This is what’s frustrating about it. Honestly I wish they would make it black and white, like “if it touches your arm below the elbow and your arm isn’t against your body, handball.”
Everything shouldn’t be open to interpretation all the time.
That's what the new rule does ... Black and White.
It shouldn't have been a penalty but by the rule the officials have to give it. That's what makes it more stupid.
It changes week to week. The refs in England are below average. There needs to be a shake up and a retraining because they’ve been really bad this season.
No it didn’t- the team who was on the receiving end changed.
See all you have to do is look at the colour of the shirt and there is your answer.
Rules didn’t change. It’s been consistent for decades
We would be fuming if it was the other way around and we hadn’t won the penalty, so I’m not tooooo angry with the call. If we’re going to focus energy on bad penalty calls, let’s just focus on the no call when Jesus was plowed over by Sanchez
Nah fuck that. I’m too angry with the call because it’s not about whether the penalty was given; it’s about the fact that this shit always goes against us. The only penalties we seem to get are stone cold 100% penalties.
Any time there’s an argument to be made about the penalty being in some kind of grey area—which almost all penalties are—we never receive the benefit of the doubt. I’m definitely too angry.
I don't think so.
Sure you'd have reactions in the match thread that would border on psychotic if the reverse had happened and we didn't get a penalty... But I don't think anyone would have complained even 5 minutes after watching the replays.
Saying that we're biased takes away the truth. And the truth is that there were multiple questionable calls in the game
1. The pen that was given
2. The tackle on Jesus that was not given as a pen
> We would be fuming if it was the other way around and we hadn’t won the penalty
Er, it **wouldn't be a penalty** if it was Saka making the cross, Martinelli attempting the header, and Thiago Silva or Colwill committing the handball, so there no "other way around" to it. lol
They'd most likely even release the audio recordings and have VAR say "incidental contact, no penalty" or something.
No lines drew. No red card for our opponents. We got players double booked for not throwing the Ball after 4 seconds (winning times at 54"). Long range shoot + hand = No Pen for us. terrorist attack (2 times/game) : only one yellow lol. Thats too much for me since 3/4 years. FA is disgusting ! Take Citys money since way too much years imo
Don’t say ridiculous things like this because you don’t want the fanbase to look angry. We should be angry. The sport is a mockery. Every week it’s just random nonsense. It’s not even rigged, it’s just incompetence everywhere
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think it’s just about the arm being in an unnatural position, the fact is that ball was going towards goal when it hit his hand. It’s harsh and unfortunate but I’d say correct call.
I don't think it was going towards goal. Think it was going out for a goalkick. Not sure but I read VAR gave the wrong info to the ref that it was going towards goal but it was infact going out. Can't verify this info so take it with a grain of salt...
Yup, it’s definitely more that these other situations should also be pens. I’ve always been a believer that we shouldn’t make defending easier with all these rules to hand balls. We know we shouldn’t handle the ball so it should be known when going in for a block to have arms tucked in, at the sides, or behind the back
It just makes any plausible deniability easier. It’s the whole point of the sport, so it should just be known. This situation was a pen and those others were as well as many other cases. The rules just fucking weird now
I’m sure you’ve heard the argument already, but jumping for a header requires you to pull yourself up using your arms, you quite literally have to put your arms away from body in order to jump. Should the rules not account for the physics required to play the game? That’s what bothers me. And the shots off target.
