• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

The Football News Thread 2019/20 - everything not Wolves

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 1982 Brazilian team was magnificent. Best I have seen as obviously 1970 was before my time. And yet it had one small tiny flaw, that being that Blob Taylor up front would have been an improvement.
 
I didn't think he was actually that bad - it's just that he wasn't that good either. He was perfectly capable of scoring goals, so he still needed to be marked.
 
Burnley have said will cost them £50million if league not completed and £5million if league completed and played behind closed doors.
 
Amusing stuff from Villa. If and when the season resumes, they won't be able to play Heaton even though he should be fit by then as they removed him from their 25 man squad after the January window.

They also can't play Wesley for the same reason but this isn't really a handicap.
 
The EFL have appealed Blues being found not guilty of misconduct. I don't like the club, but it feels a bit vindictive now. I know they were told to sell Adams last January, but they correctly said they'd get more money in the Summer and maximised his value.
 
Amusing stuff from Villa. If and when the season resumes, they won't be able to play Heaton even though he should be fit by then as they removed him from their 25 man squad after the January window.

They also can't play Wesley for the same reason but this isn't really a handicap.
Given that contracts are being extended and the transfer window changed, I think they'd win an appeal if they went for it
 
Maybe it's a new charge of daylight robbery given how awful he's been for Saints...
 
Leagues can choose to use the new handball law when the season resumes, football's lawmaking body says.

The International Football Association Board (Ifab) wrote to the four British football associations on Tuesday to confirm the approved changes to the laws of the game for 2020-21.

This includes using the "T-shirt line" to differentiate between the arm and the shoulder for handball decisions.

New laws usually become compulsory on 1 June for the start of the new season.

However, because of the unprecedented circumstances presented by coronavirus, competitions will get the choice of whether to implement them for the rest of this season.

In official communication seen by BBC Sport, Ifab said: "Competitions which have been suspended because of Covid-19 have the option of completing the competition using the Laws of the Game 2019-20 or adopting the Laws of the Game 2020-21.

"Friendly/practice/warm-up matches in preparation for the restart of the competition are permitted to use the version of the Laws that will be used when the competition restarts."

The member associations will now pass this guidance on to the competitions, who will make their own decisions on which rules to use at the point football resumes.

The change to the handball rule was the most significant alteration to the laws of the game that came out of Ifab's annual general meeting (AGM) in February.

Irish FA chief executive Patrick Nelson explained the importance of the change at Ifab's recent AGM, saying "the shoulder itself doesn't really have an opportunity to make the body bigger whereas the arms do".

The "T-shirt line" or armpit - essentially where the sleeve on a T-shirt ends - will become a key marker on the player's body for match officials, with anything below that being handball.

Jonathan Ford, chief executive of the Football Association of Wales, explained the law change as "basically a clarification as to where exactly does the arm start in the case of handball and where does the shoulder finish".

Before the suspension of football, the Premier League game between Burnley and Bournemouth highlighted the confusion with the current distinction between the arm and shoulder, with two contentious handball decisions made by the video assistant referee.

The handball law had previously been changed so that a handball would be given against a player if their arms extended "beyond a natural silhouette".
 
So if the ball hits the armpit/t-shirt line is it handball or not?

They are still going to have the same contentious var decisions.
 
Issue number 1 and 2 as modelled by Mr Naylor
ff83f3a6accfefa2a2dd4141104a87d5.jpg
089f6353773317a737a5c6cdd56be737.jpg
 
They're not going to look at the actual shirt they are wearing! It'll be a theoretical line based on anatomy.
 
They're not going to look at the actual shirt they are wearing! It'll be a theoretical line based on anatomy.
Yes, I know! That's my point, where does the t shirt end? It's not finite and another law that will be rife with inconsistencies. I guarantee that in the first weekend there will be a decision given and one not whe on the ball appears to hit the same part of the arm
 
Yes, I know! That's my point, where does the t shirt end? It's not finite and another law that will be rife with inconsistencies. I guarantee that in the first weekend there will be a decision given and one not whe on the ball appears to hit the same part of the arm

Not really, it's easily defined by putting a mark on the shirt that can be easily picked up and the shirt will be sized accordingly.
 
In law there are several offences that use Reasonable person present at the scene. Certain public order offences for instance. The person doesn't need to be there but if this hypothetical reasonable person would likely have felt threatened, abused, harassed etc then the offence is complete. This handball nonsense is the same to me.

So basically if it looks handball it is, if it doesn't it isn't. OK, Liverpool's goal against us would not have counted but Leos goal v Leicester would have stood. Its just an extension of clear and obvious. Neither of those examples were clear and obvious.
 
In law there are several offences that use Reasonable person present at the scene. Certain public order offences for instance. The person doesn't need to be there but if this hypothetical reasonable person would likely have felt threatened, abused, harassed etc then the offence is complete. This handball nonsense is the same to me.

So basically if it looks handball it is, if it doesn't it isn't. OK, Liverpool's goal against us would not have counted but Leos goal v Leicester would have stood. Its just an extension of clear and obvious. Neither of those examples were clear and obvious.

Would you prefer they look at a line at x cm on the humerus perpendicular to the lateral epicondyle? (the bony bit of the elbow?)

That's pretty exact and could be done like the offside farce we currently have with VAR. Or we could just make it a rough judgement call?
 
No, the obvious solution is a collaboration with the kit manufacturers to put predefined markings on all shirts next season...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top