And to add further, I also tried a couple of jumps akin to Payne's, with my left arm fully extended. Really awkward - my body's being pulled too far to the left, and I have little control over my shoulder and neck muscles, making it difficult to connect with the imaginary ball.
Permalink
Permalink
I am prepared to conceed defeat purely because I managed to get you jumping round the office like a muppet 
My work here is done!
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
�
This we can all agree on.
Well, if you have a camera handy, I'll do it all over again, just for you.
Permalink
Permalink
I am prepared to conceed defeat purely because I managed to get you jumping round the office like a muppet
�
�
My work here is done!
Well played sir.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm getting a certified doctors certificate that I have a natural sporatic swinging arm movement
ps El Grap - you should be locked up
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
Id argue that most handballs are from a natural movement though. It is pretty shocking that a referee can see a player handle the ball into the goal (intentionally or not),and not call a handball. Perhaps the rule needs to rely less on a dodgy interpretation,and should be reworded to be more clear.
If his arm was out to balance himself, which i think is certainly arguable, then it's not hand ball.
You aren't allowed to "run around with your arms spread wide" because it is something you are doing unnaturally (DELIBERATELY) and so if the ball hits your hands then you've deliberately handled it.
In your jumping example, if the movement of arms up in the air was a natural consequence of your jumping movement and the ball hit your hand then it wouldn't be a hand ball.
Whether you got an advantage from that or not doesn't matter.
A lot of referees go with the interpretation that if it extends to make your body bigger,then it is deemed handball. The referee on saturday could well have taken this interpretation,and it certainly would have been more in line with the spirit of the rule. But you are also right at the same time,other referees do lean more toward the other interpretation and are a bit more lenient with their handball calls. I just think in the circumstance,it should have been a handball.
You could change the rules to make it more clear and consistent. But interpretation does give referees a certain flexibility to make their own ruling in tricky situations,so there is certainly an advantage there too.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
I'm getting a certified doctors certificate that I have a natural sporatic swinging arm movement
That's your love life pal.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
Id argue that most handballs are from a natural movement though. It is pretty shocking that a referee can see a player handle the ball into the goal (intentionally or not),and not call a handball. Perhaps the rule needs to rely less on a dodgy interpretation,and should be reworded to be more clear.
If his arm was out to balance himself, which i think is certainly arguable, then it's not hand ball.
You aren't allowed to "run around with your arms spread wide" because it is something you are doing unnaturally (DELIBERATELY) and so if the ball hits your hands then you've deliberately handled it.
In your jumping example, if the movement of arms up in the air was a natural consequence of your jumping movement and the ball hit your hand then it wouldn't be a hand ball.
Whether you got an advantage from that or not doesn't matter.
A lot of referees go with the interpretation that if it extends to make your body bigger,then it is deemed handball. The referee on saturday could well have taken this interpretation,and it certainly would have been more in line with the spirit of the rule. But you are also right at the same time,other referees do lean more toward the other interpretation and are a bit more lenient with their handball calls. I just think in the circumstance,it should have been a handball.
You could change the rules to make it more clear and consistent. But interpretation does give referees a certain flexibility to make their own ruling in tricky situations,so there is certainly an advantage there too.
I think it was a hand ball too. I just think it's a borderline call and I can understand how the referee ruled it was not deliberate and therefore play on.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Anyway,thats me done. There are arguments both ways,and both are right in their own way,so carrying on will only see us go in circles. 
Looking forward to angst.
Looking forward to angst.Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Look Guys Payne is just a Rugby wannable with the swinging arm movement. That is, he totally abnormal so his medical certificate will be reading "suffers from an abnormal asporatic swinging arm movement that is akin to Rugby players head high tackles and Football cheating handball goal"
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
I'll eat my sunday hat if there's more than a handful of referee's on earth who actually play by that consistently.
The wording of the law, though, is iffy.
loyalgunner2010-03-16 15:37:12I'll eat my sunday hat if there's more than a handful of referee's on earth who actually play by that consistently.
The wording of the law, though, is iffy.
