Agree. Most people accepted the 2 decisions in Rd 1 - including ours - based on the assumption it would set a consistent standard. Clearly we haven't had that (and I argued then that the law never intended for ours to be a penalty). With the clear inconsistency, that means there's a valid argument against any decision made. Anyway, I think this handball was the wrong decision, and there's a lot of misquoting of the laws going around right now: It is usually an offence if a player: touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm) I added the bold in 'usually'. The presence of that word means that there will be some times - not defined by IFAB - when touching the ball with the arm above shoulder level is not a foul. So, I'd argue this should be one of those cases. A self protective reflex from point blank range has always been permitted. Also, there was a very, very clear penalty early in the first half again, by Jets.....stonewall penalty, ref didn't give it and inexplicably VAR was okay with it. Galloway probably should've had a straight red in the dying minutes too. All in all, another disaster for the referee and VAR. Then there's another goal line incident - kinda getting weird now; normally we probably wouldn't have this many across an entire season. Anyway, absolutely nothing to go off to try to call this one a goal, and people complaining about it forget the AR was right in line.