - which would always be up for discussion.

 

[hatterson]

Just as a reference to the “dier-standard” that’s still a handball under the new interpretation since his arm was above his shoulder. That’s directly written into the rule.

 

[Havre]

Just as a reference to the “dier-standard” that’s still a handball under the new interpretation since his arm was above his shoulder. That’s directly written into the rule.

Fair enough. If it is clear before the fact that an arm above the shoulder is handball I guess I could live with that. Then players can try to adjust the way they jump.

At the time it was given I still think it was absolutely ridiculous.