Halsey (again) | Vital Football

Halsey (again)

PhilK66

PhilK66

Vital 1st Team Regular
Now we all know that the latest update of the handball law is pants. But this arrogant bar steward was on TalkSport this morning saying that if he was still refereeing he would ignore the law as in the Dier case yesterday.

This is the guy who possibly "reinterpreted " the actual time added at a Wembley play off final. Why can't they find any other ref. to comment it's always this prat. It's like the BBC don't seem to know any other travel journalist than Simon Calder. But at least he's not an arrogant prat.

If you want to destroy the enjoyment of football bring in crazy handball laws and VAR.
 
LSB2 said:
Why are some people still watching BBC? Think I'd rather believe David Icke lol
Click to expand...

Well, Halsey was on Talksport, not the BBC.

He has got a point in this case, though. When even Brucie says yesterday's decision was nonsense, even though his team benefitted from it, VAR is in trouble.

I am not saying Andy Carroll did it yesterday but how long will it be before centre forwards are instructed by their managers not to bother heading towards the goal when a high ball is played in to the area, but instead just try to head it against the hand of the nearest defender jumping with them, particularly if it is in the last minute.
 
Last edited:
I thought Roy Hodgson summed up the handball rule brilliantly by saying "if someone handles the ball deliberately to gain an advantage then it is handball".
At the moment in the Premier League the rule is a farce, glad we ain't in that.
 
Vambogills said:
H

Have I missed something? What's the BBC done now?
Click to expand...
Come on Vambo, haven’t you heard?! They are either too pro/anti government/opposition (depending on your viewpoint).

And charge too much for the privilege.

Tbh, I will be pissed off if HIGNFY is dropped.
 
Rob_b100 said:
Come on Vambo, haven’t you heard?! They are either too pro/anti government/opposition (depending on your viewpoint).

And charge too much for the privilege.

Tbh, I will be pissed off if HIGNFY is dropped.
Click to expand...

Ah! Nothing new then!
 
Not seen the incident from the Spurs game. But as a general rule, I have no problem with handball being given if the team whose player handled the ball has gained some kind of advantage from it (blocked a goalbound shot, prevented a through ball reaching the forward, etc.). It might not be intentional, but then neither is it intentional if you accidentally clip someone's heels when running behind them. You've still gained an advantage from having brought the player down, though, and you'd expect a free kick/penalty to be given for that.
 
Vambogills said:
H

Have I missed something? What's the BBC done now?
Click to expand...
Apparently it isn't right wing enough. Imo it has become increasingly supine in recent years, terrified of the Tories taking away the licence fee. Coverage of serious issues is superficial. I watch C4 News - vastly superior and interestingly the government persistently rufuse to put front benchers on to be interviewed (saves having to hide in a fridge I suppose).
 
madrid_gill said:
Not seen the incident from the Spurs game. But as a general rule, I have no problem with handball being given if the team whose player handled the ball has gained some kind of advantage from it (blocked a goalbound shot, prevented a through ball reaching the forward, etc.). It might not be intentional, but then neither is it intentional if you accidentally clip someone's heels when running behind them. You've still gained an advantage from having brought the player down, though, and you'd expect a free kick/penalty to be given for that.
Click to expand...

Not just the Spurs game. Watch Palace v Everton as well. The defender (Ward) was about a yard away when the striker flicked the ball on to his hand. He just ended up with a shell shocked smile on his face when the penalty was given after long deliberation on VAR.

Strikers will definitely now play for it as it is much easier and more profitable to do that and then score from the penalty spot than through a group of defenders.

Conversely, the accidental clipping of heels you refer to happened in the Brighton game with Connolly where VAR reversed the decision and said no penalty. Work that one out !
 
GillsBluenose said:
Not just the Spurs game. Watch Palace v Everton as well. The defender (Ward) was about a yard away when the striker flicked the ball on to his hand. He just ended up with a shell shocked smile on his face when the penalty was given after long deliberation on VAR.

Strikers will definitely now play for it as it is much easier and more profitable to do that and then score from the penalty spot than through a group of defenders.