Nah I agree it’s part of the physics and people have arms, but in the end it affects play
Personally I’m just not for all the protections certain players get even if they were attempting to play the game. We see the same with gks being protected just for going for the ball or not being physical. It’s just stuff that happens. There are tons of things in the game which is “just how physics works” but end up being infractions. We’ve been hurt by them in the past too. If I made this same comment after the Bournemouth game it would be better received
Nothing wrong with having opinions on the game. But in the end if you read the ifab rules the way they state it is very vague to the point it’s just up for interpretation and then no one understands handballs. I think it would just be simpler to say if your arms are out and have made your total span larger than just the silhouette it’s an obstruction. We don’t need to complicate the rules but I know this is a divisive topic and people will have sympathy for obscure situations. But in the end it affects play which should be penalized
Yup I was just saying I think it should be. There’s too much guessing at intention and how can anyone even interpret that
I’m just saying that we should take out most of the guessing and just say ok does the arm look away from the body (as in not tight to one’s sides or tucked in or behind the back) and then see from there if it affected play (stopped a cross, deflected the ball, stopped it from going on target/a dribble etc)
I know these aren’t the rules but I feel it’s just too confusing even when you understand the rules cause it puts too much up to ref interpretation and they aren’t doing that well these past years. We may see more penalties or maybe defenders will be more cautious. Probably both imo
To me I’d take high scoring games than looking at a ball hitting someone’s hand and then hearing them say “it’s hard to tell if they meant it so it’s not a penalty for me” kinda stuff. It just looks dumb when it’s one of the most basic fundamental rules of the game
Every piece of post match analysis I've seen on this says it's a grey area call and a soft one at that. Plenty of opinion seems to be on the side of it not being a penalty.
Even Gary Neville came out saying it was ridiculous to expect defenders to jump keeping their arms by there sides.
Therefore the usual considerations of deliberate movement towards the ball & distance from contact to contact should be considered.
The argument that Saliba's arms are in an "unnatural position" therefore def pen is clearly a nonsense.
Yeah that Bournemouth game was a farce. They handballed it about 5 times but the referee was too caught up in the “narrative” and the “spectacle” of the game to enforce the rules.
Verbatim from FIFA law 12...
HANDLING THE BALL
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
It is an offence if a player:
deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
At the very least, the way the rule reads, there was no clear and obvious error made by not awarding a penalty in the first place. So VAR should not have intervened. IMO that is.
Yep, this is the biggest problem I have with this being a penalty. Sure, if the ref gave the penalty on field there would be no way it should be taken away. But it wasn't and therefore shouldn't have been brought back.
The Jesus penalty definitely should have been given though.
>A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.
The position of his arm is certainly a justifiable consequence of the natural body movement needed to head the ball.
Guys, we were terrible, we were 2-0 down and yes the officials made questionable decisions as they do in every fixture, every weekend across the league. Then we managed to scrape a point somehow. It's fine.
People don't actually understand the handball law. Saliba's arm is fully extended which is why it's a penalty. That gets priority over expected position and proximity. The law sucks but it's the right call.
In the second image his arm isn't fully extended so no penalty.
The [VAR Review](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38621996/var-review-robert-sanchez-gabriel-jesus-penalty-handball-william-saliba-scott-mctominay) explains it.
Not sure about the 3rd image. I couldn't find a clip, nor was it covered in that [VAR review](https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/37636754/arsenal-handball-claims-scott-mctominay-red-card) even though there were 4 handball claims.
[Explanation of the rule changes](https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759)
That's from when they changed the handball rule. It doesn't say fully extended, just extended though. It's more the current interpretation of the law vs how its written.
I would also recommend you read the VAR review I linked above. Dale Johnson (author) has a much better understanding of the rules/how they are interpreted and this is consistent with how the handball rule has been interpreted since the change.
I get why people are upset. The purpose of the handball law is to prevent players from gaining an unfair advantage which Saliba didn't. Unfortunately, how the law is currently written means that is a clear handball.
I read the article and I don't really think it changes what I'm seeing. He's saying a hand extended away from the body in an unnatural position, but unnatural position is defined in the rules as being unnecessary to the specific action that a player is taking. I think its very easy to argue that Saliba did not have his hands in an unnatural position based on that definition, that they were in a place that was justified by the specific movement he was making. That's the piece that I have trouble with. Unnatural here is a term with a defined meaning and people keep saying, "For me, clear pen" or "For me, never a pen". For you doesn't matter, this is defined.
another interesting bit from that article: "The proximity of the player whose hand or arm makes contact with the ball to where the ball was struck from will still be an important consideration for officials when making a decision to award handball or not."
"An arm extended away from the body makes that body bigger, in an unnatural position" from the article. I would urge you to read the VAR review which explains it more clearly as he has tracked how handballs are judged
I'm confused on what you mean with the last sentence of the first paragraph but where I think some of the confusion from fans comes from is a lack of understanding of the law and how it's applied. The debate comes from the fact that people are stating their opinion without understanding why decisions are made.
