There has to be some form of delibate act of touching the ball. The unnatural position interpretation is the most common reason for awarding where the player isn't actually deliberately moving hand to ball. An arm tucking in towards the body is most definitely not a hand ball. In fact that's how you teach to avoid the hand ball.

Peresic's hand ball in the world cup was much closer of a call. Also not deliberate, but unfortunately moving outside of his body not tucked in.

but Llorente led with his arm and brought it down to contact. Just because it was tucked into his body after contact doesn’t make it not a handball. Former PL Referee Mark Halsey:

“If Cakir gets to see that replay then the goal is disallowed. Llorente leads with his arm and makes a movement towards the ball. You could argue it’s deliberate.

This angle was not shown to the officials - I have no idea why."

It’s a close enough call. And I’m sure other referees will disagree. I think it’s a handball, but I don’t really care. I’m frankly more bothered by the fact it doesn’t look like the ref was given access to this angle. In any event, credit to Spurs for a great match.

Almost everyone agrees that they want to take out the discretion/corruption out of the game of soccer. The single best way to do that is for consistency in the enforcement of the rules.

So there are three options here.

1. Allow refs to the discretion to decide intent based upon little to no clear evidence of the same. That just might be the worst solution.

2. Call hand balls for arms in a tucked position in the body. That means penalties are awarded for balls fizzed into the box (or deflections) that hit a defender's arm. Essentially there's no natural position for a defender anymore. That would be consistent enforcement, but almost impossible for defenders. But if you like goals, there you go.

3. Arms tucked into the body are not hand balls. That seems to be the easiest and most consistent call, and actually allows players to play the game. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I should also note, that absolutely wanted City to win. As a Liverpool fan, their EPL title hopes just took a dive with City's loss. Now they have two fewer huge (arguably more important) matches in their final run, but they will be raging mad against a Tottenham team that has the unenviable task of getting a third straight good result against one of the best teams in the world.

I'd say that goal essentially sealed Liverpool's fate.

for a ball that hit his arm that he was placing behind his back in an earlier tie. To me, Llorente led with his arm and contacted the ball, which allowed it to go off his hip and into the goal. It is a close call under the current rules. I agree that bright lines might be better. But to me, the only feasible bright-line rule is to say that if it hits your arm and goes in, it doesn’t count.

As to whether this affects the league race, I don’t think it will be dispositive. Spurs showed it can hang with City. Anything can happen against United (as demonstrated in last year’s derby). And City are perfectly capable of bottling a tie against Leicester (as they proved earlier this year). I’d still say City’s odds are at 50/50.

I haven't considered all the angles, but it certainly seems reasonable in the world of VAR. But that's not the current rule.

Was it a camera owned by the broadcast team, if not then it's not going to be in the booth. Taken to an extreme your argument could be why didn't they patch in a camera phone video to the booth taken by a supporter in the stands?

Any blaming of the VAR system for not having access to the Zapruder film isn't a valid argument.

The question is why only one view was displayed to the VAR official. That the standards and process for using and reviewing camera angles will need to be more specific in the future. UEFA's conclusory statement that it was not a handball without explaining their process only feeds the conspiracy theorists.

For me, the handball was a lot clearer than was the offsides, but all credit to Tottenham for playing a brave and aggressive game. They deserved their win.

See my post above, but the fact that the handling itself - regardless of the goal - wasn't a handling, and that it actually came off the hip and went into goal means it's no infraction according to the LOTG today.