Now that the dust has settled...was it actually the right call?

>freaking

Attached: soylent.jpg (788x926, 92K)

YES
YES
YES

Yes!
He clearly looks at the ball before turning and raising his arm to block it.

The fuck? What should he be looking at? The crowd?

im an ABU but it's a penalty

>Handling the ball
>Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
>The following must be considered:
>• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
>• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
>• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

Well people are making out that he had his back turned, like he had no idea where the ball was, so it couldn't be handball.

Considering these rules (I have to believe you on that they're the right ones)
>Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The contact with the hand wasn't deliberate
>• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
This arm was moving away from the ball, as the defender was in rotation
>the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
Barely a couple of feet
>• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
I don't know what that means

? Well of course he had an idea where the ball WAS before it was shot into his arm

it was a penalty
this was a direct kick to the goal that his arm changed the ball trajectory, and because his arm is positioned away from his body effectively expanding his ability to deflect the kick, it's a foul.
it would be different if someone else had interfered in the ball's trajectory and because of that it ended hitting his arm, because on that case the trajectory could be considered unpredictable and it then could be argued that he had no way to prevent the ball from hitting his arm even though it's not exacly "glued" to his body, but that's not the case.

>It was going wide.

Then he shouldn't have tried to block it in the first place, bitch.

Got them from here, I made sure to look for the right year. img.fifa.com/image/upload/khhloe2xoigyna8juxw3.pdf

yes. 100% the right call with how the rules are written.

>jumps into path of ball
>arm out of body frame blocks a shot on goal

clear penalty

>where the ball WAS before it was shot into his arm

He watches it being shot and views the flight of the ball.

Watch the replay, watch his arm. It's extended while he runs, and as he jumps it's doing a motion toward back his body, away from the ball. His arm was already there before the shot is taken and there's no time for it to move away completely. He doesn't put it up as he sees the shot.

Looks clear cut to me, not sure how people are saying it isn't, he's clearly bringing his arms out.

Doesnt matter where the ball was going you absolute brainlets, he didnt know where it was going and extended the arms, inside the box, handball, penalty.
Kinda like a player pushes the ball, which is going out, and gets tackled, its still a foul.
Dont be stupid. Fucking zoomers i swear

yes

from a rules perspective, probably not. But it's karma since he should have been red carded in the first leg, plus the asspain of all the united haters makes it hilarious, so in that way it was the right call

This is a logical and red pilled explanation.

yes, I'm an ABU, but it's a penalty for me

Yes. Arms should be held close to the body, not extended. It takes more discipline than it looks, but that's it.

>not sure how people are saying it isn't

It’s a decision that benefitted Manchester United football club and therefore it must be bad.

It’s a clear cut penalty. Look at how Lindelof defended Bernat’s shot here and compare it to what that dumb fuck Kimpembe did.

Attached: 171C9A2C-7714-44B9-84B8-A61C1FC22CFD.jpg (1079x825, 219K)