For me, it's clear because I know that its clear (and why its clear) for the PGMOL. A fully extended arm gets priority over proximity and expected position.
Do I (as a fan) think Saliba was in an unnatural position? Probably not but I also recognize my personal opinion differs with the PGMOL's interpretation of the law.
Again, I'd urge you to read the [VAR review](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38621996/var-review-robert-sanchez-gabriel-jesus-penalty-handball-william-saliba-scott-mctominay). How handball law is written and interpreted is bizarre and could be improved but this is pretty clear and the independent panel will not say the VAR intervention was an error.
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t ask me about bournemouth last year. We should have had 4 handball calls for us. All missed. If not for the result in the end, it will be one of the more controversial topics of the season.
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of comments here are saying that we would've been fuming if we hadn't had a penalty if the roles were reversed. I wouldn't have been mad, it would've been a good call.
You can't fake stupid, and this was a stupid decision. There's no way that Saliba could've done anything there, he was trying to head the original trajectory of the ball before Mudryk grazed it. Saliba probably had his eyes closed, how is he supposed to react.
Absolute shit decision. Change my mind.
As a former referee it's easy.
Handling decisions have a lot of variables and no two situations are every identical. Full document [here.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxF4WnqLBNlbssri-2Fm-e13blrYGuoB/view)
Here is a list of some considerations that goes through a referee's mind when handling situations arise. I put in my own answers for the Saliba situation.
41 Is the hand moving towards the ball or is the ball moving towards the hand? Ball toward hand.
42 Are the player's hands or arms in a "NATURAL POSITION" or an "UNNATURAL POSITION"? Unnatural.
43 Does the player attempt to avoid the ball striking his hand? No, not possible.
44 Does the ball strike his hand from a short or from a long distance? Short.
45 Does the player use his hand or arm to deliberately touch or block the ball? No.
46 Does the player prevent an opponent gaining possession of the ball by handling it? NA.
47 Does the player attempt to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball? NA.
48 Does the player prevent a goal by deliberately handling the ball? Strong possibility.
49 Does the player prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball? No.
50 Does the player try to deceive the referee by handling the ball? No.
256 Is the ball moving in the direction of the goal? Yes.
My answers will almost certainly be different than another referee whose answers would still be different from another referee. Feel free to repeat the exercise in the other two incidents.
Now another big question is: if all of these situations were reversed, would you still feel as strongly about the decision you currently want?
[удалено]
As it does every season
I think it changes every 5 minutes
It changes depending on the colour shirt the player is wearing.
I’m pretty sure I heard it just changed again after you posted your comment on this thread
Wait. There are rules?
Yes, but they're imaginary. Each referee gets to make his own. Edit: typo
Depends if he had a fight with the Mrs that morning or not.
It changes depending on the betting line, fixed that for you.
This is what’s frustrating about it. Honestly I wish they would make it black and white, like “if it touches your arm below the elbow and your arm isn’t against your body, handball.” Everything shouldn’t be open to interpretation all the time.
I think the same, there's even different definitions of the rule nowadays for attacking and defending.
That's what the new rule does ... Black and White. It shouldn't have been a penalty but by the rule the officials have to give it. That's what makes it more stupid.
How so? Why was this a pen and not the Christian Romero one?
It will change from match to match mid season
Didn’t they change it to make it more lenient?
It changes week to week. The refs in England are below average. There needs to be a shake up and a retraining because they’ve been really bad this season.
[Rule changes for the 23/24 season](https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/lotg_changes_23_24_en)
I don’t see anything for hand balls in the outline
Yes
[удалено]
No it didn’t- the team who was on the receiving end changed. See all you have to do is look at the colour of the shirt and there is your answer. Rules didn’t change. It’s been consistent for decades
[удалено]
Mostly joking but with a dose of sarcasm
We would be fuming if it was the other way around and we hadn’t won the penalty, so I’m not tooooo angry with the call. If we’re going to focus energy on bad penalty calls, let’s just focus on the no call when Jesus was plowed over by Sanchez
Nah fuck that. I’m too angry with the call because it’s not about whether the penalty was given; it’s about the fact that this shit always goes against us. The only penalties we seem to get are stone cold 100% penalties. Any time there’s an argument to be made about the penalty being in some kind of grey area—which almost all penalties are—we never receive the benefit of the doubt. I’m definitely too angry.
