Penalty or No Penalty - Champions League Final

[gaz1875]

I think it hit his hand (arm) a second time, other half disagrees.

[Steve-O]

After seeing several replays I think no penalty. His arm was already out long before Sane passed it, hit chest, armpit, a bit of arm. If his arm wasn’t out, it’d still have hit him around the armpit area.

[jonny]

No penalty for me.

[Unseen work]

Or course it’s a pen.

He is likely instructing Trippier to go wider but since his arm is in euchre an unnatural position which then blocks the cross it’s a pen.

Not even close to being up for debate imo

[Stevie Reid]

One of the worst decisions I’ve ever seen, even adhering to the new rules.

How anyone can look at that twice and still give a penalty is beyond me. Ruined what could have been a classic match.

[Steve-O]

Or course it’s a pen.

He is likely instructing Trippier to go wider but since his arm is in euchre an unnatural position which then blocks the cross it’s a pen.

Not even close to being up for debate imo

If his arm was in natural position it still would’ve hit him

[Sammy7nil]

The game has gone mad if that is a penalty

[AgentDaleCooper]

100% a penalty, it was accidental but it was completely his fault that it hit his arm.

[Unseen work]

The ball clearly hits his arm which is in an unnatural position and ends up blocking the cross.

It’s a pen and stupid from Sissoko.

Dare say views would vary if it was Berra’s arm that it struck.

[RyeSloan]

I’m not sure why there is even a debate!

New rules, old rules, any rules I’d be wanting a pen for that all day long.

[Northernhibee]

He has his arm out as wide as possible and as soon as it hits his chest, he brings his arm down onto the ball.

100% a penalty and absolute madness that anyone could consider otherwise. Not ball to hand in a million years, his arm isn't in a natural position in a million years, absolute stonewaller.

[GreenLake]

I have no idea what happened sitting watching in the stadium without the benefit of replays but whatever happened it directed the course of the game. Liverpool won but played rotten, Spurs dominated but didn't score and lost. I'm looking forward to seeing a replay of the incident. I don't think there was a VAR review so it must have been stonewall from the VAR viewers perspective.

[Northernhibee]

I have no idea what happened sitting watching in the stadium without the benefit of replays but whatever happened it directed the course of the game. Liverpool won but played rotten, Spurs dominated but didn't score and lost. I'm looking forward to seeing a replay of the incident. I don't think there was a VAR review so it must have been stonewall from the VAR viewers perspective.

So why the sarcastic comments on the match thread if you didn't have a clue? :rolleyes:

[AgentDaleCooper]

I’m not sure why there is even a debate!

New rules, old rules, any rules I’d be wanting a pen for that all day long.

exactly.

[GreenLake]

So why the sarcastic comments on the match thread if you didn't have a clue? :rolleyes:

Wtf are you ranting about?

[Scouse Hibee]

Who gives a flying ****, the ref gave it and the Pool scored it and another,Game over 6 time winners END OF.

[HoboHarry]

Those claiming it wasn't a penalty better brace yourself for the new rules really taking effect next year. Penalty all day long and I said to my wife ages ago it is a matter of time before strikers start practicing kicking the ball at defenders arms.....

[edinburghhibee]

Never ever ever a pen... to the boy talking about it being Berra instead... shoe on the other foot if that’s us andyhat happens with daz or Paul??

Had it hit his arm directly from the cross fair enough but it doesn’t. Joke of a decision.

It’s hit his rib cage and bounced onto his arm which is pointing to a team mate. Joke of a call and anyone who’s played football at any level from nursery would know that.

Europe was robbed of a cracking game tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scouse Hibee]

It was a penalty, the ref gave it.......We’ve conquered all of Europe..............

[lord bunberry]

My understanding of the rule is that if it hits off another part of your body before hitting your hand it can’t be a penalty. All other considerations go out the window after this fact is established. Hands in an unatural position etc are irrelevant if the ball deflected off the spurs players chest.

[Stevie Reid]

If that truly is a penalty under the new rules that came into effect today, within one minute of the first game under them, we’ve seen just how bad they are.

Decisions like that are why the rules were changed in the first place.

[heretoday]

It was not a pen and the game was ruined because of it.

Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

[poolman]

I've already said on the other thread that the games a bogey if that's a penalty

[DH1875]

I said on the match thread that it was never a penalty. I was in the minority though.

[HibeeLR]

Never a pen. That is all.

[Mibbes Aye]

Penalty every day of the week.

