SheffieldAndy
Friends with the monster under my bed.
- Jul 4, 2012
- 1,677
- 1,985
That penalty decision was awful, and so was the penalty. The overhead kick would have been an absolute beauty though!
The VAR Thread
- Thread starter Krule
- Start date
That penalty decision was awful, and so was the penalty. The overhead kick would have been an absolute beauty though!
Rocksuperstar
Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
- Jun 6, 2005
- 53,383
- 67,043
Okay, think I've finally got my head around the rules for handball in the box;
If you have arms = handball.
Obvs joking, I actually appreciate the fact that it's like this now, as long as it is this way across the board. Shit luck will affect everyone equally, take all of the ambiguity out of it: If it hits your arm then penalised.
Would prefer indirect freekick (didn't that used to be the case?) as the weight on keepers this year to not move off of their line until the ball is struck is a pressure on top of what's already pretty intense, so yeah... needs work, but if this is how it's going to be, so be it.
If you have arms = handball.
Obvs joking, I actually appreciate the fact that it's like this now, as long as it is this way across the board. Shit luck will affect everyone equally, take all of the ambiguity out of it: If it hits your arm then penalised.
Would prefer indirect freekick (didn't that used to be the case?) as the weight on keepers this year to not move off of their line until the ball is struck is a pressure on top of what's already pretty intense, so yeah... needs work, but if this is how it's going to be, so be it.
Shadydan
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
This is basically it, cannot actually believe that this is genuinely the guidelines these days.
mark87
Well-Known Member
- Nov 29, 2004
- 36,269
- 115,392
Peter Walton yet again just backing up the law saying there's nothing wrong with the handball rule. What is the point of having an ex-referee pundit on when all they're going to do is agree the handball law is correct and should be in place, it's an utter waste of time and money if all theyre going to do is agree with horseshit laws like this and back up referees every single time.
Shadydan
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
All the PGMOL nonces are out for themselves, genuinely a waste of time listening to them, it's an old boys club run by the head of the establishment Mike Riley, you'll never get change with these archaic clowns in charge.
werty
Well-Known Member
- Aug 8, 2005
- 25,109
- 26,373
He's right to defend the ref though. It's stupid new law, but they have to enforce it.
It's not a VAR problem either.
mark87
Well-Known Member
- Nov 29, 2004
- 36,269
- 115,392
Not talking about the referee in this game, he did nothing wrong but in previous games last season he was doing it.
Graham Minshall
Well-Known Member
- Jan 24, 2016
- 545
- 1,364
You’re right it is a stupid rule, how can you have a rule where the ball strikes the hand, and the first thing anyone does is look for reasons not to give a foul, if the ball hits the hand it should be a foul, accidental, intentional or whatever.
How can Palace be awarded a penalty, SoutHampton be awarded a penalty and the most blatant penalty of the lot, West Ham’s against Arsenal not be given, if some can explain that, they’re as mad as the fucking rule!
Because the Arsenal one hit him high up the arm. Hand is now defined as starting below the armpit (basically where a short sleeved shirt would finish). The Arsenal one was well above that.
Don't agree with the law change, but it will bring consistency, which was the intent of the change. If your arm is not against the side of your body and it hits your arm below "The T-Shirt line" it is a penalty. What we saw today is 100% a nailed on penalty now, across the world. Intent, "ball to hand", deflections, totally and utterly irrelevant.
Handball is now a matter of fact, rather than a subjective decision, unless the arm is right next to the body.
Last edited:
- Jul 27, 2004
- 24,868
- 11,368
- Staff
- #793
I've said it before and will say it again. The PGMOL is a cabal of ex-refs that are only looking out for themselves and their mates. It is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. A good starting point would be to train specific VAR only refs that do not mingle with the on-field refs as I feel the VAR so far has been more about protecting the on field ref than getting the decision correct.
taidgh
Well-Known Member
- Aug 13, 2004
- 7,909
- 16,268
Agreed. I would love to see an ex-ref come out and give an actual opinion on the new laws though. You can back the referees (who are only doing as they are instructed) while also disagreeing with the law change.
mr ashley
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 3,154
- 8,561
Some of the wording in this (if it’s official), is still inconsistent- if nothing else because it’s not the same measurement point used in offside.