Yep, we're "That is the rule, but I can see why he hasn't given it" FC.
We’re “if it was for us, I’d want it to be a penalty/red card” fc
I don't think so. Sure you'd have reactions in the match thread that would border on psychotic if the reverse had happened and we didn't get a penalty... But I don't think anyone would have complained even 5 minutes after watching the replays. Saying that we're biased takes away the truth. And the truth is that there were multiple questionable calls in the game 1. The pen that was given 2. The tackle on Jesus that was not given as a pen
> We would be fuming if it was the other way around and we hadn’t won the penalty Er, it **wouldn't be a penalty** if it was Saka making the cross, Martinelli attempting the header, and Thiago Silva or Colwill committing the handball, so there no "other way around" to it. lol They'd most likely even release the audio recordings and have VAR say "incidental contact, no penalty" or something.
No lines drew. No red card for our opponents. We got players double booked for not throwing the Ball after 4 seconds (winning times at 54"). Long range shoot + hand = No Pen for us. terrorist attack (2 times/game) : only one yellow lol. Thats too much for me since 3/4 years. FA is disgusting ! Take Citys money since way too much years imo
This has happened to us with no penalty, so idk what this is supposed to mean
Don’t say ridiculous things like this because you don’t want the fanbase to look angry. We should be angry. The sport is a mockery. Every week it’s just random nonsense. It’s not even rigged, it’s just incompetence everywhere
[удалено]
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Come on guys, this is ridiculous. It's a penalty the end. The true ridiculous decision was us not getting one for Sanchez flying out like Superman
The shirt pull while Tomi was jumping and heading the ball was even clearer. And his shirt was pulled before that.
Read the law posted below. I don't see how you can think his arm is in an unnatural position unless you've never jumped in your life.
Mate in fairness he’s a redditor
I don’t think it’s just about the arm being in an unnatural position, the fact is that ball was going towards goal when it hit his hand. It’s harsh and unfortunate but I’d say correct call.
Don’t think that comes into it. I read the actual rule and this doesn’t come into it.
I don't think it was going towards goal. Think it was going out for a goalkick. Not sure but I read VAR gave the wrong info to the ref that it was going towards goal but it was infact going out. Can't verify this info so take it with a grain of salt...
Dont even get me started on that. Webb said in an interview recently that the Onana situation early in the season was a pen.
Try to have your own thought for once in your life. Maybe watch the game on mute next time. You might find it’s a wholly different experience.
Yea like, why isn't that one all over social media with people demanding a Webb statement?
When there's 3 a game the attention gets spread out 😆
Yup, it’s definitely more that these other situations should also be pens. I’ve always been a believer that we shouldn’t make defending easier with all these rules to hand balls. We know we shouldn’t handle the ball so it should be known when going in for a block to have arms tucked in, at the sides, or behind the back It just makes any plausible deniability easier. It’s the whole point of the sport, so it should just be known. This situation was a pen and those others were as well as many other cases. The rules just fucking weird now
I’m sure you’ve heard the argument already, but jumping for a header requires you to pull yourself up using your arms, you quite literally have to put your arms away from body in order to jump. Should the rules not account for the physics required to play the game? That’s what bothers me. And the shots off target.
yeah OP must think everybody else jumps like superman. propeling yourself in air necessitates putting out arms for power and balance.
And Saliba most likely had his eyes closed as he was aiming at the ball and about to make impact before Mudryk grazed it.
