The VAR Thread

[Rocksuperstar]

A penalty after the final whistle... well, first time for everything, I guess, but if I was a Seagulls fan I'd be spitting feathers.

 

[Marty]

A penalty after the final whistle... well, first time for everything, I guess, but if I was a Seagulls fan I'd be spitting feathers.

This has been done to death in the PL season thread but as the offence happened before the whistle that is the right decision. The controversial bit is really only whether or not United should've got the corner beforehand.

Thankfully it isn't something we're likely to see often, it's taken over a season for the first case in the PL.

 

[Rocksuperstar]

Problem with awarding it after the final whistle has gone; doesn't a goal extend the time played by something like 2 minutes? Which can't be played if the game is already over, but which should've been added, had the penalty been given during play.

 

[Trotter]

Problem with awarding it after the final whistle has gone; doesn't a goal extend the time played by something like 2 minutes? Which can't be played if the game is already over, but which should've been added, had the penalty been given during play.

No a goal extends the playing time by the time lost due to a celebration.
If the referees watch was already showing a running 45 minutes played in the second half, which it obviously was as he had blown up, then no time should be added as none was lost, as the 45 minutes were already up. Many times a goal has been scored with last kick of match, game gets restarted and immediately terminated,

 

[Rocksuperstar]

No a goal extends the playing time by the time lost due to a celebration.
If the referees watch was already showing a running 45 minutes played in the second half, which it obviously was as he had blown up, then no time should be added as none was lost, as the 45 minutes were already up. Many times a goal has been scored with last kick of match, game gets restarted and immediately terminated,

Yeah, now I think about it, that doesn't make much sense

Cool cool, I'm just really glad it wasn't in a Spurs match - for or against, it's a controversy I can't be arsed with.

 

[Duck]

So Havertz is allowed to handball, which keeps the ball in play, leading directly to a Chelsea goal? One rule for the big clubs, another for the lesser clubs?

Everything about this sport is so farcical now. I'm glad I lost interest.

 

[mr ashley]

@MK Yid please explain the decision to award Everton a penalty. What could Joel Ward have done differently?

 

[Shadydan]

@MK Yid please explain the decision to award Everton a penalty. What could Joel Ward have done differently?

Become an amputee

 

[mr ashley]

Become an amputee

Seems that way

 

[Trotter]

@MK Yid please explain the decision to award Everton a penalty. What could Joel Ward have done differently?

He could have had has arms behind his body, or at least tucked in directly next to his body (they are the only acceptable positions that IFAB do not deem as making the body unnaturally bigger). I saw numerous players do this today when in their own box.
In fact Ward in previous incident in same game wasn't adjudged to have handballed it because despite it touching his arm, it was tucked by side of his body.

The law is clear to the offence

It is an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

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.


Intent is totally and utterly irrelevant.
And the reason the last Chelsea goal was allowed was because it hit the attacker above the T-Shirt line (similar to why Gabriel did not concede one last week), so it wasn't even deemed as a handball offence, nothing to do with whether it directly led to a goal or not.


Now don't get me wrong, I am not backing the law up, I don't like it and I am sure most referees don't, but I will back the referees (and VAR) up for applying it correctly and consistently, which they are.

 

[mr ashley]

He could have had has arms behind his body, or at least tucked in directly next to his body (they are the only acceptable positions that IFAB do not deem as making the body unnaturally bigger). I saw numerous players do this today when in their own box.
In fact Ward in previous incident in same game wasn't adjudged to have handballed it because despite it touching his arm, it was tucked by side of his body.

The law is clear to the offence

It is an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

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.


Intent is totally and utterly irrelevant.
And the reason the last Chelsea goal was allowed was because it hit the attacker above the T-Shirt line (similar to why Gabriel did not concede one last week), so it wasn't even deemed as a handball offence, nothing to do with whether it directly led to a goal or not.


Now don't get me wrong, I am not backing the law up, I don't like it and I am sure most referees don't, but I will back the referees up for applying it correctly and consistently, which they are.

I think in this case (as in several this season), the action you describe ‘tucking arms behind their back’ is in fact an act of the player making their body smaller, rather than ‘unnaturally’ bigger.

The whole mess has been created by IFAB /PGMOL using this incorrect terminology, which has lead to players creating this body shape when they have time to do so, and now in all other occasions like this/ Doherty/lindelof, players are penalised because they can’t react- oddly enough because they are so close to play.

Re havertz- totally incorrect. The ball hit his forearm (long sleeved top clearly muddying the waters of the Tshirt line rule there it seems). Perversely, the goal was allowed to stand because the subsequent clearance by the defender fell to mount, whose shot was parried. So the handball is disregarded due to two further passages of play

So accidental handball is ok for attackers but not defenders.

Quite simply, the new law re-writes haven’t been done to ensure fairplay.

VAR could have been used to judge intent quite effectively (whether deliberate attempts to play the ball with the arm or an exaggerated movement to make the body bigger). Instead we’re left with this mess, with rule book clauses and addendums which confuse rather than clarify.