Arm in an unnatural position. Ball hits him between shoulder and chest, his arm brings it downwards and it even looked like it trickled off his hand FFS, which all combined to bring the ball to a safe place as opposed to what would have happened if it hadn’t made contact with him and his arm/hand in the first place.

[lord bunberry]

Penalty every day of the week.

Arm in an unnatural position. Ball hits him between shoulder and chest, his arm brings it downwards and it even looked like it trickled off his hand FFS, which all combined to bring the ball to a safe place as opposed to what would have happened if it hadn’t made contact with him and his arm/hand in the first place.
But if it hits his chest first before moving on to your version of events does that not make everything you say irrelevant? The crucial point is not if his arm is in an unnatural position, but if it hits another part of his body first.

[LaMotta]

Right so based on responses so far its either "never a pen" or a "blatant pen". Complete polarisation.

Peoples interpretation is so different on things and shows that even with Var there will still be arguments.

Genuinely no idea how anyone can think thats not a penalty though. He's unlucky yes but it's 100 percent the correct decision.

[Mibbes Aye]

But if it hits his chest first before moving on to your version of events does that not make everything you say irrelevant? The crucial point is not if his arm is in an unnatural position, but if it hits another part of his body first.

No, I disagree. He had his arm in an unnatural position, the ball made contact with his arm and hand so therefore a pen. By the law it doesn’t matter if it hit his chest or whatever first.

Think about it - if he chested the ball then fisted it away it would be a pen. He has chested it then brought his arm and hand down on the ball, bringing it under a degree of control.

Penalty without a shadow of a doubt.

[lord bunberry]

No, I disagree. He had his arm in an unnatural position, the ball made contact with his arm and hand so therefore a pen. By the law it doesn’t matter if it hit his chest or whatever first.

Think about it - if he chested the ball then fisted it away it would be a pen. He has chested it then brought his arm and hand down on the ball, bringing it under a degree of control.

Penalty without a shadow of a doubt.
I disagree the rules clearly state that if the ball strikes an arm after being deflected off another part of the body it can’t be a penalty. That’s an absolute fact. The only point of doubt is did it hit his hand directl? I don’t think it did. The position of his arm has no relevance to the decision if there’s a deflection.

[Mibbes Aye]

I disagree the rules clearly state that if the ball strikes an arm after being deflected off another part of the body it can’t be a penalty. That’s an absolute fact. The only point of doubt is did it hit his hand directl? I don’t think it did. The position of his arm has no relevance to the decision if there’s a deflection.

Its not about any deflection.

His arm and his hand brought the ball down from an unnatural position.

Thats why the referee gave it, why the TV pundit Ref gave it and why I assume VAR gave it.

[lord bunberry]

Its not about any deflection.

His arm and his hand brought the ball down from an unnatural position.

Thats why the referee gave it, why the TV pundit Ref gave it and why I assume VAR gave it.
With all due respect that clearly isn’t the rule. There’s no ambiguity in the rule that states that it is t a penalty if the ball deflects of another part of the body.

[Mibbes Aye]

With all due respect that clearly isn’t the rule. There’s no ambiguity in the rule that states that it is t a penalty if the ball deflects of another part of the body.

(Makes exasperated face...) :greengrin

Its not about the deflection. His arm and then almost certainly his hand itself, brought the ball down into a beneficial position, having been in an unnatural position.

Again, if it came off his chest and then he punched it away it would be a penalty.

They are different scenarios but essentially the same in terms of cause and effect.

I’m backing the Ref, the TV pundit Ref and VAR, plus my own sense on this one :greengrin

[we are hibs]

So we will add pointing as another reason a penalty can be given against you. Never a penalty in a million years. He isn't intentially making himself bigger with the view to block the ball, he doesn't intentially bring his hand down to block the ball, the ball isn't going towards the goal. If that's a penalty then the game is up the pole.

[Hibbyradge]

Even if it was technically a penalty, the hand ball rules do seem to be flawed.

There was clearly no intent in Sissoko's mind when the ball bounced off his chest onto his arm.

Would the ref have given a foul in the middle of the park, I don't know, but it seems incredibly harsh to punish a team so severely for something which could not have been avoided.

There's going to be situations when shots are deflected off one player into another's arm and penalties awarded.

In the heat of the game, players'movements are naturally fluid and if there's no intention, there should be no penalty, imo.

[Superfurry72]

Or course it’s a pen.

