Beyond the accidental nature of the striker’s arm contact, enough time elapsed to negate the notion of immediacy: the equalizing goal was correctly allowed

No immediacy, therefore a valid goal. According to the refereeing authorities, Davis’s (Udinese) goal in the final moments of the match against Lazio should not have been disallowed, so referee Colombo made the right call: in addition to the accidental nature of the striker’s arm contact, a sufficient amount of time elapsed to negate the concept of “immediacy” outlined in the regulations.

precedents—  Years ago, a goal by Ibra (2020, Milan-Fiorentina) was disallowed for a handball prior to a goal that was then built up over a long period of time and after dribbling past several opponents. That situation—deemed correct at the time—led to an update of the “case studies,” and in addition to goals scored directly with an illegal touch (hand or arm), which are obviously to be disallowed, the concept of “immediacy” was introduced, stipulating that a goal must be disallowed if it occurs “immediately after the ball has touched the hands/arms, even if accidentally.”

time and facts—  Translation: ball on the arm, control, shot, goal by the same player, Meister style (Pisa). This did not happen with Davis, who, from the touch of the arm to the goal, through the build-up, took and thus saw nine seconds pass during which two players were beaten. A loss of immediacy. Given that Palma’s first handball is not punishable, nor is Davis’s, there is therefore a build-up within a timeframe broader than the concept of immediacy. Valid goal. “It is not punishable—here is Rule 12—if the ball (passed or dribbled) travels a certain distance and/or there are multiple passes before the goal is scored. Or if a certain interval of time elapses between the accidental contact and the goal.” Well, if anything, the time interval could be debated (and will be debated), but in this case, the “immediacy” rule did not apply.