There will be lots of boys and girls waiting patiently this month for the gift of a teddy. Stephen Glass must have been a very good boy indeed to deserve the present which was handed to him on Saturday.
Let’s not pretend otherwise: Teddy Jenks’ winning goal should, according to the rules as they stand, have been disallowed.
From Aberdeen’s point of view, the points gained here go some way to offsetting those given up to Dundee United last month when refereeing error cancelled out their numerical advantage, though this will be no comfort to St Johnstone, who will feel the world is against them.
But on a wider scale, this latest collision of football’s laws with real-world events provides an opportunity to reassess where the game is with respect to its rule on handling the ball.
💬 "I am buzzing."
📺 Yesterday's match winner, Teddy Jenks, spoke to RedTV after our victory in Perth. pic.twitter.com/JA9OHbTars
— Aberdeen FC (@AberdeenFC) December 12, 2021
The current iteration is far better than the awful fudge which preceded it, but it remains unsatisfactorily inconsistent in its application across phases of the game.
Jenks’ inadvertent handball should have been penalised, but only because he immediately went on to drill the ball into the net: had his shot hit the post and been netted on the rebound by a teammate, the goal would have been legal.
For the proscription of the act to have so fleeting a currency makes one question why such a provision should even exist. If it would have been unfortunate, but not unfair, for Jenks to have provided an assist after the ball struck his hand, why the difference for a goal directly?
Football has got itself into a fankle attempting to solve a problem it didn’t have. It may have done so accidentally, but according to its own laws that doesn’t make it acceptable if the consequences are immediate and significant. Back to the drawing board, IFAB.
ANALYSIS: Aberdeen loan star Teddy Jenks delivers compelling argument to earn a starting slot