He is likely instructing Trippier to go wider but since his arm is in euchre an unnatural position which then blocks the cross it’s a pen.

Not even close to being up for debate imo

I agree completely with this

[Since452]

So if you already have your arm in the air before the player kicks the ball and it hits you it's a penalty? Harsh

[Bristolhibby]

It was a penalty, the ref gave it.......We’ve conquered all of Europe..............

Please don’t use “we”. Your a Hibs fan.

J

[Pantah]

I think it’s a penalty but if you look at the footage there’s no Liverpool player near the line of flight of the ball. To me he was aiming for handball when he saw how high the arm was

[weecounty hibby]

Still can't make my mind up whether it was or not. One thing I do know is that there will be a hell of a lot of penalties given next season and controversy in every match. Der hun will benefit big time out of this!!!

[Pretty Boy]

Penalty for me.

His arm was above head height, ball hit between his arm and chest and then he moved his arm back towards his side and therefore the ball and it hit his arm again.

Crazy from Sissoko.

[Hibbyradge]

Please don’t use “we”. Your a Hibs fan.

J

*You're ...

:greengrin:

[Hibbyradge]

If I'm reading this correctly, the penalty would not be given next season.

The IFAB has introduced new rules to the game as of the day of the Champions League final, including changes to the law on handballs, though they do not apply to the match between Tottenham and Liverpool.

The new rule states that a handball will be given if the ball “touches a player’s hand or arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger”, or “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)”

But situations like Sissoko’s would not be penalised, as there would be no free kick or penalty if “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm directly from their own head, body, foot or the head, body or foot of another player who is near”.

https://www.goal.com/en/news/explained-why-liverpools-penalty-against-spurs-in-the/1fq8s0migqb0p1xj9wdnv0pqb0

[Silky]

If I'm reading this correctly, the penalty would not be given next season.

The IFAB has introduced new rules to the game as of the day of the Champions League final, including changes to the law on handballs, though they do not apply to the match between Tottenham and Liverpool.

The new rule states that a handball will be given if the ball “touches a player’s hand or arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger”, or “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)”

But situations like Sissoko’s would not be penalised, as there would be no free kick or penalty if “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm directly from their own head, body, foot or the head, body or foot of another player who is near”.

https://www.goal.com/en/news/explained-why-liverpools-penalty-against-spurs-in-the/1fq8s0migqb0p1xj9wdnv0pqb0

I think that's fair enough until the last paragraph. I don't get it. According to that, if, say, an attacker heads a corner towards his opponents goal and the ball hits the arm of a defender on the goal line, thus preventing a certain goal, then no pen? Or if a mis-hit shot hits the hand of a teammate and enters the goal, then "no free kick" because the ball was played by another player and the handball goal will stand? That canny be right, surely?

[Smartie]

Even if it was technically a penalty, the hand ball rules do seem to be flawed.

There was clearly no intent in Sissoko's mind when the ball bounced off his chest onto his arm.

Would the ref have given a foul in the middle of the park, I don't know, but it seems incredibly harsh to punish a team so severely for something which could not have been avoided.

There's going to be situations when shots are deflected off one player into another's arm and penalties awarded.

In the heat of the game, players'movements are naturally fluid and if there's no intention, there should be no penalty, imo.

Whilst I agree with your point, "intent" can be very difficult to gauge.

[Michael]

If I'm reading this correctly, the penalty would not be given next season.

The IFAB has introduced new rules to the game as of the day of the Champions League final, including changes to the law on handballs, though they do not apply to the match between Tottenham and Liverpool.

The new rule states that a handball will be given if the ball “touches a player’s hand or arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger”, or “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)”

But situations like Sissoko’s would not be penalised, as there would be no free kick or penalty if “the ball touches a player’s hand or arm directly from their own head, body, foot or the head, body or foot of another player who is near”.

https://www.goal.com/en/news/explained-why-liverpools-penalty-against-spurs-in-the/1fq8s0migqb0p1xj9wdnv0pqb0

The ball directly hits his unnaturally positioned arm (which was also moving towards the ball) though - so it's a penalty with either rule.

[Hibbyradge]

I think that's fair enough until the last paragraph. I don't get it. According to that, if, say, an attacker heads a corner towards his opponents goal and the ball hits the arm of a defender on the goal line, thus preventing a certain goal, then no pen? Or if a mis-hit shot hits the hand of a teammate and enters the goal, then "no free kick" because the ball was played by another player and the handball goal will stand? That canny be right, surely?

