I hadn’t considered that but you’re right, some other foul play does take intent into account. Regarding your last paragraph, at least we know the ‘powers that be’ will only make changes which benefit the sport and not themselves 🙄

From the EFL website (and backing up what you say)… In any potential ‘takeover’ or acquisition of control as it is formally known, it is the responsibility of the Club in question to inform the EFL of a proposed change. Once the League has been made aware, the process of making the necessary checks against the requirements of EFL Regulations will then begin. The Regulations ultimately set the criteria regarding who is permitted to own a Club - or exercise control over it - and whether they meet the requirements to do so. See The Public Register Of Directors Here Every acquisition process is different (more on this below) but there are three key parts in each case. First, there is the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, an objective test where prospective owners and directors have to evidence the fact they are not subject to any disqualifying events. The disqualifying events are clear and set out in the Regulations. Second, the Club and prospective owners must submit Future Financial Information (FFI)to demonstrate how the Club will operate over the period ahead, from which any additional cash requirements to support the running of the Club can be identified. Finally, any potential owner must demonstrate to the EFL the ultimate Source and Sufficiency of Funding which will underpin the purchase and future operations. Or in simple terms, how much money they have and where it has come from.

I’ve obviously got confused somewhere along the way 😄 But yes, what you’ve put there does seem a good summary 👍

I’ve agreed players will still try to bend the rule, I don’t agree you can’t remove subjectivity from the rule. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is, of course, subjective…

If the rule was ‘the ball hits your hand it’s handball’ - where’s the subjectivity in that? Clearly that would still be open to abuse (players aiming the ball at opponents hands) but is that not a different argument?

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…