30 Aug 2026 22:00:02
Go on then I will poke the bear as I like a good heated debat.
Maguire handball.
1. Is the letter of the law fair? He clearly got an advantage and had he scored it would likely be scrubbed.
2. Should the letter of the law be changed to include a subsequent own goal?
30 Aug 2026 23:07:06
Laws are an absolute joke. It's a handball all day and I'd be raging if that happened against us. Just clear it up and make things simple. Too many caveats are making things difficult for refs and fans.
30 Aug 2026 23:07:08
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to be on the right side of a b******* call for once.
But let's be honest, at best they found some odd loophole that shouldn't be within the rules, and common sense would ignore.
Yes, it was accidental, and therefore not a yellow card, but the ball fell just right for him to have a shot which ended up in the back of the net.
A couple of the Ipswich players also stopped, assuming the Ref would blow the whistle for handball. Which they shouldn't have done, as you play to the whistle, yet that also probably played into the goal.
30 Aug 2026 23:42:39
Didn't it happen to us in an FA Cup game against Middlesbrough a few years back, that we lost on penalties. In the build up there was a handball, but the goal stood.
31 Aug 2026 01:53:55
The rule is correct. Goal stands. Move on.
The rule came in because VAR was going back multiple plays and chalking off goals for accidental handball because an advantage had been gained. But the ref deemed it non-intentional and had played on, only for VAR to go back and say it led to a goal.
31 Aug 2026 05:15:16
If it was multiple plays, then yes, I agree. I am not disagreeing with the letter of the law, but that was clearly an advantage gained in the same phase.
Happy to take the goal, but that was a pretty poor outcome, in my very humble opinion.
31 Aug 2026 07:23:31
Thank goodness Harry doesn't know how to shoot on target.
31 Aug 2026 08:55:12
Although the letter of the law led to the correct decision, we would be livid if that stood against us. Seems ridiculous to me. But hey ho, the title charge is on.
31 Aug 2026 09:18:25
The rule/law is stupid.
But I would not be livid if it happened against us because the law is crystal clear.
I don't agree with it, but there is lots I don't agree with.
Again, a pretty good weekend across all the games for refs not being centre of attention.
We need to be better next week, as Everton will be all action and effort.
31 Aug 2026 09:25:42
Only three points off the top of the league.
31 Aug 2026 09:40:09
Or, as Fallguy would say, only 3 points off the bottom.
31 Aug 2026 10:00:47
As people say, the rules are the rules. The real problems come when rules aren't clear or are open to interpretation, as that leads to inconsistent application of those rules. As long as other similar incidents have the same outcome, and the same process is applied, then we are simply the first to benefit from the rewriting of the rule.
However, ultimately rules are in place to ensure not only structure, but a level of fairness. If the rules don't seem fair then maybe they need to be looked at and potentially adjusted.
While that decision yesterday was within the letter of the law, I'm not convinced it was a fair decision. The rule is in place to stop VAR going back several actions and ruling out goals for accidental handball. There were several opportunities to interject and stop a goal from a potential unfair advantage.
There is a world of difference between an accidental handball near the halfway line, where there are several passes before a goal is scored and an accidental handball that leads to an immediate shot, where there is no opportunity for the opposition to interject.
The fact that the only reason the goal stood is because the shot was off target and deflected in off the defender is not within the spirit of the rule. Surely the fact that the defender had to try and make a block so quickly after an unfair advantage had been gained contributed to the deflection and subsequent own goal.
So I fully understand why Ipswich fans feel aggrieved over the decision and why the ABU's are unhappy with it. If the boot was on the other foot I'd feel aggrieved about it.
It does feel more like we have benefitted from a unforeseen loophole rather than the new intended interpretation of the rule.
31 Aug 2026 10:16:17
That's not true, Shappy.
It's clear as day in the rules, and it directly calls it how refs need to act.
There is no difference between it happening on the edge of the box or on the halfway line.
The offence or not is the same wherever it is on the pitch; the consequence can be different or more severe, but that's irrelevant.
I don't think anybody should or can feel aggrieved when the law is written so clearly.
I think the law should change, like many others, but it's there and was followed correctly, so there can be no complaints.
We were not lucky; the laws were followed.
It happens in golf a lot, whereby the rules can help you out of a sticky situation.
The ref was 100% right.
VAR were 100% right.
No offence took place to give a free.
Very clear and very simple.
If the shoe was on the other foot, the rule is there to be read, so there should be no feeling aggrieved.
31 Aug 2026 14:41:06
The ref and VAR applied the rule correctly yesterday.
Big shout out to Old Slabhead, genius that he is. Realising that if he had just top binned it, the goal would have been chalked off, he decided to blast it wide of the goal by several meters, understanding that when it pinballed in off the hapless defender it couldn't be chalked off.
The vision of that man!!!
He is playing a different game to everyone else.