No, that's no right.

It's referring to players on the same side.

If I try to clear the ball and it accidentally hits a team mate's hand, no foul.

A miss-hit shot from an opponent hitting the hand would be a foul, if the hand was in an unnatural position.

I think.

[neil7908]

Definite penalty. If that happened against Hibs everyone on the here saying 'not a penalty' would be screaming blues murder at the ref to the give it.

Rules are very clear now in the football - you can't stick your arm out and claim that the ball hitting it isnt deliberate.

[Hibbyradge]

The ball directly hits his unnaturally positioned arm (which was also moving towards the ball) though - so it's a penalty with either rule.

It definitely looks like chest first to me.

If it had bounced off him and not hit his hand, there would have been no penalty.

However, under the current rules, it's definitely a penalty.

It's all very well looking at it and analysing it in slow mo, but in real time, it's a stonewall penalty.

https://youtu.be/0VzNx27VAXw

[Scouse Hibee]

Please don’t use “we”. Your a Hibs fan.

J

I’m a Scouser born and bred who supported Liverpool long before I came to Edinburgh so I will say “we” thank you. And it’s you’re not your 😁

[PatHead]

If it had been given against Hibs we would be going bananas. If it had been not been given to us we would be the same.

Comes under the category soft.

[HappyAsHellas]

Stonewall penalty under any rules - I've watched it again and he's like Meadowlark Lemon with the thing.

[Eyrie]

It was a stonewall penalty because Sissoko's arm was raised in an unnatural position.

For me, Mane saw the arm stretched out and chipped the ball at it to get the penalty. Clever thinking by Mane, and stupid by Sissoko to leave his arm up there for so long.

[McD]

So we will add pointing as another reason a penalty can be given against you. Never a penalty in a million years. He isn't intentially making himself bigger with the view to block the ball, he doesn't intentially bring his hand down to block the ball, the ball isn't going towards the goal. If that's a penalty then the game is up the pole.


how many penalties have any of us seen given when the ball strikes a defender’s arm, without intent?

Liverpool themselves have had penalties given given against them this season where the player’s arm was struck by the ball, with no opportunity to move, when the arm was in a natural position.

If this had happened near the half way line, the hand ball would have been given and no one would have said a word. The fact it happened in the box shouldn’t change the decision.


So if you already have your arm in the air before the player kicks the ball and it hits you it's a penalty? Harsh


if a player stands with their arms spread On the goal line, and a shot/cross strikes their arm, they shouldn’t be penalised as they had their arms out first? Really?

its not that harsh, put your hands up that high and you’re asking for trouble.



Penalty for me.

His arm was above head height, ball hit between his arm and chest and then he moved his arm back towards his side and therefore the ball and it hit his arm again.

Crazy from Sissoko.


:agree: This. It’s the downward movement of the arm contacting the ball after the chest-arm contact that the penalty was given for. This was stated several times both in the studio and in commentary.

[cabbageandribs1875]

It was a stonewall penalty because Sissoko's arm was raised in an unnatural position.

For me, Mane saw the arm stretched out and chipped the ball at it to get the penalty. Clever thinking by Mane, and stupid by Sissoko to leave his arm up there for so long.



after watching the replays at HT i thought that myself, his eyes are looking straight at sissoko's arm, clever indeed, the better team lost imo

[Caversham Green]

So the conclusion is that it was a stonewall soft nevera penalty.

Is there a case for an indirect free kick inside the box for situations like this? The handball was not deliberate, nor in my opinion was it a result of him making his body unnaturally bigger - the ball struck his chest first and bounced onto his hand which by that time was back in its natural position - but he did gain an advantage from the ball hitting his hand. A penalty is too harsh but giving nothing also seems a bit unfair.

[hibsbollah]

So the conclusion is that it was a stonewall soft nevera penalty.

Is there a case for an indirect free kick inside the box for situations like this? The handball was not deliberate, nor in my opinion was it a result of him making his body unnaturally bigger - the ball struck his chest first and bounced onto his hand which by that time was back in its natural position - but he did gain an advantage from the ball hitting his hand. A penalty is too harsh but giving nothing also seems a bit unfair.

:top marks Exactly right. To clarify the rule there are a few routes you could go down, including giving a pen for any contact with the arm, whether deliberate or not. But the danger is you'd just get attackers deliberately aiming at a defenders arm, which IMO fails the fairness test.

