Spurs and VAR

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
9,172
Something I've been wondering how fans feel about....

If there's a possible penalty incident and it's quite inconclusive about if it was handball or a foul, are you more outraged if you don't get it or if it's given against you?

For example, we had a couple of potential penalty calls today, yet weren't given and I wasn't outraged by it. When it's not completely clear I don't really get that angry about a penalty and can generally move on.

However when a decision like today, and against Liverpool CL final, goes against you it completely kills your enthusiasm for the game.

Which is why I think they need to create a new barometer and stop awarding penalties for marginal decisions. They need to lift the standard of what is a penalty, make sure that something was much clearer.

These current rules are too punishable and unfair from a defenders perspective and it won't be long before defenders are just going to stop engaging attackers and we'll see the art if defending die and plenty more fans start to hate the game
 

Marty

Former Beardy Hipster Nonce of the year
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
25,223
Something I've been wondering how fans feel about....

If there's a possible penalty incident and it's quite inconclusive about if it was handball or a foul, are you more outraged if you don't get it or if it's given against you?

For example, we had a couple of potential penalty calls today, yet weren't given and I wasn't outraged by it. When it's not completely clear I don't really get that angry about a penalty and can generally move on.

However when a decision like today, and against Liverpool CL final, goes against you it completely kills your enthusiasm for the game.

Which is why I think they need to create a new barometer and stop awarding penalties for marginal decisions. They need to lift the standard of what is a penalty, make sure that something was much clearer.

These current rules are too punishable and unfair from a defenders perspective and it won't be long before defenders are just going to stop engaging attackers and we'll see the art if defending die and plenty more fans start to hate the game
I think an easy solution is to bring in indirect free kicks for unintentional yet still punishable handballs. The punishment just doesn't fit the crime at all.
 

vuzp

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
1,304
what chance has a defender got of winning a header in his own box against players like Carroll with his hand by his side not to give away penalties.
 

Wadec

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
575
Something I've been wondering how fans feel about....

If there's a possible penalty incident and it's quite inconclusive about if it was handball or a foul, are you more outraged if you don't get it or if it's given against you?

For example, we had a couple of potential penalty calls today, yet weren't given and I wasn't outraged by it. When it's not completely clear I don't really get that angry about a penalty and can generally move on.

However when a decision like today, and against Liverpool CL final, goes against you it completely kills your enthusiasm for the game.

Which is why I think they need to create a new barometer and stop awarding penalties for marginal decisions. They need to lift the standard of what is a penalty, make sure that something was much clearer.

These current rules are too punishable and unfair from a defenders perspective and it won't be long before defenders are just going to stop engaging attackers and we'll see the art if defending die and plenty more fans start to hate the game
Agree with this. A penalty is the best chance to score a goal you can get in football.

For me it should be rewarded when an opportunity to score has been taken away. The vast majority of these penalties have not denied a goal scoring opportunity.

For example the Palace one yesterday, the player trying to get onto the ball is offside there is no goal scoring opportunity. Yet as it hits the defemders hand Everton are awarded a penalty.

For ours today, was Dier preventing a goal scoring chance? For me no he didn't.

If the authorities are adamant about including the new handball rule why not make it an indirect free kick instead?

The amount of penalties awarded this season is huge, if it continues at this rate there would be over 300 penalties in this season in the Premier league. Peraonally think it is too much and needs reviewing.
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
8,994
to be honest, there is no common sense used, and these referees I doubt have ever played football, let alone jump in the air with their arms down by their side.

they should have looked at the free-kick awarded in the buildup. Joelinton threw himself into Hõjlberjg and even if he never Hõjberjg in no way could ever get out the way.


football is finished, shit referees throughout but when you have a wanker like O'Riely being in charge of the PGMOL then you'll always have a crap outcome
I couldn't agree more. It was never a foul. And there's a good case to be made that there was a foul on Dier that caused his hand to be where ti was.

I thought VAR was supposed to look at the fouls in the build up? Has that changed? Or was it simply not a "clear and obvious error".

But the issue right now is this clusterfuck new interpretation of handball.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
I’m still baffled by how we weren’t given a penalty for a much more obvious handball in the second half. I’m generally sceptical about conspiracy theories but today felt overwhelmingly unjust
Because Lascelles arm was in front of his body, therefore not making himself bigger if it the same incident you are talking about. It was checked, no offence under new laws.

I couldn't agree more. It was never a foul. And there's a good case to be made that there was a foul on Dier that caused his hand to be where ti was.

I thought VAR was supposed to look at the fouls in the build up? Has that changed? Or was it simply not a "clear and obvious error".

But the issue right now is this clusterfuck new interpretation of handball.
VAR has never been there to judge whether there was a foul in a different phase of play, or whether a goal coming from a corner should have been a corner or a goal-kick for example. When the referee has blown for a foul that is end of a phase. VAR will only go back at maximum to the start of the phase of play (i.e. the taking of the free-kick)
 
Last edited:

doctor stefan Freud

the tired tread of sad biology
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
12,166
Because Lascelles arm was in front of his body, therefore not making himself bigger if it the same incident you are talking about. It was checked, no offence under new laws.