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
Id argue that most handballs are from a natural movement though. It is pretty shocking that a referee can see a player handle the ball into the goal (intentionally or not),and not call a handball. Perhaps the rule needs to rely less on a dodgy interpretation,and should be reworded to be more clear.
If his arm was out to balance himself, which i think is certainly arguable, then it's not hand ball.
You aren't allowed to "run around with your arms spread wide" because it is something you are doing unnaturally (DELIBERATELY) and so if the ball hits your hands then you've deliberately handled it.
In your jumping example, if the movement of arms up in the air was a natural consequence of your jumping movement and the ball hit your hand then it wouldn't be a hand ball.
Whether you got an advantage from that or not doesn't matter.
A lot of referees go with the interpretation that if it extends to make your body bigger,then it is deemed handball. The referee on saturday could well have taken this interpretation,and it certainly would have been more in line with the spirit of the rule. But you are also right at the same time,other referees do lean more toward the other interpretation and are a bit more lenient with their handball calls. I just think in the circumstance,it should have been a handball.
You could change the rules to make it more clear and consistent. But interpretation does give referees a certain flexibility to make their own ruling in tricky situations,so there is certainly an advantage there too.
I think it was a hand ball too. I just think it's a borderline call and I can understand how the referee ruled it was not deliberate and therefore play on.
he didnt see it
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
I'm getting a certified doctors certificate that I have a natural sporatic swinging arm movement
That's your love life pal.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
james dean2010-03-16 23:03:43Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/3455503/Reaction-surprises-Sydney-handball-goalscorer
A 19 year old who has no idea of the fallout and the gravity of his actions on other players and people. Sound like very typical teenager. Not too similar to Wynton Rufer when he finished the All Whites game against the Kuwait back in 1981. Teenagers have no idea at all. . . . . still a cheat though.
Reaction surprises Sydney handball goalscorer
By MICHAEL COCKERILL - SMH Last updated 07:50 16/03/2010
Chris Payne is surprised by the strength of the reaction to his controversial handball goal against the Wellington Phoenix in Saturday night's A-League preliminary final.
''Obviously it was a big game, but it's definitely surprised me how much attention the goal has got,'' he said.
''The cheating thing, it's a bit of a shock, because I'm not like that at all. The full intention was to head the ball, it just happened to come off my arm.''
Did accusations of cheating hurt?
''You only worry about yourself, not what others think,'' he said.
''Everyone will have their opinion, I just blank it out.''
The 19-year-old is more concerned about sorting out his professional future.
Sydney FC are hoping to keep hold of him but face a battle for his signature from his home-town club, Central Coast Mariners.
Payne has been a regular bench-warmer for the Sky Blues, playing just 413 minutes so far this season, but he snatched his chance after John Aloisi went off with a season-ending injury last weekend - albeit with the help of the goal that came off his arm.
Payne is now in pole position to start against Melbourne Victory in the grand final, and it seems the club is warming to the prospect of keeping him on the books.
''We're interested in retaining him and we're hoping to progress the talks over the coming days and weeks,'' said vice-chairman, Scott Barlow. '''Vitja' [coach Vitezslav Lavicka] has had some initial discussions, and believes he's a player who's got potential and room for growth.''
Asked if that translated into a contract offer, Barlow conceded: ''No, not yet.''
Payne last night said he was keen to sort out his future, as his contract expires at the end of the month.
''It's hard training and playing without knowing what the future is, so I am getting a bit toey, actually,'' Payne said. ''I haven't been offered anything, I'm still waiting for the club to come up with something.
''You hope something will come out of it when you train hard and play, but we'll have to wait and see.''
Sydney might have to move quickly as the Mariners are known to be interested in bringing him back to the Central Coast, where he played for Umina in the junior ranks before moving to NSW Premier League side Manly United. With Manly United coach Phil Moss set to become Graham Arnold's assistant at Bluetongue Stadium next season, the Mariners will have an even stronger case to get him on board.
Meanwhile, Sydney's reserve goalkeeper Ivan Necevski has signed a new one-year year with the club. Necevski, 30, has not played a match this year after first-choice stopper Clint Bolton cemented his position.
Necevski may have better luck next year when Bolton moves to Melbourne Heart, but the Sky Blues have already agreed to a three-year deal with Wellington Phoenix glovesman Liam Reddy.
