I was reading through the August WSC World Cup edition and was up to the QF/SF section when I read something that disappointed me terribly.

I expect it from ITV commentators, pundits and newspapers, less so from the BBC but either way it really annoys me.

I can't remember the game but the WSC sumary from the game said something along the lines of "he didn't get sent off despite being the last defender".
AAAGGGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no law regarding the last defender!!

The law states "denying a goalscoring opportunity". No mention of the last man or last defender.

Simple law, not difficult to understand but I get sick and tired of people, even around me at a match saying "He's gotta go, he was the last man" etc etc.

Disappointed for WSC to mention it too.
I was going to demand a full refund for my 3 year subscription but will settle for £5 ;-)

Oh, and if I could change this law I would introduce what they have in the game played by men with odd shape balls and give a penalty goal. That will reduce the number of times it would occur.

Are you quite mad?

There are plenty of forwards already more than happy to dive instead of taking a shot they were still perfectly capable of taking, and that's just for a penalty kick. Awarding a "penalty goal" is hardly likely to diminish that, is it?

well at least do it for the blatant Suarez type on the line handball......

I'd actually agree with that in principle, but I don't think refs have currently got the definition of "deliberate" handball right for penalties, so God knows how they'd interpret "blatant" on top.

A handball doesn't have to be "deliberate" for it to be a penalty.

Of course it fucking does.

I'd be interested to know what TonTon has to say on the subject of deliberate handball.

And also his views on people who cut sandwiches in half for you.

What Suarez did was magnificent. He sacrificed his own reputation for his fellow countrymen, and saved the day for plucky Uruguay. Who's with me?

Rogin the Armchair Fan wrote:
Of course it fucking does.
Correct according to page 34

Right with you, brother Liq.

"Deliberate" is always a confsuing term to use - intentionality is a continuum (or probably a conjunction of various continuums) and not a discrete property.

I have no problem with "last man" as a rule of thumb as long as you're conscious of the occasions when it doesn't amount to the same thing as denying a goal-scoring opportunity.

Penalty goals are a terrible idea.

I have no opinion on the cutting of sandwiches.

Anything I've missed?

Further clarification of the rule within the laws state: "The referee must take the following into
consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)", which obviously includes subtle hand movements towards the ball, so, the referee has to judge movement, rather than intent. A player moving his hand away from the ball (or not moving his hand, when it is in the way) may not be doing do deliberately, but under the current guidance will be penalised for handball, because a referee cannot know whether the action is deliberate, only the player can.

Should a defending player who fouls an attacker in a clear goalscoring situation, and in the area, be sent off?

After all, if there is a resulting spot kick then the clear goalscoring opportunity is still there.

How is deliberate a confusing term to use? Did the player direct his mind to moving his hand towards the ball, or keep his hand in a positon to allow the ball to strike his hand, when not so directing his mind to such action would have resulted in no handling of the ball? If so, then it's deliberate. If the ball hit the player's hand notwithstanding the above then it was not deliberate.

Talk of deliberate being a continuum in the context of a game that's principle rule is not to use your hands is codswallop.

Er Liquidatore wrote:
What Suarez did was magnificent. He sacrificed his own reputation for his fellow countrymen, and saved the day for plucky Uruguay. Who's with me?

Count me in.

We did this to death at the time though didn't we?

Obviously with you Liq.

David Agnew wrote:
Further clarification of the rule within the laws state: "The referee must take the following into
consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)", which obviously includes subtle hand movements towards the ball, so, the referee has to judge movement, rather than intent. A player moving his hand away from the ball (or not moving his hand, when it is in the way) may not be doing do deliberately, but under the current guidance will be penalised for handball, because a referee cannot know whether the action is deliberate, only the player can.

Toro and David Ngog to thread.

The only way for the referees and their assistants to properly "judge" whether a handball was "deliberate", or whether what could be claimed as a clumsy effort at a tackle was a player "attempting to trip" his opponent, will be to set up immediate interrogations of the player in question, preferably on the pitch, in front of a little desk and some foldaway chairs that the pitch-side ambulance guys could carry out, like they do already with stretchers for injured players.

The ref and one of his assistants could adopt the "good cop, bad cop" method of questioning the suspect in order to break down the accused player, and the guilty would surely break down and confess in a short space of time; confronted and confused by the mental conflict proposed by the fear of ultimate exposure and punishment due to further evidence, and their natural desire to be forgiven for what might have been a regrettable momentary mistake. Up to 90% of such disputes on the pitch would thus be quickly resolved following a swift confession.

Hardened suspected liars could then be further subjected to a proper lie-detector test, with the referee announcing the outcome to both managers (and the crowd) in front of the player, after only a short delay.

"So, Stephane. You claimed that you didn't deliberately handle that ball on the line. And do you know why he said that, Arsene?

Because ... he was TELLING THE TRUTH."

Then the game could resume, with everyone happy.

I don't see how you get this;

David Agnew wrote:
which obviously includes subtle hand movements towards the ball, so, the referee has to judge movement, rather than intent. A player moving his hand away from the ball (or not moving his hand, when it is in the way) may not be doing do deliberately, but under the current guidance will be penalised for handball, because a referee cannot know whether the action is deliberate, only the player can.

Fron this;

Further clarification of the rule within the laws state: "The referee must take the following into consideration: the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)"

Sonny Pike wrote:
How is deliberate a confusing term to use? Did the player direct his mind to moving his hand towards the ball, or keep his hand in a positon to allow the ball to strike his hand, when not so directing his mind to such action would have resulted in no handling of the ball? If so, then it's deliberate. If the ball hit the player's hand notwithstanding the above then it was not deliberate.

Talk of deliberate being a continuum in the context of a game that's principle rule is not to use your hands is codswallop.

Well yeah, to your last bit at least. So long sa you remember that we're only talking about "deliberate" in the context of a pragmatic use of the word in a footballing context and not pretending that it directly correlates to what can actually be said to be "deliberate" in any exact sense.

(You've also there failed to cover scenarios where the hand is not moved towards the ball but is in a position where it's more likely to be hit, eg if you go to block a shot with your arms stretched out. That's usually considered "deliberate" handball too in a footie context, even without any movement towards the ball or conscious intent.)