In addition to the randomness of the striker’s arm strike, a period of time passes that invalidates the concept of immediacy: it is right to validate the equalizing goal

No immediacy, therefore a valid goal. For the refereeing authorities, Davis’ (Udinese) goal in the final minutes of the match against Lazio should not have been disallowed, so referee Colombo made the right call: in addition to the randomness of the striker’s handball, a period of time elapsed that invalidated the concept of immediacy included in the rules.

Precedents—  Years ago, a goal by Ibra (2020, Milan-Fiorentina) was disallowed for a handball before a goal that was then built up over a long period of time and after beating several opponents. That situation—deemed correct at the time—led to an update of the “case law,” and in addition to goals scored directly with an illegal touch (hand or arms), which are obviously to be disallowed, there is now the concept of immediacy, which decrees the disallowance of goals that occur “immediately after the ball has touched the hands/arms, even if accidentally.”

Time and facts—  Translated: ball on the arm, control, shot, goal by the same player, Meister style (Pisa). This did not happen with Davis, who took nine seconds from the touch of the arm to the goal, during which time he dribbled past two players. A loss of immediacy. Given that Palma’s first touch of the ball with his arm, like Davis’s, is not punishable, there is therefore a build-up within a time frame that is broader than the concept of immediacy. Regular goal. “It is not punishable – here is Rule number 12 – if the ball (passed or carried) travels a certain distance and/or there are several passes before the goal is scored. Or if a certain amount of time elapses between the accidental contact and the goal being scored.” Well, if anything, the time interval could be debated (and will be debated), but in this case, immediacy did not apply.