Interesting re-write for July.

I agree, it needs to be simple/clear. Especially now with VAR...there is no reason not to have a clear definition.

Is the part about the goalie scoring on the opponent's goal via hand addressing the unlikely scenario where the keeper throws it all the way across the pitch into the other goal?

JCRiley09 said:

---

Is the part about the goalie scoring on the opponent's goal via hand addressing the unlikely scenario where the keeper throws it all the way across the pitch into the other goal?

---

It's not part of the law change.

KCup17 said:

---

Almost all the discussion, that I have seen, around the rule has to do with the natural positioning of the arm and not with the arm being a part of the silhouette. If the arm is in line or alongside the body it is usually never given as a handball.

Last night for instance that was a natural position of the arm (in my biased opinion) and wasn't an attempt to make his body larger. In other leagues I've seen refs not give that as a handball. The problem is that what is "natural" is up to interpretation to each ref which means we are almost never going to see uniformity in how the rule is applied.

---

The current law is unnaturally larger. So, anything but hands by your side to some is unnaturally larger.
The clarification is that you can make yourself bigger as long as it's a motion for your action, but they add the caveat you are at risk.

So for last night, if his arm isn't pinned by his side, it's "unnaturally larger" by many's interpretation.

Just know that it's called differently by all officials.

Yes the goalkeeper cannot score by throwing it into the other teams goal. I dont think that had been addressed (probably because its all but impossible in a game on a realistic sized field) until the handball rules were changed a couple years ago.

Dang that's tricky. So even if its a natural motion and your arm is outside the silhouette of your body it is considered unnaturally bigger?

The better change would be making handling an IFK, unless deemed deliberate.

Still have the debate about accidental but it certainly lessens the situation.

KCup17 said:

---

Dang that's tricky. So even if its a natural motion and your arm is outside the silhouette of your body it is considered unnaturally bigger?

---

Some today call it that way. But starting in July it's not supposed to be, BUT it a risk to have your hand/arm up.

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;

So basically, it's still 100% up to the referee to decide if the hand is up is a consequence of the risk.

So jumping and using your arms to get more height, and swinging them up. Is that a natural or unnatural action? Some referees it is. Others it's not.

Aston94 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Kevin the 3-legged dog said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Mexico's penalty was correct by the new handball rules. The handball rule is a lot like "targeting" in football where there are a ****load of indicators that have to be factored in any one of which makes it a handball, and so it confuses the hell out of everyone because the dumb jocks that become analysts can only understand one concept at a time in their brain so they dont understand it and cant explain it.

Its always a handball if it hits your arm when your arm is outside the "body line". Always. No intent required, no consideration of accidental or unaccidental. The only exception I believe is that your arm is considered inside your body line if its extending under you to the ground as support when you're going to the ground.

The "accidental" handball does still exist, but only for attacking players, and its still a handball if it leads to a goal accidental or not.

---

Well, that's going to be clarified again July 1, so good luck with that.

Honestly, the video was so bad I couldn't see **** to make a call.

---

It hit his arm and his arm was outside of his body line. It seemed pretty clear to me.

The commentators in typical fashion continued talking about natural and unnatural positions and other factors that are obsolete (or not yet put back into consideration).

---

They have absolutely ruined the handball ruling in my opinion. Whatever the state of the rule, the touching of the ball by the players hand like that in last night's game should not result in a penalty.

Having your hand by your side and the player right next to you heading the ball down so it clips your hand should not result in a pk, in my opinion.

Was it the right call based on the current rule? Probably. Should the rule be drafted in a way where that is a pk? No.

The point of handball in the first place is you aren't supposed to use your hands to create an advantage, not to force players to walk around with their hands behind them at all times.

---

Agreed.

I'm sure all the Mexican fans will be good now.

From the Mexican federation on fan behavior… pic.twitter.com/U2K4pgsP5i

— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) June 7, 2021

oragator said:

---

I'm sure all the Mexican fans will be good now.

