The switch to a back 3 was a tactical masterstroke.
Definitely not a pen but according to the new rules it is.
And bozza is not happy. Going on about someone having something against the Wanderers
To be fair theyâre the only team to have ever copped a dodgy handball call against them, so fair enough. Theyâve certainly not benefited from any dodgy calls this season either.
5 Likes
So according to those rumours earlier in the week Babbel is sacked on Monday
As fun as it is to put shit on the Wanderers, its almost going to be beneficial to cut your arms off to play professional football. The new rule really is such a joke. I would be utterly filthy if Sydney conceded a penalty in that scenario.
Itâs alright though, Bozzaâs on to the conspiracy.
1 Like
Bozza sounds remarkably like Mack, far too often âŚ
Have they both been spotted in the same room at the same time?
1 Like
Solid rant, heâs getting into mid-season form.
Carson Pickett is a visionary. 
Not hearing this Bozza rant but amazing given heâs been championing the refs / VAR all season. Obvs just playing to his social media audience.
How does the new handball rule work? Football rules explained | Goal.com
A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:
- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attackerâs hand or arm.
- a player wins ball possession after it comes off their hand or arm and then scores, or creates a goalscoring chance.
- the ball touches a playerâs hand/arm which has made their silhouette unnaturally bigger.
- the ball touches a playerâs hand/arm when itâs raised above their shoulder.
Itâs simple really. If your arm/hand makes contact with the ball, itâs a penalty, except if your arm were in a position where if the arm had not been there it would have hit the body.
This is the âsilhouetteâ rule. Basically itâs about whether the arm/hand changes the path of the ball.
If you say itâs not a penalty because the ball was struck from too close (and the defender did not have time to move the hand out of the way), then it comes down to interpretation. 1m is too close, 5m is far enough, But what about 3m? 2.25m? 1.72m?
The rule is now more absolute rather than relative. IMO the rule is an improvement on what we used to have, which was basically down to how the ref feels on the day.
He stood up wildly gesticulating to ascertain what the natural bodyâs silhouette is. According to him that includes the arms to an arbitrary angle off to the side.
Trouble is it is no less arbitrary - probably more so with defenders at the mercy of the gods/VAR instead of the mood of the ref
No it isnât an improvement, not even close. It doesnât even show a modicum of commonsense. If youâre two metres away from a defender, just inside the box, it will become a tactic to belt the ball as hard as you can in the hope it hits the defenderâs arm and if its not a penalty immediately called by the ref, its a penalty when reviewed. Nobodyâs arm can simply disappear (short of amputating it previously) and you barely even have time to move it before it hits you.
This is what its come down to. I stand by my comment that Iâd be filthy if a call like that went against Sydney. It would be consistent with the rule change, but otherwise completely unreasonable.
2 Likes
But if an attacker took a shot and it hit a defenderâs arms, it would have been a penalty under the old rules anyway in most cases. But in reality how many strikers play for that? Itâs just a hypothetical argument.
Yes under the new rules strikers might try to hit a defenderâs arms, although I think if a striker is that accurate why not slot the ball into either top corner?
Okay so youâd be filthy if we lost a game due to such a penalty being called, but how about if we lost a league title/GF due to such a penalty not being called? Clearly hits a defenderâs hand, and the ball was headed straight into the net otherwise with the keeper having dived the wrong way? Would you then shrug it off?
I think the new rule is a massive improvement as it is less down to interpretation than before. But thatâs just my opinion and I expect others to differ.
Tbh Iâm ok with that being given - its the sort of thing the new law is trying to prevent imo. The issue is, as ever, the lack of consistency. Thereâs been several of a similar nature not given over the last few weeks (eg WU vs CCM).
Anyway, hereâs man of the people doing his thing
Lots of people, including pundits on TV, are confused by the âarm that makes the silhouette unnaturally largerâ line in the rule.
The wording should have been âarm which changes the path of the ballâ. That way itâs clear that hand/arm in front of the body = no penalty. Hand/arm away from the body = penalty.
Yeah the inconsistency in refereeing is and will always be a problem.
If weâre moving towards technologically assisted accuracy, then itâs good to remove subjective elements of officiating. Handball has been one of those for a while.
Iâd just prefer they didnât have VAR and didnât change the handball ruleâŚ
That one we didnât get was more of a penalty. So was the blatant shirt grab in the box.
Dot point one - if itâs already gone in off a defenderâs hand/arm, why do we need a penalty?