An indirect free kick instead of a pen would make these sometimes tight calls less game changing. And it's still a deterrent to serious foul play, you could still give a red card if the handball was blatant and deliberate (ie-defender batting it on the line)

[bigwheel]

So the conclusion is that it was a stonewall soft nevera penalty.

Is there a case for an indirect free kick inside the box for situations like this? The handball was not deliberate, nor in my opinion was it a result of him making his body unnaturally bigger - the ball struck his chest first and bounced onto his hand which by that time was back in its natural position - but he did gain an advantage from the ball hitting his hand. A penalty is too harsh but giving nothing also seems a bit unfair.

Top point....what has happened to the indirect free kick in the box...has there been a law change ??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

It was a stonewall penalty because Sissoko's arm was raised in an unnatural position.

For me, Mane saw the arm stretched out and chipped the ball at it to get the penalty. Clever thinking by Mane, and stupid by Sissoko to leave his arm up there for so long.

I certainly don't think that he played for a penalty. He was trying to play the ball to his team mate in the middle.

I doubt he'd have the quickness of thought to do something like that deliberately after 30 seconds, never mind the skill.

He initially missed anyway, as it hit his chest.

Maybe they'll introduce a new game of "hit the arm" on Soccer Saturday. I doubt many would succeed.

[hibsbollah]

Top point....what has happened to the indirect free kick in the box...has there been a law change ??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The only time I can recall seeing it given recently is for a goalie being penalised for picking up a backpass...

[hfc rd]

Top point....what has happened to the indirect free kick in the box...has there been a law change ??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That only gets given when it’s a back pass to the goalie with your foot who picks it up

[Hibbyradge]

The only time I can recall seeing it given recently is for a goalie being penalised for picking up a backpass...

All offsides are indirect.

[Hibbyradge]

That only gets given when it’s a back pass to the goalie with your foot who picks it up

When a goalkeeper, inside their own penalty area:
controls the ball with their hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from possession

touches the ball again with their hands after releasing it from possession and before it has touched another player

touches the ball with their hands after it has been deliberately kicked to them by a teammate, or thrown to them from a throw-in (the back-pass rule)

When any player in the opinion of the referee:
plays in a dangerous manner

impedes the progress of an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player

prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from their hands

commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

[bigwheel]

That only gets given when it’s a back pass to the goalie with your foot who picks it up

Never used to be the case though..wasn’t uncommon to see an indirect free kick in the box for obstruction...suspect the laws of the game have changed ...

[Hibbyradge]

Never used to be the case though..wasn’t uncommon to see an indirect free kick in the box for obstruction...suspect the laws of the game have changed ...

Obstruction is still an indirect free kick. See above.

[hibsbollah]

All offsides are indirect.

I think we're talking about scenarios where the ref is penalising the defending side though. Obviously the defending team aren't going to be given offside.

As per your cut n paste, different forms of Obstruction, or dangerous play (high feet?) is probably the main one where its in the rule book but rarely actually awarded.

[bigwheel]

Obstruction is still an indirect free kick. See above.

So if the rules haven’t changed - why don’t we see them (in the box) anymore?

[Hibbyradge]

So if the rules haven’t changed - why don’t we see them anymore?

I have no idea.

Maybe we're not paying attention. :dunno:

[Hibbyradge]

I think we're talking about scenarios where the ref is penalising the defending side though. Obviously the defending team aren't going to be given offside.

As per your cut n paste, different forms of Obstruction, or dangerous play (high feet?) is probably the main one where its in the rule book but rarely actually awarded.

I know. I've asked the same question before.

Indirect free kicks do seem to have disappeared.

[LeithMike]

So the conclusion is that it was a stonewall soft nevera penalty.

Is there a case for an indirect free kick inside the box for situations like this? The handball was not deliberate, nor in my opinion was it a result of him making his body unnaturally bigger - the ball struck his chest first and bounced onto his hand which by that time was back in its natural position - but he did gain an advantage from the ball hitting his hand. A penalty is too harsh but giving nothing also seems a bit unfair.I agree with CG in this point. I didn't think it was a penalty and I don't think it should be a penalty in that situation.

