I don't understand the problem, the ball hits his arm in the box. Penalty. If the ball had't hit his arm, it would have ended up somewhere else. Therefore the use of the arm has directly affected the game. How on earth can you say that that isn't a penalty? It is course annoying for the offending player, as it was an accident, but i can't believe that no pundits (that i have heard) have backed ther referee.

From Manchester with love

I think that's the problem there. Accidental handball is not always handball

Personally, i think handball is always handball, otherwise it just gets left to the referee's interpretation. If it was made clear that when the ball strikes a players hand, maybe with the exception of protecting their face (which would be open to interpretation i know) then you wouldn't have the controversy. The use of hands is illegal for outfield players, it is impossible to use them without changing play, what's the problem?

From Manchester with love

The trouble with that is that it could lead to a situation where the attacking team are just hoofing the ball at defenders in the box knowing that if it hits one of their hands they'll get a penalty. At least with the current ruling there is supposed to be intent shown to handle the ball, or at least no effort made to avoid contact. I know it's open to interpretation but I still feel it's a better option than a straight "any ball-hand contact" is deemed illegal.

Ok it's not a perfect solution i know, but i don't think it should be decided on whether player make no effort to move their hand. I just think that as use of hands is illegal, there would have to be a very good reason for it not being given, and ball-to-hand to me isn't a good one.

From Manchester with love

as they are professional footballers: chop their hands/arms off. problem solved for you, Squidgy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop being dandy, showing me you're handsome!

From Manchester with love

handball deemed intentional = penalty

ball striking the hand unintentionally but in a way that alters the path of the ball to the detriment of the attacking team = indirect free kick (maybe to be taken a minimum of 10 yards out).

There would be no advantage in deliberately aiming for a defender's hand, yet reflects the fact that the defender has gained an advantage via their hand/arm, which they are not allowed to do. 

On the other hand, maybe it's just better to leave things as they are and accept that hitting someone's hand/arm is a natural hazard of the sport, as with the ball hitting the ref/corner flag/balloons   Sometimes things just get in the way and it's not the defender's fault that the ball was hit towards their arm.

Keeper of the heretic's fork of doom.

You don't seem very pleased Squidler...

I think these little inconsistancies are part of what make football such an enjoyable sport. It's frustrating in places, and they don't necessarily even themselves out, but I don't like the idea of having decisions made mechanically.
I don't see how handball can always be handball. If it's done deliberately to move the ball away, then of course it is, but if a defender puts in a block tackle, say, and in order to do that he needs to quickly generate momentum to throw himself in the way of the ball then it's difficult to do that without using his hands.

That is the best suggestion about a change to the rules of football that I have ever heard. Ladmonkey, you are a genius. ...for a girl.

Yes, all right.. Christ Almighty! It's like walking down