- Dec 22, 2005
- 2,553
- 2,569
"Intention" in the rules is actually interpreted as intention/lack of intention in avoiding handball. You don't have to demonstrate that the handball was unintentional, you must demonstrate that you intentionally acted to avoid the handball. Which actually are two different things. So, if you don't show enough intention to avoid the ball with your hand, it's handball. This is to avoid that players arbitrage when their hands are already placed unnaturally. Funny, huh?
Where have you got this idea from? The relevant passage from the FA's rules of governance:
A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences:
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...ball-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx
There is no mention of this weird new alternative meaning of 'intent' you're proposing which bears no relation to intent whatsoever.
The only issue with regard to the Sterling handball is whether he intented it in the traditional sense ie. meant to do it, rather than didn't try not to do it. And he clearly didn't intend to handle it. It was a bad decision, but one that went our way. Isn't that enough? We'd all be raging if it went against us, so it's stupid and hypocritical to try and justify it just because it went our way.