Do you have handball at all?
Since the start of the Premier League, the controversy on this topic has not stopped, and this round of competition has reached its climax. The penalty that Spurs was sentenced to in stoppage time has rarely caused the celebrities of all walks of life to scream for injustice-even the opponent Newcastle coach Bruce said that this year's VAR and handball rules are simply nonsense.
Obviously, the focus of controversy nowadays is not on who loses and who gains, but on the new handball rules. Many coaches used "absurdity" to describe the new rules of handball, annoying that this rule is destroying football.
In the original rules, the name of the foul was "intentional handball", which means that the focus is on intent. This is actually the way people are accustomed to. Deliberate handball will be fouled, and of course it will be fine if it is unintentional.
But in this way, the referee has considerable discretion, and subjective intentions are not so easy to define. The famous whistle Kratenberg said: "You can't put yourself into the player's mind to establish intentions, only the player knows what his intentions are."
Under the circumstances that it is difficult to define subjective intentions, the new rules attempt to shift the focus from subjective psychology to relatively objective results or influences. This motivation is completely understandable.
Ideally, the new rules can avoid the abuses of the referees subjectively saying that you are intentional or unintentional, and make penalties based on objective provisions; but the implementation is completely different, which appears dogmatic and ignores common sense.
Newcastle center Carroll, who made the penalty kick, posted a "pencil jump" funny picture on social media, jokingly called avoiding the ball hitter, Premier League defenders may have to practice this kind of arm-clamping action.
Let's look at Dell's handball again. The ball is behind him, and his arms are naturally opened during the take-off process. There is no subjective intention to block the ball with his hand. But under the new rules that do not judge by intent, this action made Dell's body unnaturally expand, in line with the "consequence theory" foul conditions, so the referee finally made a penalty kick.
Although it conforms to the rules, such actions will be sentenced to handball, which is really not in line with people's perception. The famous Sutton complained that Dell's "crime" was not having long eyes in the back of his head. Many players and coaches have also mentioned this situation: Is it possible to cut the hand?
Let's look at a typical case in the Premier League last season: Wolves Dendon Kerr's header was placed in the hands of teammate Boli, then the ball fell, and Dundon Kerr followed and scored again. Even the Leicester City players who lost the ball did not raise any objections.
The result was replayed by VAR. Boli’s unintentional handball played a role in helping Dendon Kerr to stop the ball, so it was a handball foul under the new rules. However, Boli jumped up with Dendon Kerr to grab some points. His hands were there. It was impossible to realize that he was going to dodge the ball. To be honest, he couldn't avoid it. Is this all blown off? Yes, unless you saw off Boli's hands.
结果由VAR重播。玻利的无意识手球在帮助登登克（Dendon Kerr）停球方面发挥了作用，因此在新规则下这是手球犯规。然而，博利跳起来与登登·科尔（Dendon Kerr）取得了一些积分。他的手在那里。不可能意识到他要躲闪球。老实说，他无法避免。这一切都吹走了吗？是的，除非您看见玻利的手。
In the discussion of "saw hands off", you can see the spirit of the new handball regulations that makes players and coaches extremely dissatisfied-you are unlucky. This is why even if Newcastle has gained this time, the Bruce coach has bluntly said he wants to resist this new rule.
Just like Dell’s ball, even if he didn’t have any intention to block the ball with his hands, as long as he jumped up and the ball came behind him, he would have no choice but to let his fate: as long as the ball ejected by Carroll hits his hand, it’s Penalty kick. Another example is Boli's ball. If Dendon Kerr puts the ball on his face for the first time, it will be fine, on his arm? Sorry, you should be unlucky.
The problem is that many penalties involving handball are directly related to whether the penalty or goal is valid. How can you just "calculate your luck"? Needless to say, how much impact a penalty can have on the trajectory of the game.
Crystal Palace coach Hodgson said: "I don't want to profit from it or lose because of it. But there is no doubt that this is killing the football game. I can predict what will happen: people will kick the ball into the opponent's hands and then shout Handball."