By MICHAEL COCKERILL - SMH Last updated 07:50 16/03/2010
Chris Payne is surprised by the strength of the reaction to his controversial handball goal against the Wellington Phoenix in Saturday night's A-League preliminary final.
''Obviously it was a big game, but it's definitely surprised me how much attention the goal has got,'' he said.
''The cheating thing, it's a bit of a shock, because I'm not like that at all. The full intention was to head the ball, it just happened to come off my arm.''
Did accusations of cheating hurt?
''You only worry about yourself, not what others think,'' he said.
''Everyone will have their opinion, I just blank it out.''
The 19-year-old is more concerned about sorting out his professional future.
Sydney FC are hoping to keep hold of him but face a battle for his signature from his home-town club, Central Coast Mariners.
Payne has been a regular bench-warmer for the Sky Blues, playing just 413 minutes so far this season, but he snatched his chance after John Aloisi went off with a season-ending injury last weekend - albeit with the help of the goal that came off his arm.
Payne is now in pole position to start against Melbourne Victory in the grand final, and it seems the club is warming to the prospect of keeping him on the books.
''We're interested in retaining him and we're hoping to progress the talks over the coming days and weeks,'' said vice-chairman, Scott Barlow. '''Vitja' [coach Vitezslav Lavicka] has had some initial discussions, and believes he's a player who's got potential and room for growth.''
Asked if that translated into a contract offer, Barlow conceded: ''No, not yet.''
Payne last night said he was keen to sort out his future, as his contract expires at the end of the month.
''It's hard training and playing without knowing what the future is, so I am getting a bit toey, actually,'' Payne said. ''I haven't been offered anything, I'm still waiting for the club to come up with something.
''You hope something will come out of it when you train hard and play, but we'll have to wait and see.''
Sydney might have to move quickly as the Mariners are known to be interested in bringing him back to the Central Coast, where he played for Umina in the junior ranks before moving to NSW Premier League side Manly United. With Manly United coach Phil Moss set to become Graham Arnold's assistant at Bluetongue Stadium next season, the Mariners will have an even stronger case to get him on board.
Meanwhile, Sydney's reserve goalkeeper Ivan Necevski has signed a new one-year year with the club. Necevski, 30, has not played a match this year after first-choice stopper Clint Bolton cemented his position.
Necevski may have better luck next year when Bolton moves to Melbourne Heart, but the Sky Blues have already agreed to a three-year deal with Wellington Phoenix glovesman Liam Reddy.
A 19 year old who has no idea of the fallout and the gravity of his actions on other players and people. Sound like very typical teenager. Not too similar to Wynton Rufer when he finished the All Whites game against the Kuwait back in 1981. Teenagers have no idea at all. . . . . still a cheat though.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
The problem is that the laws state in no uncertain terms that accidental handball is not a foul, so the focus has to be on the interpretation of intent as the basis of disallowing the goal - even if we don't like it.
As I remarked elsewhere, that very subject was the subject of a row in a AFC or Concacaf match a few years ago - can't remember if it was an international confederation match or club comp. There was a goal that clearly came off the hand, but in this case there was no question - it was completely accidental. Hence, the goal stood.
The head of the aggrieved confed wanted a rule change to say a handball goal should be disallowed regardless of intent. After the initial fuss, I didn't see any more news on the subject and it seems to have been dropped as an idea.
Permalink
Permalink
Handball goal should not be allow even if it is accidental because it was scored from an illegitimate part of the body especially when it was in an outstretch fashion. It should be common sense, but the rules and interpretation is not.AllWhitebelievr2010-03-17 14:08:56
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
Agree with your first point - it's crazy that a goal scored with the hand could be legal. But rules are rules.
As Greenie alludes to above though people are saying that the ref first said he didn't see the hand ball, but then miraculously at half time he said it was not deliberate.
I guess if he didn't see it he didn't see it. Maybe from where he was it looked like a headed goal.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Agreed. My thoughts are, even if it is completelt accidental, if an advantage is gained it should be handball, end of story!
