Crystal Palace vs Chelsea match thread

[Phil’s Barber]

There's a very big difference if you understood the rules.

A rule change in 2024 resulted in the situation that if the ball hits a defender's hand even accidentally and the ball was DEFINITELY going to go into the net (i.e. there is no chance of another player being able to stop it, then it's a penalty. That is what happened with Canvot - the ball was clearly goal-bound, Henderson was on the floor nowhere near where the ball was heading and there was no-one who could have cleared the ball off the line.

With the Maguire incident, there were bodies between Maguire and the goal not to mention the keeper himself and so as the handball was accidental (placing out hand to break his fall) it's not a penalty. It has nothing to do with big club bias but about the laws of football.

Reading the BBC report it appears that the rule change was in relation to the colour of card from red to yellow for accidental handball. They make it clear it wasn’t a change in other ways and that the interpretation of VAR and Darren England was wrong and it should not have been a penalty. It is likely that the KMI panel will assert in due course it was an error.

I just detest VAR.

 

[cryrst]

Totally agree. The fact it hit his hip first seems to have been completely overlooked, isn’t that the reason being given for not awarding us a penalty against Chalobah? VAR didn’t look at that very intently! England was obviously only taking his time at the monitor to decide Red or Yellow rather than penalty or not. A complete t*** who loves the limelight and appears to have a big club bias

Tbh we weren’t scoring 2 goals for a draw so really doesn’t matter. !

 

[doombear]

Reading the BBC report it appears that the rule change was in relation to the colour of card from red to yellow for accidental handball. They make it clear it wasn’t a change in other ways and that the interpretation of VAR and Darren England was wrong and it should not have been a penalty. It is likely that the KMI panel will assert in due course it was an error.

I just detest VAR.

I read the rule wrong as well by ignoring the word "offence". Sorry but let's see what the ref's panel have to say (if anything).

 

[Eaglecoops]

BBC seem to have got it right for a change. A penalty kick is given for a handball offence. If you look up IFAB page 110 it explains that to be a handball offence the arm needs to be in an unnatural position ie making the body “unnaturally bigger” than it would normally be. It also says that “Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.”

Page 118 goes on to say that a player who “denies the opposition a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence” the referee awards a penalty and caution. The word here again is “offence” and under IFAB rules this means the arms moving towards the ball or in such a position to make the body unnaturally bigger. Canvot therefore did not commit an offence.

Surely the words non deliberate and offence are at odds with one another in this circumstance. Basically, is a non deliberate offence only an offence if the ball is heading into the net?

The wording is confusing and if they wanted it to be clear they should leave the word offence out of that sentence so it makes it clear that an accidental handball in the box that prevents a definite goal is awarded a penalty and the player gets a yellow card. Putting the word offence in there makes you go back to their definition of what is a handball offence which would then lead you to believe that no offence has been committed and therefore no penalty.

In turn that means a penalty should never be given for an accidental handball in the box even if it’s heading for the net. They definitely need to clear their wording up.

I’d be interested to hear the outcome of their discussions on this.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Surely the words non deliberate and offence are at odds with one another in this circumstance. Basically, is a non deliberate offence only an offence if the ball is heading into the net?

The wording is confusing and if they wanted it to be clear they should leave the word offence out of that sentence so it makes it clear that an accidental handball in the box that prevents a definite goal is awarded a penalty and the player gets a yellow card. Putting the word offence in there makes you go back to their definition of what is a handball offence which would then lead you to believe that no offence has been committed and therefore no penalty.

In turn that means a penalty should never be given for an accidental handball in the box even if it’s heading for the net. They definitely need to clear their wording up.

I’d be interested to hear the outcome of their discussions on this.

And if the defending player is already on a yellow he'll get sent off for an unintentional act as well as conceding the penalty.
DOGSO is cobblers. Is a goal scoring opportunity then same for Haaland as it is for Will Hughes?

 

[Eaglecoops]

And if the defending player is already on a yellow he'll get sent off for an unintentional act as well as conceding the penalty.
DOGSO is cobblers. Is a goal scoring opportunity then same for Haaland as it is for Will Hughes?

I don’t agree with a card being given at all for accidental handball although I do think it should be a penalty if it definitely stops a goal and in this case it certainly looked like it was going in if it hadn’t hit the arm. As I said though, the wording is confusing and open for different interpretations which it shouldn’t be.