VAR has never been there to judge whether there was a foul in a different phase of play, or whether a goal coming from a corner should have been a corner or a goal-kick for example. When the referee has blown for a foul that is end of a phase. VAR will only go back at maximum to the start of the phase of play (i.e. the taking of the free-kick)
It’s not about making yourself ‘bigger’. It’s about your hand making contact with the ball like it did with the Tanguy cross, and therefore giving the team committing the offence an advantage
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
It’s not about making yourself ‘bigger’. It’s about your hand making contact with the ball like it did with the Tanguy cross, and therefore giving the team committing the offence an advantage
Not according to the laws of Association Football,

Only 2 considerations. Were you unnaturally bigger, did the ball hit your arm below T-Shirt line, that is basically it. Gaining an advantage is irrelevant now
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
8,994
Because Lascelles arm was in front of his body, therefore not making himself bigger if it the same incident you are talking about. It was checked, no offence under new laws.



VAR has never been there to judge whether there was a foul in a different phase of play, or whether a goal coming from a corner should have been a corner or a goal-kick for example. When the referee has blown for a foul that is end of a phase. VAR will only go back at maximum to the start of the phase of play (i.e. the taking of the free-kick)
I was thinking of this particular use of it:


I guess the issue is "phase of play". I'd suggest the giving of a foul that leads to an attack which leads to a goal (penalty) IS in fact an important "phase of play". But I appreciate what I think is not important to the bigwigs at IFAB:cautious:

Still it's galling ain't it. It's an awful decision by the ref who would almost certainly have changed his mind if shown footage of it. But there you go... salt wounds etc etc
 

doctor stefan Freud

the tired tread of sad biology
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
12,166
Not according to the laws of Association Football,

Only 2 considerations. Were you unnaturally bigger, did the ball hit your arm below T-Shirt line, that is basically it. Gaining an advantage is irrelevant now
Have you got the actual wording? Genuinely curious
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
Have you got the actual wording? Genuinely curious
It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • 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
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:


  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
Bolded in black for the relevant piece of why Dier's was a penalty
Bolded in Red for why Lascelles was not a penalty
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
23,714
Bolded in black for the relevant piece of why Dier's was a penalty
Bolded in Red for why Lascelles was not a penalty
Where do you stand on Lascelled push into a mid air Dier milliseconds before the bark struck the back of his arm?
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
Where do you stand on Lascelled push into a mid air Dier milliseconds before the bark struck the back of his arm?
Didn't really notice it at the time, was too pissed off when realised penalty was going to be given. Thought straight away that is a penalty, when it checked for offside thought we may have a get out of jail card, but alas no cigar.
Will look on MOTD and advise after that
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
31,465
Where do you stand on Lascelled push into a mid air Dier milliseconds before the bark struck the back of his arm?
It was very soft but it directly affected the handball incident, it's actually mad how that didn't get reviewed.
 

jeremystorey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
2,121
Regardless of the letter of the law, that was sheer lunacy. The ref had to abide by the law. But made an incorrect judgment in my opinion. The attacker threw himself against the defender. The defender falls forward and is not in control of their body. Yes, the ball strikes the back of the arm, but the attacker effectively maneuvered the defender into an awkward body position. That was clear for anyone to see. The ref could have avoided being being criticized for not following the law, by simply awarding a foul to Spurs. Yes, that would be a generous call for us, but giving them a penalty for that unintentional movement was world class idiocy. Compounded by the ridiculous free kick given that led to the goal. Joelinton mounted PEH like a horse and somehow got the free kick. The whole situation is appalling and makes a complete mockery of the game. Football now takes a back seat to VAR, moronic IFAB laws, and referees clamoring for the limelight. The whole incident was beyond the pale.
 

doctor stefan Freud

the tired tread of sad biology
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
12,166
It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • 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
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:


  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Thank you for this. But it’s such a nebulous ruling. Try and interpret ‘unnaturally bigger’ objectively and consistently all the time.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
Didn't really notice it at the time, was too pissed off when realised penalty was going to be given. Thought straight away that is a penalty, when it checked for offside thought we may have a get out of jail card, but alas no cigar.
Will look on MOTD and advise after that
Actually just seen it. I don't think it is a foul by Lascelles at all. Lascelles didn't really do anything apart from stand his ground, Dier moved into him if anything in my view. Just a normal coming together you see go unpunished all the time when two players are fighting for the same piece of turf.
 
Last edited:

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,758
Thank you for this. But it’s such a nebulous ruling. Try and interpret ‘unnaturally bigger’ objectively and consistently all the time.
There are diagrams issued. Basically according to IFAB a body has a natural silhouette when arms are pointing vertically whilst directly next to the body. Everything out of this silhouette is deemed as being making body bigger (so you can tuck hands behind you, in front of you, or directly by the side of you, everything else risks being penalised.
 
Top