The cross was going back outside the penalty box and there was no obvious goalscoring opportunity so giving a penalty for an accidental handball is far too severe a punishment. In those situations an indirect free kick would suffice. It looks like we are moving to a strict liability offence for handball and its impacting on defenders who are having to hold their hands behind their backs (witness Alderweireld for Origi's goal). I just dont think it's fair and means inadvertent handball offences can dictate the outcome of football matches. I still feel the penalty against Croatia in the World Cup Final was shocking and had that not been given who knows what would have happened.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[FilipinoHibs]

A penalty under current rules as Tottenham raise arm to block side ways pass. Liverpool player takes advantage by aiming shot at Tottenham was stupid and ruined game. Spurs on top with procession and shots on target but lacked cutting edge.

[pollution]

I know. I've asked the same question before.

Indirect free kicks do seem to have disappeared.


I have often wondered this too.

The only reason I can think of is that they were usually a shambles, taking too long to set up. No defending team ever stood 10 yards back, even if they could.

More often than not the indirect free kick came to nothing.

[Scouse Hibee]

A penalty under current rules as Tottenham raise arm to block side ways pass. Liverpool player takes advantage by aiming shot at Tottenham was stupid and ruined game. Spurs on top with procession and shots on target but lacked cutting edge.

I don’t he aimed at him at all, he was just trying to get the ball across goal

[Michael]

So to conclude - under current rules it's a penalty. Under new rules it's debatable based on the fact no one can agree if it hit his arm or chest first.

Some camera angles it looks like arm, but for one it looks like chest, so I dunno.

[Speedway]

One of the worst decisions I’ve ever seen, even adhering to the new rules.

How anyone can look at that twice and still give a penalty is beyond me. Ruined what could have been a classic match.

I agree that it ruined the match and I agree that it was unintentional but his arm has come down and altered the direction of the ball.

In today’s footie, that’s a pen.

[Benny Brazil]

Watching it last night I didnt think it was a penalty - watching it again today think it's still extremely harsh but can see why they gave it under the rules. It needs looking at and I agree with CWG about the use of indirect free kicks.
It ruined the game but as a Spurs fan there will be a number of Spurs players with regrets today as the game was poor and we didn't create much.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Not for me. If it hits the chest first, that's end of story, in my opinion. He's hardly going to deliberately chest it onto his arm. The current handball situation is a mess and needs clarifying.

[Scottie]

Never a pen in a million years, the games getting ruined with joke decisions like that :no way:

[The Modfather]

It’s harsh in the sense that he’s not intentionally trying to gain an advantage, but he does affect the flight of the ball with his arm. 100% penalty for me. If his arm had been down by his side I’d probably give the benefit of the doubt to the defending side and not have given it.

[BILLYHIBS]

My Mrs a jambo whose only experience of fitba is taking our two laddies through all the various levels of football and having to endure every match watched the first five minutes and said “well that’s just ruined that game.”

[Speedy]

No, I disagree. He had his arm in an unnatural position, the ball made contact with his arm and hand so therefore a pen. By the law it doesn’t matter if it hit his chest or whatever first.

Think about it - if he chested the ball then fisted it away it would be a pen. He has chested it then brought his arm and hand down on the ball, bringing it under a degree of control.

Penalty without a shadow of a doubt.

He didn't deliberately hand ball it. Shouldn't have been a penalty.

[Mibbes Aye]

He didn't deliberately hand ball it. Shouldn't have been a penalty.

Doesn’t matter about intent. The rules were clarified by UEFA’s Head of referees and by the IFAB earlier in the season.

If the ball strikes the arm outwith the natural silhouette i.e. by the sides, then it is handball and handball in the box means a penalty. And as HR said the rules will subtly change from next season but as far as that game goes it was a penalty pure and simple.

In response to other posts, the notion that players would start trying to hit defenders’ arms to win pens seems bizarre. In a game at full speed, any coach would be going off his head if a player was ****ing about like that. As it is, players find it hard enough to win throw-ins and corners playing it off a defender’s legs. I also imagine that a player pulling up in the box then obviously chipping it to try and catch an arm would find UEFA decreeing it was gamesmanship or unsporting conduct and a yellow card offence.

[Hibbyradge]

He didn't deliberately hand ball it. Shouldn't have been a penalty.

It hasn't needed to be deliberate for years.

[brianmc]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.

[Scouse Hibee]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.


Your post is indeed tragic.:na na:

[Squirrel 1875]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.


Tell us how you really feel Brian haha!

[Mibbes Aye]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.

LOLZ obvs

[Speedway]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.

Koff.

[The_Horde]

Most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the number of posters calling a penalty a pen......