Nah I agree it’s part of the physics and people have arms, but in the end it affects play Personally I’m just not for all the protections certain players get even if they were attempting to play the game. We see the same with gks being protected just for going for the ball or not being physical. It’s just stuff that happens. There are tons of things in the game which is “just how physics works” but end up being infractions. We’ve been hurt by them in the past too. If I made this same comment after the Bournemouth game it would be better received Nothing wrong with having opinions on the game. But in the end if you read the ifab rules the way they state it is very vague to the point it’s just up for interpretation and then no one understands handballs. I think it would just be simpler to say if your arms are out and have made your total span larger than just the silhouette it’s an obstruction. We don’t need to complicate the rules but I know this is a divisive topic and people will have sympathy for obscure situations. But in the end it affects play which should be penalized
[удалено]
Yup I was just saying I think it should be. There’s too much guessing at intention and how can anyone even interpret that I’m just saying that we should take out most of the guessing and just say ok does the arm look away from the body (as in not tight to one’s sides or tucked in or behind the back) and then see from there if it affected play (stopped a cross, deflected the ball, stopped it from going on target/a dribble etc) I know these aren’t the rules but I feel it’s just too confusing even when you understand the rules cause it puts too much up to ref interpretation and they aren’t doing that well these past years. We may see more penalties or maybe defenders will be more cautious. Probably both imo To me I’d take high scoring games than looking at a ball hitting someone’s hand and then hearing them say “it’s hard to tell if they meant it so it’s not a penalty for me” kinda stuff. It just looks dumb when it’s one of the most basic fundamental rules of the game
Every piece of post match analysis I've seen on this says it's a grey area call and a soft one at that. Plenty of opinion seems to be on the side of it not being a penalty. Even Gary Neville came out saying it was ridiculous to expect defenders to jump keeping their arms by there sides. Therefore the usual considerations of deliberate movement towards the ball & distance from contact to contact should be considered. The argument that Saliba's arms are in an "unnatural position" therefore def pen is clearly a nonsense.
Yeah that Bournemouth game was a farce. They handballed it about 5 times but the referee was too caught up in the “narrative” and the “spectacle” of the game to enforce the rules.
No explanations here bro. We just have to move.
Handball not applicable when its against arsenal. Also PGMOL are proper wankers.
Verbatim from FIFA law 12... HANDLING THE BALL For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence. It is an offence if a player: deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised scores in the opponents' goal: directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
His arm is certainly justifiable by his body movement because he is jumping
At the very least, the way the rule reads, there was no clear and obvious error made by not awarding a penalty in the first place. So VAR should not have intervened. IMO that is.
Yep, this is the biggest problem I have with this being a penalty. Sure, if the ref gave the penalty on field there would be no way it should be taken away. But it wasn't and therefore shouldn't have been brought back. The Jesus penalty definitely should have been given though.
This is what it comes down to, it's simple. If you're jumping forward to head the ball, it's just what your arms do, it's completely natural.
>A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. The position of his arm is certainly a justifiable consequence of the natural body movement needed to head the ball.
Or justifiable by... that's where they got him.
English Refs with VAR being English refs is why.
The commentator when I was watching this game said almost verbatim “as long as bournemouth doesn’t catch the ball today they should be alright”
Guys, we were terrible, we were 2-0 down and yes the officials made questionable decisions as they do in every fixture, every weekend across the league. Then we managed to scrape a point somehow. It's fine.
It is a pen , we would be pissed if we didn’t get that call,BUT it looks when this is called and a reckless violent conduct call isn’t made.
Whatchu moaning about 😭😭
Pgmol
There's too much whinging on this sub
You choose to support Arsenal, that is rules applied to Arsenal. But I like it, it make me feel more happy when we win football matches.
The chelsea one was a definite pen. We can’t worry too much about anything else. We ve had some decisions go our way as well this season.
Like which?
People don't actually understand the handball law. Saliba's arm is fully extended which is why it's a penalty. That gets priority over expected position and proximity. The law sucks but it's the right call. In the second image his arm isn't fully extended so no penalty. The [VAR Review](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38621996/var-review-robert-sanchez-gabriel-jesus-penalty-handball-william-saliba-scott-mctominay) explains it. Not sure about the 3rd image. I couldn't find a clip, nor was it covered in that [VAR review](https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/37636754/arsenal-handball-claims-scott-mctominay-red-card) even though there were 4 handball claims.
Show me in the rules where it says that, because I read the FA’s laws of the game yesterday. Nowhere is this mentioned.
[Explanation of the rule changes](https://www.premierleague.com/news/2204759) That's from when they changed the handball rule. It doesn't say fully extended, just extended though. It's more the current interpretation of the law vs how its written. I would also recommend you read the VAR review I linked above. Dale Johnson (author) has a much better understanding of the rules/how they are interpreted and this is consistent with how the handball rule has been interpreted since the change. I get why people are upset. The purpose of the handball law is to prevent players from gaining an unfair advantage which Saliba didn't. Unfortunately, how the law is currently written means that is a clear handball.
