Understand what you're asking here...

Understand what you're asking here...
by NDMike2001 (2019-04-18 09:30:27)

In reply to: Not that I would expect you to change your mind, posted by tex29

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.

I’m all for consistency. Otamendi was given a penalty

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.

Yes, that's a clear rule.

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