Conversely, the accidental clipping of heels you refer to happened in the Brighton game with Connolly where VAR reversed the decision and said no penalty. Work that one out !
Click to expand...
Not sure why youre trying to bring VAR in to the argument. Var is not the issue here in this instance. The hand ball rule is. VAR is just being used to apply the shit rule correctly.
 
alphabet_king said:
Not sure why youre trying to bring VAR in to the argument. Var is not the issue here in this instance. The hand ball rule is. VAR is just being used to apply the shit rule correctly.
Click to expand...

That's correct. The use of VAR just means the game continues and goes to the other end of the pitch before the whistle goes and anyone actually realises a shit decision is about to be made.
 
GillsBluenose said:
That's correct. The use of VAR just means the game continues and goes to the other end of the pitch before the whistle goes and anyone actually realises a shit decision is about to be made.
Click to expand...
Im actually of the opinion that 'VAR' has been given a horrible reputation by some of the awful rules, or awful decisions of the refs using it.

This is a perfect case. Its fuck all to do eith VAR. its the fact the rule is shit and no one agrees with it. What chance do refs or var have when the laws they are applying are a load of shit in the first place. Then fans will use this as a stick to beat VAR with when it's irrelevant in this case.
 
Last edited:
madrid_gill said:
Not seen the incident from the Spurs game. But as a general rule, I have no problem with handball being given if the team whose player handled the ball has gained some kind of advantage from it (blocked a goalbound shot, prevented a through ball reaching the forward, etc.). It might not be intentional, but then neither is it intentional if you accidentally clip someone's heels when running behind them. You've still gained an advantage from having brought the player down, though, and you'd expect a free kick/penalty to be given for that.
Click to expand...
Seriously, have a look at the clips.
https://www.skysports.com/football/...castle-awarded-late-penalty-against-tottenham
https://www.skysports.com/football/...castle-awarded-late-penalty-against-tottenham

Andy Caroll headed the ball at the back of Dier's arm.
Dier knew nothing about it.
This would never have been a handball....
.....and AFAIK, still isn't according to the "laws" of football.

What seems to have changed is the "guidance".
"A foul will be awarded the ball hits a player who has made themselves "unnaturally bigger" with their arm. IFAB determine that a hand or arm above shoulder height is rarely a “natural position”. There can be exceptions, such as when a player is falling. Leeway can also be given with ricocheted handballs, when it comes off a nearby player of if the player cannot see the ball."

As a Govt. lawyer once told me. "The law is the law. Guidance is not the law."

But addressing that "guidance".
1) Have they asked a physicist and physiologist what the body does naturally when jumping ?
Momentum keeps an arm moving - quite naturally.
So stop jumping ????

2) "Leeway can be given for ricocheted balls":
a) "ricocheted balls." Define ?
Does "ricochet" include deflection from (say) 20 yards ... or is the intention about very close range ?
Where was the "leeway" for this head-to-back-of-the-arm ?

b) "the player cannot see the ball".
Did the VAR ref forget the last bit ?
Surely Dier didn't see anything ?

I'm with Roy Hodson on this.
 
Gills 58 said:
Apparently it isn't right wing enough. Imo it has become increasingly supine in recent years, terrified of the Tories taking away the licence fee. Coverage of serious issues is superficial. I watch C4 News - vastly superior and interestingly the government persistently rufuse to put front benchers on to be interviewed (saves having to hide in a fridge I suppose).
Click to expand...
BBC "too right wing" ?? You're joking right ???:rofl:
BBC too "supine" ???

Too many of the supposedly impartial BBC presenters make it pretty clear what they approve of and disapprove.

Maybe it's too subtle for you.

Next time ... (esp. on Newsnight) .... watch out for who or what is asserted with confidence - and who or what is framed with doubt.

"Approved" :....will be reported as "fact". Use of "the"
"Disapproved : ... will be a "claim". Use of "a".

This won't necessarily be as simple as "Labour good, Cons. bad".
Not all BBC presenters were fond of Corbyn.

I agree that much BBC coverage is "superficial". To much "human interest" and excessive focus on one or two stories.

Bring on some competition in the form of GB News ! (y)
 
As you've all said the issue is the rule and not VAR.

Having said that I think the rule comes from having VAR. For VAR to be consistent it needs to have non-ambiguous rules. As soon as you put everything in slow mo it takes all decision making very clinical so the rules need to match or you get issues

It does make me smile that all the managers and pundits are reaping what they sowed but can't handle it. Gimme the non-VAR lower leagues any day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.