wilsdenrover

I don’t see how this is any different to a player leaving his leg out to ‘invite’ a foul. Either both are legitimate tactics or neither are. That’s where my confusion with what most people think lies. I’m pretty confident I’ll be proved to be wrong but I would like to understand why 😀

But why should it be penalised if it was accidental? I do see the argument for why handball should have to be deliberate but I’m just unclear as to why this doesn’t extend to other ‘foul play’ I’m sure I’m in the minority here and am just trying to understand the difference.

Shall I close the thread then? 😁

I was going to put this in the Euros thread but didn’t want to risk dragging it off topic. As the title suggests, should intent be needed for handball to result in a free kick/penalty? If so, why the difference between this and other ‘fouls’ where intent is not required?* * ie. tripping an opponent is an offence even if done so accidentally.

Oh I agree with that 100% Personally I think they need to remove as much subjectivity from the laws as possible. Instead, every rule change seems to be adding more scope for officials to interpret things ‘as they see them’

They aren’t added extras. Deliberate handball is one of the handball offences, the one I put in my post is one of the others.

Maybe it shouldn’t be but it is in the law… 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

I think offsides come under the ‘serious missed incident’ part of the rules and therefore don’t need to be clear and obvious errors. Rule needs changing.

Looked it up. Seems the rules changed in 2017 so… 1. That catch is deemed fair 2. My knowledge was out of date 😁

Looks caught whilst still in the air to me…

I’ve only just seen the catch. It looked like he caught it (having thrown it in the air) before he landed back in the field of play. Doesn’t that mean it should have been a six?

Yet another SA bottle job.

The Kinks - You Really Got Me

What place does it have Plymouth in?

He’s also said Pears is good at this level but we lack a solid reliable keeper 🤷‍♂️

A club can apply for this to be suspended for any given match but I assume they’d need a very good reason for the EFL to approve the request.

Did he not even commit to looking into it?

Of course by talking about him we’re spending less time focusing on such issues as season ticket sales. The good old ‘look over here’ tactic…

Whilst noting your first sentence… If he truly believes what he’s put in that tweet, surely (based on the stated aims of the Trust on ‘your’ website’) he would think the Trust isn’t needed. If he doesn’t believe what he’s put in the tweet (ie he’s trying to wind people up) is he really a suitable person to be on ‘your’ board?

And does anyone know which button to press…

I can see from the screenshot on the season ticket thread they gave figures for phase 1 this year vs phase 1 last year. Given the difference in dates as to when these phases finished - did they also give the tickets sold last year ‘as at’ the date this year’s phase one ended? I’ve mentioned part of the below on the season ticket thread but thought I’d put it here too: Non renewals for this season = a 31.6% loss - has the club indicated to the trust… If and how they’re trying to get any of these fans back? How our non renewal figure compares to other clubs?

Or in the modern world, during it.

90% renewal rate 23-24 (July 23 FF minutes) 76% renewal rate (last nights meeting) Loss over 2 years = 31.6% Did they give any indication into how they’re trying to get (at least some) of those fans back?

The figure is 9,116 in the November FF minutes so slightly higher still.

Someone’s going to mention Stoke…