On BBC Sport website atm and all the talk post weekend games.

Thought I'd give my two cents but very interested to hear from others:

What constitutes a handball?: For me, it is the ball hitting an outfield player's arm/hand... that is it.

Now the ball being blasted at you from close range might be the only instance in which it is harsh however 'themz' should be the 'rulez'!

I've played football my entire life since discovering walking and I have never once been penalised for a 'handball'. Body position, phases of play, intent, proximity etc etc all fudging ridiculous in my eyes. The game is 'football', one of the key take-aways from the name should be the fact you cannot touch said ball with your arm/hand.

I recognise one key downfall might well be deliberate actions by some players, many of whom will be S.American (racism or fact??) however equally I feel sometimes defenders know what they can and can't get away with.

You don't need your hand to control the ball and if you do it's a foul, you can't use your hand to block a shot, stop a cross, intercept a ball etc and if you do it is a foul. I find the current legislation around it absolutely bonkers at best and utter bo!!ocks at worst.

My second rant in two days on 'football talk', I'll give it a rest for now and just nurse the stomach ulcer I've been working on!

I really have no idea what handball is anymore. The inconsistency of decisions is making it even more unclear. We got lucky against Villa but having seen the one at Arsenal, which was not given, I really don’t know anymore ( still anything that goes against the scousers is ok by me)

It can't possibly be racist to generalise about someone South American. Prejudiced, possibly, but not racist.

Your suggestion is, basically, to be like field hockey, where a ball hitting the foot or leg, regardless of the circumstances, is penalised without question. It's an interesting idea, which would virtually eliminate all controversy.....apart from the in-built failure to spot handball offences by the Big 6 clubs when playing the Less Big 14.

Yes, good comparison YT. I am aligned to that usage of the rule.

My comments about S.Americans was an image I had in my own mind of a player who we'll just call 'L Suarez' for now... maybe that's a bit too obvious... let's call him 'Luis S' perhaps entering the box with a defender standing him up and deliberately 'flicking' the ball towards an arm. As for prejudice over racism, I would consider the two somewhat interchangeable however went for the latter given my ghostly whiteness comparative to any nation that sees the sun more often if not just occasionally. My ethnic background was one built for labouring on a rainy Irish farm, not anything tropical!

As for the 'in-built failure' I think it has been scientifically proven that the favour of decisions for the big 6 is nothing short of coincidence so no need whatsoever for anyone to investigate bias, corruption, mental fragility or anything like that you know.. ahem.

My apologies. I had forgotten about that key research study carried out by Toxteth Polytechnic.

Yep.

There's also the fact most referees do not understand football on a practical level and/or are unable to think logically or objectively. Add into that their genetically inferior spines and uncodified, contractual obligation for subservience to bigger clubs and what do we expect?

Edited by Nicholas91 (10 Oct 2022 3.16pm)