That’s not particularly relevant to this decision today however, which, out of the three discussed over the weekend is the most contentious because the ball is deflected onto another defenders arm.
I cannot see what a defender can do to avoid conceding this type of penalty, which to me makes it unfair. If a players only crime is “being there”, and as a result can do nothing to avoid committing the infringement then the rule is not fit for purpose.
You can easily argue that Gabriel, in his attempt to win the header, leans forward and uses his arm for leverage. This makes it a natural position in the act of performing a header.
Was he making a deliberate attempt to block the ball? No, as his head was down as he was trying to make contact with his head, not his hand.
Lindelof, in his attempts to sprint back and make a tackle with his feet, saw the ball his his arm. He was running, so again his arm was in a natural position.
Was he making a deliberate attempt to block the ball? Unlikely especially as his hand was relaxed when the hall struck it.
Doherty was holding off the attacker when the ball was played against Winks. As this is not an illegal action, you can also say the his arm was in a natural position (for the permitted action performed). Was he trying to gain an advantage by having his arm in this position? Also no.
But these occurrences do happen. Take the Watford game last season when Vertonghen committed a penalty. He slides in, and raises his arm as he does so. He’s attempting to block the ball with his foot, but makes his body bigger and the ball strikes his arm. Penalty is the correct decision.
Based on these criteria, it would be possible to use var to make a decision based on whether the body position was unnatural and therefore deliberate.
Right now it’s impossible to avoid conceding a handball because players have arms.
Last edited:
He needs to do what Winks was doing at exactly the same time, defend with his arms next to his body, else he risks doing what he did and give away a penalty.
His arm was out, it hit it, it is a penalty, there is absolutely no room for manoeuvre, the new laws are that black and white.
I agree the rule is not fit for purpose, but it is there for consistency now. Handball is now basically factual rather than subjective. Did it hit hand YES/NO - If YES was arm away from body YES Penalty, NO that is where intent, and some subjectivity comes into play, but still within some strict guidelines
The only reason that penalty was not given against Gabriel was because it hit hit high on the arm. Along with making clear the if ball hits hand away from body whatever the circumstances it is a foul, they also specified what the hand/arm is (and basically it is now deemed to be below the level of the T-Shirt, Gabriel hit him above it
Totally irrelevant if he deilberately attempted to block ball or not. Under the new laws, his arm was not directly next to his body, it hit his arm, it is a penalty.
And again totally irrelevant. He had his body bigger by having his arm out, ball hit his arm, as per FIFA directives that is a penalty, nailed on.
Deflections, deliberate or not, "ball to hand", all totally irrelevant, if your arm is not next to your body and the ball hits it, it is a penalty this season, and they will be given every time.
Last edited:
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,200
- 64,024
I do see what you're saying @MK Yid , I really do. But I have the broadcasters workshop manual for this season and it includes two frames about the handball law and I really honestly have no idea what to think any more when situations like Lindelof and Doherty are given as penalties.
For me, and this is just for me, "ball travels from close proximity" beats out all other arguments for giving those as handballs.
For me, and this is just for me, "ball travels from close proximity" beats out all other arguments for giving those as handballs.
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,200
- 64,024
And as for the Gabriel handball, again this is just my interpretation but it looks like the ball hits his arm way further down near the elbow than this line would allow, not to mention that his arm is most certainly not "within body line" and he definitely, undoubtedly leans into the path of the ball.
Last edited:
Unfortunately the Red ones are all automatic penalties. per laws of the game.
The green (ball travels from close proximity) only comes into play if Hand/arm within body line as part of the subjective decision referee makes under those circumstances (he can still give penalties even if arm next to body)
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
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
Have colour coded for red and green per your sheet and also bolded the relevant bits showing why 100% the Doherty incident was a penalty.
Last edited:
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,200
- 64,024
Again, you're probably right by the letter of the law. But if I had a chance I'd also post the video accompanying this that we received from PLP (Premier League productions) where it is specifically stated that they do not want players to play with their hands behind their backs. So they're contradicting themselves every step of the way and it's absolutely maddening. How can pundits give straight answers when the decisions on the pitch don't match what they're told at these workshops?