Hmmm, so I'm standing on the edge of my penalty area and you smash the ball from a yard away and it hits my arm, that's hanging by my side. The ball was heading into goal.
You reckon definite hand ball?
I don't agree.
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
Id argue that most handballs are from a natural movement though. It is pretty shocking that a referee can see a player handle the ball into the goal (intentionally or not),and not call a handball. Perhaps the rule needs to rely less on a dodgy interpretation,and should be reworded to be more clear.
If his arm was out to balance himself, which i think is certainly arguable, then it's not hand ball.
You aren't allowed to "run around with your arms spread wide" because it is something you are doing unnaturally (DELIBERATELY) and so if the ball hits your hands then you've deliberately handled it.
In your jumping example, if the movement of arms up in the air was a natural consequence of your jumping movement and the ball hit your hand then it wouldn't be a hand ball.
Whether you got an advantage from that or not doesn't matter.
A lot of referees go with the interpretation that if it extends to make your body bigger,then it is deemed handball. The referee on saturday could well have taken this interpretation,and it certainly would have been more in line with the spirit of the rule. But you are also right at the same time,other referees do lean more toward the other interpretation and are a bit more lenient with their handball calls. I just think in the circumstance,it should have been a handball.
You could change the rules to make it more clear and consistent. But interpretation does give referees a certain flexibility to make their own ruling in tricky situations,so there is certainly an advantage there too.
I think it was a hand ball too. I just think it's a borderline call and I can understand how the referee ruled it was not deliberate and therefore play on.
he didnt see it
According to our captain, he asked the ref why the goal was allowed and the ref had replied to Durante that "it was ball to hand, not hand to ball so it will stand" which indicates he did see it
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
Agree with your first point - it's crazy that a goal scored with the hand could be legal. But rules are rules.
My riposte to that would be that for a referee to rule that GOAL scored from the hand (as opposed to a hand ball elsewhere) was not deliberate the standard that you use to make that call would have to be far higher than any other hand ball decision on the pitch, and I'm afraid I can't accept that this fits this case.
If he didn't see it he didn't see it (although he should have)
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
As already explained several times Tegal, if it's a natural movement it is not hand ball.
Id argue that most handballs are from a natural movement though. It is pretty shocking that a referee can see a player handle the ball into the goal (intentionally or not),and not call a handball. Perhaps the rule needs to rely less on a dodgy interpretation,and should be reworded to be more clear.
If his arm was out to balance himself, which i think is certainly arguable, then it's not hand ball.
You aren't allowed to "run around with your arms spread wide" because it is something you are doing unnaturally (DELIBERATELY) and so if the ball hits your hands then you've deliberately handled it.
In your jumping example, if the movement of arms up in the air was a natural consequence of your jumping movement and the ball hit your hand then it wouldn't be a hand ball.
Whether you got an advantage from that or not doesn't matter.
A lot of referees go with the interpretation that if it extends to make your body bigger,then it is deemed handball. The referee on saturday could well have taken this interpretation,and it certainly would have been more in line with the spirit of the rule. But you are also right at the same time,other referees do lean more toward the other interpretation and are a bit more lenient with their handball calls. I just think in the circumstance,it should have been a handball.
You could change the rules to make it more clear and consistent. But interpretation does give referees a certain flexibility to make their own ruling in tricky situations,so there is certainly an advantage there too.
I think it was a hand ball too. I just think it's a borderline call and I can understand how the referee ruled it was not deliberate and therefore play on.
he didnt see it
According to our captain, he asked the ref why the goal was allowed and the ref had replied to Durante that "it was ball to hand, not hand to ball so it will stand" which indicates he did see it
But our captain also said that was what the ref said at half time and that at the time of the incident, the ref said he didn't see it.... which doesn't help us know what the ref saw or not. Personally, I don't think the ref saw it. While Smithy and some disagree, or at least do not necessarily agree, I can't see how anyone who saw it could apply the interpretation guidelines and conclude it as anything other than deliberate.