The famous Sutton holds the same view: Is there anything to prevent forwards from deliberately kicking the ball into the opponent's arm to get an easy penalty? They will think that they can use this absurd rule to gain benefits. Aiming at the arm to kick, and then get the penalty.
Mentioned deliberately kicking the ball into the opponent's arm. Many people will think of the penalty made by Robert Baggio in the 1998 World Cup, which also helped Italy tie the score before the end. Actively pass to the opponent's arm? This is really feasible.
Of course, it’s never easy to actually kick in deliberately, and it’s impossible for a player to attack a defender. But if you encounter a situation like Baggio, when there is no good chance, should you give it a try? There is no price anyway.
Look at the penalty kick that Crystal Palace was sentenced to last weekend. Ward, who didn't have subjective intentions, turned out to be unlucky. From the perspective of the development of this ball, if Digne really wants to deliberately put the ball on Ward's hand, not to mention that a hit must be hit, at least there is room for manipulation.
This is not the same as what people usually call "find a penalty." Like the ball that Vardy was knocked down by Walker, the former is indeed exaggerated, but the latter does have actions on his hands, which gives Vardy an opportunity-this kind of luck is completely different from the bad luck under the new rules of handball. Yes, why did Ward give you a chance? The result was a penalty kick.
Former Premier League defender Higginbosham complained: “One day, this will cause forwards to consciously use the ball to play as a tactic. When that day comes, football will be over.”
In the discussion of the new rules of handball, whether it is players, coaches, celebrities or referees will mention a word-the new rules are not clear. What this ambiguity brings about is the inconsistency of implementation standards, which further exacerbates the chaos.
Famous whistle Kratenberg believes that Lindelof’s handball in the picture above should not be awarded a penalty because his arm is in a natural state of running. Compared with whether to judge a point, it is more important for the official to give a clear explanation and explanation: you have to explain to the coach and the players clearly which handball will cause a penalty. Otherwise, the confused state will always continue.
In this regard, VAR does not play a very good auxiliary role, on the contrary, it seems to be more helpful.
The timing of the intervention of VAR itself has caused a lot of controversy. The legend Lineker also pointed out the issue of playback speed, saying that if you watch handball in super slow motion and normal speed, this is a completely different concept.
To put it bluntly, in the definition of some problems, even the "objective" new rules cannot give clear standards. The ambiguity of the intentional/unintentional era is still very likely to happen today. VAR is called "video assistant", but if there are different standards, or the referee and VAR are not working smoothly, it may cause further confusion.
There is another point here, that is, people's "natural knowledge" or "common sense" of football. In the intentional/unintentional era, people basically have a set of concepts about whether the opponent ball is intentional. Although there will be some ambiguities, the referee uses this set of common sense as the standard to implement it, saying that you are intentional, and that you are not intentional. In fact, there are not too many ills caused by "subjectivity."
But the new handball rules actually remove this "natural cognition", and VAR is actually an auxiliary method that somewhat affects the referee's own discretion. Both work at the same time, and it is not surprising that the seemingly objective new rules have become extremely chaotic. It is possible that even the referees themselves are at a loss - they originally had the ability and power to make active judgments, but they have now been taken away.
Judging from the current implementation, the new rules may not be clearer than the original intentional/unintentional criteria, and the possibility of different standards is still very high. The starting point of the rule modification can be understood, but at least for now, it is not clearer than the intentional/unintentional judgment method, and it is even more unreasonable and dogmatic.
As Higginbosham said: "We have to be a little bit common sense. I know they want to simplify the rules, but now it makes the situation more complicated. As a defender, when an offensive player enters the penalty area, my first One idea is how to defend; but now, the guards must consider where their hands are. This is not right."
"What is an unnatural posture? It is unnatural if the guard has to put his hands behind his back."
（新浪体育 华迪维亚 专栏）
（新浪体育 华迪维亚 专栏）