RealGunner wrote:

Andrew_p wrote:

free_cat wrote:Mom with Chiellini.

kinky

yes, I meant Marchisio.

Cruijf wrote:

Don't understand how anyone can see that and not think its a penalty. I won't be too harsh on the ref since he couldn't have seen too much of it, but the official behind the goal simply has to give a penalty there.

Having said that, I'd be wary of attaching too much significance to it. Even if Juve got the penalty and scored, I still think Barca would've won. They were simply the better team and deserved the victory.

Finally, on the Neymar handball, according to the letter of the law it shouldn't have been disallowed and he can count himself very unlucky. If you disagree (as I initially did) read either BC's article or the official interpretation of Law 12 (fouls and misconduct) that makes it very clear.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

I'm really not sure about Pogba's incident. He is already falling and charging on Alves. Alves is definitely pulling him, but Pogba is also holding him. IMO it could go either way: Pogba foul, nothing or penalty.

ima take the word of the referee who was 3 feet away rather than a slow motion video in an odd angle.

any foul in slow motion looks worse than it really is.

Question: Stop me if I'm taking this too far in a "legal" direction, but... If the rule is that "only a deliberate handball is a foul", is this not asking the referee to make an on-the-spot assessment of the player's mental state at the time of the handball?

My answer would be yes. I think the rule necessarily demands that the referee turn his mind to what the player was thinking.

There are some cases where it is impossible to know just by looking at what happened whether the handball was deliberate. So, who are we to say that the referee didn't think that Nerman deliberately headed the ball into his hand?

A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

Forza wrote:Question: Stop me if I'm taking this too far in a "legal" direction, but... If the rule is that "only a deliberate handball is a foul", is this not asking the referee to make an on-the-spot assessment of the player's mental state at the time of the handball?

My answer would be yes. I think the rule necessarily demands that the referee turn his mind to what the player was thinking.

There are some cases where it is impossible to know just by looking at what happened whether the handball was deliberate. So, who are we to say that the referee didn't think that Nerman deliberately headed the ball into his hand?

Well, because it's almost impossible that Neymar wanted to head the ball into his hand. First because it's much easier to simply head the ball OR hand the ball in the first place. And secondly because he closes his eyes and misheads.

Let's put the Neymar's case to one side. Surely there are some cases where it is impossible to know just by looking at what happened whether the handball was deliberate?

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

The only reason I knew and was so adamant in chat that I was right is because in England there seems to be argument about handballs in every week

are Barça fans seriously still whining about the handball even though they won the game and the same Nerman ended up scoring the third goal anyway ?

Keep your panties on Farfany, no one is whining or complaining.

how hard did you celebrate this win Great leader ?

i bet you're still hangover from 2 days of straight partying .

farfan wrote:are Barça fans still arguing about the handball even though they won the game and the same Nerman ended up scoring the third goal anyway ?

I'm also thinking the same thing too, didn't Neymar score in the CL final still, even after the disallowed goal?
What's more funny is that Neymars goal was legitimately ruled out in the Copa final against bilbao, and also legitimately ruled out against Atletico Madrid in the CDR quarters and no one made a fuss about it.

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

That can be exploited. I don't think Neymar put his hand there intentionally, but to me, it looked like the header would've missed the goal entirely if it hadn't rebounded slightly off his hand. It's going to take some really bad acting for hand balls to look intentional in a situation where you head the ball onto your hand, and so it's very possible to use one's hand to narrow down the angle of the headed shot without making it look intentional.

i think the debate is about the rule itself not so much about who did it or not.

Nobody is complaining, simply discussing rules

farfan wrote:how hard did you celebrate this win Great leader ?

i bet you're still hangover from 2 days of straight partying .

I can say with certainty that you have thought about it more than I have

Thimmy wrote:

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

That can be exploited. I don't think Neymar put his hand there intentionally, but to me, it looked like the header would've missed the goal entirely if it hadn't rebounded slightly off his hand. It's going to take some really bad acting for hand balls to look intentional in a situation where you head the ball onto your hand, and so it's very possible to use one's hand to narrow down the angle of the headed shot without making it look intentional.

That is not really exploitation, just a freak incident. Nobody is good enough to header the ball on to their hand intentionally...why would you want to if you have the amount of time needed to header the ball with that in mind?

Its either one or the other, you head the ball or you use your hand.

Forza wrote:Let's put the Neymar's case to one side. Surely there are some cases where it is impossible to know just by looking at what happened whether the handball was deliberate?

