The story so far!

[nw6pie]

We need to work out how to break down teams who just sit back behind the ball and the counter attack like Fleetwood. We look better at defending than before but struggled to get through them.

It will be interesting to see how many teams try to sit in versus go toe to toe with us at the Lane. Of course, being 2-0 up after 15 minutes will always force the opposition to open up more, which shows the importance of us trying to make a fast start.

[Woodypie]

Early days, but form so far would get is 76 points.

[i961pie]

Having watched back a few times, I think the ref got both calls right.

For the first, it's hard to see precisely but for me Jatta looks in line with the defence when the ball is played. Hard to say for sure from the angle on TV, but looks close enough for the benefit of the doubt. Grant is in an offside position but isn't obviously interfering with play - he's not obviously being marked or acting as a distraction, and he makes no effort at all to play the ball.


For the second, the EFL have been clear this season that playing the ball onto the player's own arm is a mitigating factor for handball. To me, from the video shown, it looks very much like the ball goes from chest to arm (to other arm maybe), and his arms are more or less where you'd expect them to be for the position he's getting into, so no handball.

Both of these are marginal calls and we'd likely be pissed if they'd gone against us, but I think the ref probably got both calls right.

If Var was in operation the second goal wouldn't have been allowed to stand, Crowley controlled the ball with his arm imo.

[OchPie]

If Var was in operation the second goal wouldn't have been allowed to stand, Crowley controlled the ball with his arm imo.

It wasn't obvious to me it was arm to ball. Looked a lot more like ball to arm.

Don't get me wrong, you've seen fouls given for less. And I am assuming the referee and/or lino saw it and didn't think it was an infringement, rather than didn't see it (if not, how??).

[queenslandpie]

It wasn't obvious to me it was arm to ball. Looked a lot more like ball to arm.

Don't get me wrong, you've seen fouls given for less. And I am assuming the referee and/or lino saw it and didn't think it was an infringement, rather than didn't see it (if not, how??).

In the heat of the moment it would be hard for the ref to see the handball. Jatta was offside.

[LincsPie]

In the heat of the moment it would be hard for the ref to see the handball. Jatta was offside.

4-1, 3 pts, many happy Pies.........

[i961pie]

It wasn't obvious to me it was arm to ball. Looked a lot more like ball to arm.

Don't get me wrong, you've seen fouls given for less. And I am assuming the referee and/or lino saw it and didn't think it was an infringement, rather than didn't see it (if not, how??).

If it was the other way round this board would have been red hot.

[PedroTheFisherman66]

We got lucky with a few officials decisions, its probably about time we had some luck in that department. It does not detract from the fact that it was a great team performance and a well deserved victory that is hopefully a kickstart to better things.

[SmiffyPie]

There is no ball to hand excuse for an attacking player
"Defending players are subject to all the previously discussed laws, attacking players are not. Instead, the rule is very simple for an attacking player — if the ball strikes a goal scorer's arm while in the midst of a goal scoring move, regardless of arm position, intent, or any other qualifiers, a goal shall be chalked off."
As Pedro says, about time we got the benefit of some bad decisions. Jatta looks offside (but was probably level with the player behind him immediately after the ball was kicked so if the linesman couldn't see?) And DC handled the ball after it came off his chest (and was it handball when he controlled the ball onto his chest?) Anyway as mentioned, we won! YouPies.

[OchPie]

There is no ball to hand excuse for an attacking player
"Defending players are subject to all the previously discussed laws, attacking players are not. Instead, the rule is very simple for an attacking player — if the ball strikes a goal scorer's arm while in the midst of a goal scoring move, regardless of arm position, intent, or any other qualifiers, a goal shall be chalked off."

There is no excuse no, but - everything else being equal - if there are mitigations and no condemning actions (and arm to ball would be a condemning action, while deflecting from body to arm is a clear mitigating action), you can see why the ref might hesitate.

And the quoted text goes beyond what the rules say, which is a handball offence is committed and the goal disallowed if a player:

scores in the opponents’ goal immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

The laws give no guidance as to what "immediately" means, and referees seem to differ as to whether it's the next action, all part of one specific ongoing action, or as long as the attacker has the ball somewhere vaguely threatening. I think under the third interpretation it's definitely handball, under the second might be, and under the first I don't think so - he's facing away from goal at the moment the ball hits his arm.

Seems like refs generally hate the vagueness of several parts of the HB rule.