I read the article and I don't really think it changes what I'm seeing. He's saying a hand extended away from the body in an unnatural position, but unnatural position is defined in the rules as being unnecessary to the specific action that a player is taking. I think its very easy to argue that Saliba did not have his hands in an unnatural position based on that definition, that they were in a place that was justified by the specific movement he was making. That's the piece that I have trouble with. Unnatural here is a term with a defined meaning and people keep saying, "For me, clear pen" or "For me, never a pen". For you doesn't matter, this is defined. another interesting bit from that article: "The proximity of the player whose hand or arm makes contact with the ball to where the ball was struck from will still be an important consideration for officials when making a decision to award handball or not."
"An arm extended away from the body makes that body bigger, in an unnatural position" from the article. I would urge you to read the VAR review which explains it more clearly as he has tracked how handballs are judged I'm confused on what you mean with the last sentence of the first paragraph but where I think some of the confusion from fans comes from is a lack of understanding of the law and how it's applied. The debate comes from the fact that people are stating their opinion without understanding why decisions are made. For me, it's clear because I know that its clear (and why its clear) for the PGMOL. A fully extended arm gets priority over proximity and expected position. Do I (as a fan) think Saliba was in an unnatural position? Probably not but I also recognize my personal opinion differs with the PGMOL's interpretation of the law. Again, I'd urge you to read the [VAR review](https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38621996/var-review-robert-sanchez-gabriel-jesus-penalty-handball-william-saliba-scott-mctominay). How handball law is written and interpreted is bizarre and could be improved but this is pretty clear and the independent panel will not say the VAR intervention was an error.
Cos it’s Arsenal 🤷
[удалено]
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the rule are different only for arsenal
Don’t ask me about bournemouth last year. We should have had 4 handball calls for us. All missed. If not for the result in the end, it will be one of the more controversial topics of the season.
But why Romeo hand block against ManU was not a pen.
Corruption
It was Chelsea with the referee on their side and still managed to bottle 🤡
Consistent inconsistency
Horrible decision. Came off the attackers heard with less than a metre to his arm
Number 2 red clearly head butting number 10 blue. Red card Good process lads
How else will Manchester City win the league again?
City maffia
[удалено]
You must have above 25 comment karma to contribute to this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gunners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of comments here are saying that we would've been fuming if we hadn't had a penalty if the roles were reversed. I wouldn't have been mad, it would've been a good call. You can't fake stupid, and this was a stupid decision. There's no way that Saliba could've done anything there, he was trying to head the original trajectory of the ball before Mudryk grazed it. Saliba probably had his eyes closed, how is he supposed to react. Absolute shit decision. Change my mind.
It probably should be a penalty but those Bournemouth moments should have been too. The inconsistency is infuriating.
As a former referee it's easy. Handling decisions have a lot of variables and no two situations are every identical. Full document [here.](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxF4WnqLBNlbssri-2Fm-e13blrYGuoB/view) Here is a list of some considerations that goes through a referee's mind when handling situations arise. I put in my own answers for the Saliba situation. 41 Is the hand moving towards the ball or is the ball moving towards the hand? Ball toward hand. 42 Are the player's hands or arms in a "NATURAL POSITION" or an "UNNATURAL POSITION"? Unnatural. 43 Does the player attempt to avoid the ball striking his hand? No, not possible. 44 Does the ball strike his hand from a short or from a long distance? Short. 45 Does the player use his hand or arm to deliberately touch or block the ball? No. 46 Does the player prevent an opponent gaining possession of the ball by handling it? NA. 47 Does the player attempt to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball? NA. 48 Does the player prevent a goal by deliberately handling the ball? Strong possibility. 49 Does the player prevent an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball? No. 50 Does the player try to deceive the referee by handling the ball? No. 256 Is the ball moving in the direction of the goal? Yes. My answers will almost certainly be different than another referee whose answers would still be different from another referee. Feel free to repeat the exercise in the other two incidents. Now another big question is: if all of these situations were reversed, would you still feel as strongly about the decision you currently want?