Sure. The law is stupid, but it's the law. Just as offside rule is also stupid as no linier in the world can be looking at two places at the same time.

Thimmy wrote:

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

That can be exploited. I don't think Neymar put his hand there intentionally, but to me, it looked like the header would've missed the goal entirely if it hadn't rebounded slightly off his hand. It's going to take some really bad acting for hand balls to look intentional in a situation where you head the ball onto your hand, and so it's very possible to use one's hand to narrow down the angle of the headed shot without making it look intentional.

You really, slightly, maybe just believe that a player who is on a goal really feels he genuinely would be better aided to score if he uses his hand from a header? Neymar must be a genius

I can only speak for myself.
I just want to understand the proper application of the rules that’s all.
There’s really nothing to debate in the game. Both fans (except from extreme cases maybe) agree it was a fair and square final.
I’m just interested in the details

The Franchise wrote:

Thimmy wrote:

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

That can be exploited. I don't think Neymar put his hand there intentionally, but to me, it looked like the header would've missed the goal entirely if it hadn't rebounded slightly off his hand. It's going to take some really bad acting for hand balls to look intentional in a situation where you head the ball onto your hand, and so it's very possible to use one's hand to narrow down the angle of the headed shot without making it look intentional.

That is not really exploitation, just a freak incident. Nobody is good enough to header the ball on to their hand intentionally...why would you want to if you have the amount of time needed to header the ball with that in mind?

Its either one or the other, you head the ball or you use your hand.

This

Barca vs Sevilla (European Supercup) will take place on 11th of August in Tbilisi.

Looks like a nice, modern stadium. Wonder if its artificial grass or not.

The Franchise wrote:

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

Nope. That's another misconception.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

No mention of this 'unnatural position' BS pundits throw around to sound like they know the rules. In fact, it actually says:

"The position of the hand does not necessarily mean there is an infringement."

A handball is only a handball if it is done deliberately. That's why, in the example you used, refs will almost never call handballs if the hand is just in front of the face as a protective reflex. They will call it if the hand is over the face or away from the body, because they're inferring no one would put their hand their except to block the flight of the ball, thus being a deliberate handball.

The Franchise wrote:

Thimmy wrote:

The Franchise wrote:A handball must be intentional...I thought everyone already knew this, this is surprising.

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

That can be exploited. I don't think Neymar put his hand there intentionally, but to me, it looked like the header would've missed the goal entirely if it hadn't rebounded slightly off his hand. It's going to take some really bad acting for hand balls to look intentional in a situation where you head the ball onto your hand, and so it's very possible to use one's hand to narrow down the angle of the headed shot without making it look intentional.

That is not really exploitation, just a freak incident. Nobody is good enough to header the ball on to their hand intentionally...why would you want to if you have the amount of time needed to header the ball with that in mind?

Its either one or the other, you head the ball or you use your hand.

What I tried to say is that one can narrow down the trajectory of the ball, simply by slightly altering the position of the arm that happens to be on the same side as the dead angle, in relation to the position of the goal. Stretching one's arm, or both arms out on either side of the head in preparation to head the ball is a completely common and natural thing to do, and so it's possible to conveniently stretch out the arm that covers the dead angle just enough to make it act as a block that bounces the ball back on it's path, in case the initial header doesn't make the ball rebound in a straight line, or if the header doesn't connect properly with the ball. Since it's so difficult to determine whether or not it's being done intentionally or not, there's really no reason why players shouldn't take advantage of it, unless they have no doubt that the header will go in it's intended direction.

In the image below, even if the ball only grazes the top of his head, he could just stretch out his left arm slightly and ensure that it still heads in the right direction. Who's to say that he does it intentionally?

Cruijf wrote:

The Franchise wrote:

The only exception refs make is when the hand is in an unnatural position. For example when a man in the wall puts his hand in front of his face and the ball hits it. Not intentional, but still a handball.

Nope. That's another misconception.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_12_fouls_misconduct_en_47379.pdf

No mention of this 'unnatural position' BS pundits throw around to sound like they know the rules. In fact, it actually says:

"The position of the hand does not necessarily mean there is an infringement."

A handball is only a handball if it is done deliberately. That's why, in the example you used, refs will almost never call handballs if the hand is just in front of the face as a protective reflex. They will call it if the hand is over the face or away from the body, because they're inferring no one would put their hand their except to block the flight of the ball, thus being a deliberate handball.

I know thats not part of the rule, but that is most certainly how refs do it.