From the Mexican federation on fan behavior… pic.twitter.com/U2K4pgsP5i

— Steven Goff (@SoccerInsider) June 7, 2021

---

Well **** maybe FIFA did threaten them

What's the chant?

awall11 said:

---

TRM said:

---

Honestly, I don't think CONCACAF cares about the chant, but when you have the players getting pelted, they're going to lose a ton on ticket sales if the big stars sit because ofsafety concerns.

---

This is my thing. I care way more about the throwing of trash/projectiles on the field than I do a chant. That nonsense should be dealt with harshly. Because it's not an isolated incident, it's par for the course

---

And just imagine what it will be like at Azteca

txam92 said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Their academy is producing some incredible talent, though it's also interesting that most of it has had little impact on their first team in league play.

Cannon and Reynolds are the only ones with significant appearances, and that's including less than a full season for Reynolds.

---

That's because FCD cares about development first and sale of that talent second. Winning any trophies is a distant third at best. They openly boast in press conferences about their identity as a selling club.

---

Nothing wrong with being a selling club, and its a myth that they dont spend. The issue is the front office is atrocious at identifying talent to spend money on foreign players. Just about every single signing but a handful have flopped in MLS, and basically no attacking talent signed that succeeded.

siddown edson pic.twitter.com/ga9fgkNrjR

— Matthew Doyle (@MattDoyle76) June 7, 2021

Looks like Sargent ran himself out of the play. He could've peeled back and gave Dest a target and a clean shot at goal.

With Dest overlapping Pulisic with the ball and going deep and wide, Sargent is running at the front post and Reyna is attacking the back post. Pulisic is trailing and arriving at the top of the 18. All three are providing options and hoping for some good service from Dest. You have to keep making those runs and giving your team numbers and chances to be dangerous. I don't know if Sargent peeling back gives Dest a path to go all the way to goal. Mexico's back line is there and stays compact as they should; Dest likely still needs options to combine with someone to create a good scoring opportunity. I love the run by Dest though. Keep attacking!

oh no said:

---

With Dest overlapping Pulisic with the ball and going deep and wide, Sargent is running at the front post and Reyna is attacking the back post. Pulisic is trailing and arriving at the top of the 18. All three are providing options and hoping for some good service from Dest. You have to keep making those runs and giving your team numbers and chances to be dangerous. I don't know if Sargent peeling back gives Dest a path to go all the way to goal. Mexico's back line is there and stays compact as they should; Dest likely still needs options to combine with someone to create a good scoring opportunity. I love the run by Dest though. Keep attacking!

---

Agree, Sargent making the hard run to the front post is an option if Dest hits the cross.

If you look at the 9 second mark of the clip if Sargent stops his run (no way going to the near post is going to afford him any shot on goal given the Mexican defender is going to beat him to the spot), there's a clear lane for Dest to slip him the ball with a clean shot on goal.

Is Pulisic late getting there?

I don't know. I think if Sargent stops his run, it takes away the option at the top of the 18.. his run to front post needs to be right around the 6 yard box. If he had gotten good service and scored with a glancing header, no one would question the run. I don't think Pulisic is late necessarily either. It's not like he started the run later than he could have or was loafing or jogging on the attack. The right ball there from Dest and Pulisic is running up to the ball with a shot. Good run by Dest, good recovery run and recovery tackle by Mexico. Just keep making those types of attacking runs and good things will come.

Sargent running to the front post opens that passing lane to Pulisic a better ball by Dest and Pulisic is putting a shot on goal.

KCup17 said:

---

Sargent running to the front post opens that passing lane to Pulisic a better ball by Dest and Pulisic is putting a shot on goal.

---

which is why I have been defending Sargent's run and said this:

Quote:

---

The right ball there from Dest and Pulisic is running up to the ball with a shot.

---

I wasn't disagreeing with you just responding to the last comment in the thread of replies on the subject

The last thing you want is your strikers not making decisive movements in the box. It's actually something he has really improved at this year, and still has plenty of room to improve. I think he needs to move to a team with more attacking ability, though. For that reason.

Pulisic is an example of a player that has really learned to arrive in the box with purpose, over the last year.

There are times where checking back is the right play as well, I just dont think this was one of them.