Permalink
Permalink
I'm afraid that I can't ever accept that a goal scored with the hand could EVER be legal, no matter what interpretation of the rules you go for. In fact, it's not really a rule issue, in my mind it's just so obvious and what made me even more mad is that the referee didn't make what was the easy decision (probably accidental contact but it was still a goal so rule it out) and takes a completely impractical view of the rules that ignores the way football is played. Whether Payne is or isn't a cheat doesn't matter to me, heaps of people cheat on the field all the time. I'm sure if you asked 100 refs 99 would say no goal so in my view it's just really poor refereeing, no matter what the rules say
Agree with your first point - it's crazy that a goal scored with the hand could be legal. But rules are rules.
My riposte to that would be that for a referee to rule that GOAL scored from the hand (as opposed to a hand ball elsewhere) was not deliberate the standard that you use to make that call would have to be far higher than any other hand ball decision on the pitch, and I'm afraid I can't accept that this fits this case.
If he didn't see it he didn't see it (although he should have)
But that's no real riposte to the statement "rules are rules" as there is no such requirement given in the laws of the game.
It's a mismatched discussion really. You're arguing for what should be in the laws but isn't and getting back what is actually there. Hey ho. Round 2 anyone?
Permalink
Permalink
Id still argue that some sort of common sense interpretation to the rule should be applied. And make no mistake,the rule is perfectly open to interpretation to allow for different instances.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
No what I am saying is that the rules require interpretation of what is deliberate and when interpreting whether a hand ball goal should stand, the referee needs to use a very high standard to make that sssessment.
Put it this way, do you think that anyone from Sydney or elsewhere would be arguing now that the goal should have been allowed if it had been disallowed for hand ball?
This is the problem with refereeing today, everyone hides behind the rules instead of allowing the referee to use common sense
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
So it is round two, where everyone gets to repeat what has been said already? Okay.
Should be in the laws versus what is in the laws.....go.All this of course assumes the ref sees the incident in the first place. What is actually in the laws gave the ref enough of a basis to disallow the goal as there was plenty of room to match Payne's actions to the guidelines covering intent. Hence, my belief that what the ref originally said to Durante was accurate: he didn't see it.
Permalink
Permalink
Well I think everyone agrees that he cant call something he didnt see. The disagreement is if he did see it.
A common sense interpretation is surely the way to go.
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
This is getting ridiculous. We will be claiming that Maradona's first goal in 86 ( not the sublime 2nd) was accidental as he was using his arm to propel his body upwards. The 'balance' argument used in Payne's defence is risible as he clearly moves his arm in a deliberate manner to meet the ball, AND follows through to create the force which propels it into the ROOF of the net. Had it simply hit his arm it would not have taken that trajectory.
Permalink
Permalink
saw the replay for the first time last night (had only seen the still before and listened to Smiths rant) and it was definitely deliberate in my opinion.
Founder
Permalink
Permalink
This is getting ridiculous. We will be claiming that Maradona's first goal in 86 ( not the sublime 2nd) was accidental as he was using his arm to propel his body upwards. The 'balance' argument used in Payne's defence is risible as he clearly moves his arm in a deliberate manner to meet the ball, AND follows through to create the force which propels it into the ROOF of the net. Had it simply hit his arm it would not have taken that trajectory.
This is exactly how I feel. The way the ball comes off his arm indicates to me there was intentional force involved.
Meh, I'm over it anyway. It's disappointing, but that's football. What the incident has done for me is strengthen my support for the team and given me a team to hate, which in football is as important as having a team to love!
Permalink
Permalink
Interestingly he is trying to stick the ball in with his left foot, you can see he half attempts this but realises he isn't going to make contact, so begins to move the left arm from it's natural position (for a left foot kick) extended behind the body ( or at least at the side of the body) into the forward extended position, to power the ball into the net. In fact the 'attempted header' aspect is really used to mask the true extent of the arm flexion
It's the attempted use of the left foot that really gives him away. Any doubts, try kicking the ball with the left foot with the left arm fully extended in the forward position towards chest height..
Permalink
Permalink
Anything looks deliberate in slow motion...
Allegedly
Permalink
Permalink
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
IBTL
You know we belong together...
Permalink
Permalink
This is the problem with refereeing today, everyone hides behind the rules instead of allowing the referee to use common sense
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink