FC Bayern Forum

ramsej84 wrote:In 2012 Pirlo should have been sent off for handling the ball while guarduing the post from a corner.
The game was just three minutes old.
Who remembers it?

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

I forgot it. 0:14 but you can't tell if he used his hands or not.



Unlike this... Frings vs USA, 2002:

of course he did... it was clear enough back then and today... even he was afraid...

Can't see tweet? Click here!

MUTU wrote:
Unlike this... Frings vs USA, 2002:

The ball clearly played Frings' hand. It was not a handball. Tired of people saying it should've been called. His hand is down, and the ball hit his hand. No foul, no penalty.

RB624 wrote:

MUTU wrote:
Unlike this... Frings vs USA, 2002:

The ball clearly played Frings' hand. It was not a handball. Tired of people saying it should've been called. His hand is down, and the ball hit his hand. No foul, no penalty.

A goalbound effort was blocked on the line with a hand that was away from the body. Irrespective of intent or not, it's a clear penalty.

MUTU wrote:

RB624 wrote:

MUTU wrote:
Unlike this... Frings vs USA, 2002:

The ball clearly played Frings' hand. It was not a handball. Tired of people saying it should've been called. His hand is down, and the ball hit his hand. No foul, no penalty.

A goalbound effort was blocked on the line with a hand that was away from the body. Irrespective of intent or not, it's a clear penalty.

Goalbound has no relevance according to the laws of the game. The hand was away from the body, but it was already there (if I am remembering correctly). It did not move at all to meet the ball. The ball found it.

FCBayernMunchen wrote:To be honest even a penalty is unfair in such a situation. It should be a goal awarded.

I agree, just like Suarez vs Ghana should have been a goal awarded. But there's no such rule in football. This is a stonewall penalty, but I wouldn't give Frings a yellow or red card.

RB624 wrote:Goalbound has no relevance according to the laws of the game. The hand was away from the body, but it was already there (if I am remembering correctly). It did not move at all to meet the ball. The ball found it.

The point is that had Frings not been with his hand hanging away from his body, it would have been a goal for USA. Awarding a penalty for the incident would be the least the ref could and should have done.

Common sense referees, seeing that moment clearly, would always award a penalty (as a clear goal can't be awarded). "the ball finding it" is absolutely idiotic. If you actually read the laws of the game, you'll find that "goalbound" actually has a lot of relevance in sending a player off.

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

[Laws of the Game 2011, page 113]

Obviously this is, under current rules, accompanied by a penalty kick as well.

quaazi wrote:Common sense referees, seeing that moment clearly, would always award a penalty (as a clear goal can't be awarded). "the ball finding it" is absolutely idiotic. If you actually read the laws of the game, you'll find that "goalbound" actually has a lot of relevance in sending a player off.

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

[Laws of the Game 2011, page 113]

Obviously this is, under current rules, accompanied by a penalty kick as well.

Under new rules, where referees will have access to video replays, they would have a hard time proving intent by Frings, but the penalty kick should still happen. It's a penalty kick with no card to Frings IMO.

quaazi wrote:Common sense referees, seeing that moment clearly, would always award a penalty (as a clear goal can't be awarded). "the ball finding it" is absolutely idiotic. If you actually read the laws of the game, you'll find that "goalbound" actually has a lot of relevance in sending a player off.

A player is sent off, however, if he prevents a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball. This punishment arises not from the act of the player deliberately handling the ball but from the unacceptable and unfair intervention that prevented a goal being scored.

[Laws of the Game 2011, page 113]

Obviously this is, under current rules, accompanied by a penalty kick as well.

In my opinion, "idiotic" would be bringing up the law about sending off for a deliberate handball when that has nothing to do with this case in point.

MUTU wrote:

RB624 wrote:Goalbound has no relevance according to the laws of the game. The hand was away from the body, but it was already there (if I am remembering correctly). It did not move at all to meet the ball. The ball found it.

The point is that had Frings not been with his hand hanging away from his body, it would have been a goal for USA. Awarding a penalty for the incident would be the least the ref could and should have done.

All the time we see no call given when shots and crosses hit players' arms above their waists and away from their bodies. As long as the player is making a natural movement, the refs don't call it. That's the way it goes 90% of the time. Just like if they slide and the ball hits their raised arm, it is not called. Frings had one hand on the post and stretched toward the play with the hand down. That is a natural movement. Players shield their faces and bodies from quick shots with their arms extended, and it is hardly ever called as a penalty. I know I won't change your mind, but I'm just letting you know you won't change mine