Presumably the same type who have bantz with their besties at the footy whilst living their best life!?!?

Tragic.

Top bantz.

Sent from my iPhone whilst planking outside Burger King.

[Speedy]

Doesn’t matter about intent. The rules were clarified by UEFA’s Head of referees and by the IFAB earlier in the season.

If the ball strikes the arm outwith the natural silhouette i.e. by the sides, then it is handball and handball in the box means a penalty. And as HR said the rules will subtly change from next season but as far as that game goes it was a penalty pure and simple.

In response to other posts, the notion that players would start trying to hit defenders’ arms to win pens seems bizarre. In a game at full speed, any coach would be going off his head if a player was ****ing about like that. As it is, players find it hard enough to win throw-ins and corners playing it off a defender’s legs. I also imagine that a player pulling up in the box then obviously chipping it to try and catch an arm would find UEFA decreeing it was gamesmanship or unsporting conduct and a yellow card offence.

It's an odd one, laws still say it needs to be deliberate. If they want it to be interpreted differently they should really change the wording.

[Hibbyradge]

It's an odd one, laws still say it needs to be deliberate. If they want it to be interpreted differently they should really change the wording.

I agree, and I don't agree.

Sissoko didn't deliberately try to touch or divert the ball, so I agree with you.

However, Sissoko's arm wasn't in the air by accident. He deliberately put it there even if the intention was innocent..

It's like if a player puts his hands up to protect his face. He's not trying to gain an advantage, but he's deliberately handled the ball.

[BILLYHIBS]

Seem to remember Man Utd benefited from a rather fortunate award versus PSG based on the new rules plus a couple of shockers in the WC

Will be interesting once VAR takes hold in the EPL in the new season

My rule of thumb was always hand to ball and not ball to hand but that is obviously now out the windae

[Colr]

I think it hit his hand (arm) a second time, other half disagrees.

Looked as if the Liverpool player played the ball deliberately to his outstretched arm.

[Hibbyradge]

Looked as if the Liverpool player played the ball deliberately to his outstretched arm.

I don't think there's any way he would have tried that.

The accuracy needed to kick a ball 5 feet or so in the air to hit a moving target only a few inches wide would be extraordinary, and it would be a stupid way to give the ball away, after only 30 seconds, if he'd missed, which he initially did.

[BILLYHIBS]

I don't think there's any way he would have tried that.

The accuracy needed to kick a ball 5 feet or so in the air to hit a moving target only a few inches wide would be extraordinary, and it would be a stupid way to give the ball away, after only 30 seconds, if he'd missed, which he initially did.

Still soft but did touch his unnaturally positioned arm eventually

The BT Sport Expert Ref gave it good enough for me

Was the Celtic pen a penalty versus Hearts?

Looked soft to me but will take it 😁

[Scouse Hibee]

Looked as if the Liverpool player played the ball deliberately to his outstretched arm.


No I don't think so, he was trying to put the ball across, nothing so inventive as trying to hit his arm for a penalty.

[blackpoolhibs]

Only seen it a couple of times, but im still to be convinced it actually hit his arm?

[Hibbyradge]

Only seen it a couple of times, but im still to be convinced it actually hit his arm?

Chest first then arm, G. No question.

[Speedway]

Only seen it a couple of times, but im still to be convinced it actually hit his arm?

It certainly hits his arm/wrist

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.sportbible.com/football/news-reactions-moussa-sissoko-concedes-controversial-penalty-in-the-first-minute-20190601.amp.html

[Mibbes Aye]

Only seen it a couple of times, but im still to be convinced it actually hit his arm?

Chest then down the arm and possibly trickled down his fingers.

[blackpoolhibs]

Chest first then arm, G. No question.


It certainly hits his arm/wrist

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.sportbible.com/football/news-reactions-moussa-sissoko-concedes-controversial-penalty-in-the-first-minute-20190601.amp.html

Only saw it last night in the local sports bar, and 10-12 pints probably never helped. :greengrin:partyhibb

[HoboHarry]

Only saw it last night in the local sports bar, and 10-12 pints probably never helped. :greengrin:partyhibb
Don't think I've drunk that much beer in the last 3 years lol. Be calling an ambulance for me lol.....

[blackpoolhibs]

Chest then down the arm and possibly trickled down his fingers.

Is it wrong that i got aroused with your post?

[Mibbes Aye]

Is it wrong that i got aroused with your post?

:faf:

I can send more but I'll be charging.