Out of interest, what did you think about the Calvert-Lewin handball incident in the same game?

 

[Trotter]

Re havertz- totally incorrect. The ball hit his forearm (long sleeved top clearly muddying the waters of the Tshirt line rule there it seems). Perversely, the goal was allowed to stand because the subsequent clearance by the defender fell to mount, whose shot was parried. So the handball is disregarded due to two further passages of play

So accidental handball is ok for attackers but not defenders.

There is no difference in law between attackers and defenders, accidental doesn't come into it, if arm was in unnatural position and hit below T-Shirt line then it is an offence.
It wouldn't be an offence if not in an unnatural position and hit his arm below T-Shirt level, unless it directly led to a goal, which as you correctly state it didn't.

So it has been judged either that his arm was not away from body and hit his forearm as you say, or as I believe hit top of his arm, almost on the joint with the shoulder, neither of which would be an offence.

VAR could have been used to judge intent quite effectively (whether deliberate attempts to play the ball with the arm or an exaggerated movement to make the body bigger). Instead we’re left with this mess, with rule book clauses and addendums which confuse rather than clarify.

That is where we have been in previous seasons, but we were not applying the law as IFAB intended, because the Premier League didn't like the unnaturally bigger part, so they strengthened the law from "It is Usually an offence" which it was last season's law (and gave the Premier League a get-out), to what we have now "It is an offence", and this has also coincided with FIFA having taken over the Premier League's VAR protocols to ensure we do. Do I agree with it, no, but we have ourselves to blame. If we had met them half way previously, I am sure it would not be this drastic.

Out of interest, what did you think about the Calvert-Lewin handball incident in the same game?

I don't recall it, and haven't seen any replays of it, so can't be too controversial

 

[mr ashley]

There is no difference in law between attackers and defenders, accidental doesn't come into it, if arm was in unnatural position and hit below T-Shirt line then it is an offence.
It wouldn't be an offence in not in an unnatural position and hit his arm below T-Shirt level, unless it directly led to a goal, which as you correctly state it didn't.

So it has been judged either that his arm was not away from body and hit his forearm as you say, or as I believe hit top of his arm, almost on the joint with the shoulder, neither of which would be an offence.



That is where we have been in previous seasons, but we were not applying the law as IFAB intended, because the Premier League didn't like the unnaturally bigger part, so they strengthened the law from "It is Usually an offence" which it was last season's law (and gave the Premier League a get-out), to what we have now "It is an offence", and this has also coincided with FIFA having taken over the Premier League's VAR protocols to ensure we do. Do I agree with it, no, but we have ourselves to blame. If we had met them half way previously, I am sure it would not be this drastic.



I don't recall it, and haven't seen any replays of it, so can't be too controversial

The havertz handball hits his bent forearm (the still makes it look like he catches the ball under his arm). It’s no different to Wards arm position.
The T-shirt line rule doesn’t come into it (although I was hoping you’d be able to clarify the cutoff point in one of my earlier posts this week).

Calvert-lewin moves his arm in front of his chest to play the ball. It’s almost a volleyball style shot. Whilst his arms are within the lines of his torso, he could have simply chested the ball. It’s far from a natural position to put your arms when trying to block a shot.

So, all in all, you have three highly debatable decisions, one extremely harsh, the other two bizarrely lenient, and to my knowledge only one of them actually reviewed by VAR in game.

We’re no closer to consistency, in fact we’re moving even further away from it.

 

[Trotter]

The havertz handball hits his bent forearm (the still makes it look like he catches the ball under his arm). It’s no different to Wards arm position.
The T-shirt line rule doesn’t come into it (although I was hoping you’d be able to clarify the cutoff point in one of my earlier posts this week).

Calvert-lewin moves his arm in front of his chest to play the ball. It’s almost a volleyball style shot. Whilst his arms are within the lines of his torso, he could have simply chested the ball. It’s far from a natural position to put your arms when trying to block a shot.

So, all in all, you have three highly debatable decisions, one extremely harsh, the other two bizarrely lenient, and to my knowledge only one of them actually reviewed by VAR in game.

We’re no closer to consistency, in fact we’re moving even further away from it.

We will have to agree to disagree at the moment on the Havertz one at this stage, I do not think it is handball as hit him too high.. Basically if it hits anywhere on his arm where normal short-sleeved football shirt would be it is not an offence, Everything I have seen suggests it does, and I suggest VAR did as well, otherwise would have given as offence, they certainly looked at it. There is also argument arm was against side of body aswell, and as deflected off body first would make it not an offence.
Well on the Calvert-Lewin incident you describe that clearly should not be handball then, he is not making himself unnaturally bigger, so not an automatic offence, and as I haven't seen it cannot advise if subjectively should be given, but as has not been on any highlights programme, I assume it is nothing and no penalty is totally correct decision.
The Ward one is a penalty, arm away from body, hits it below T-Shirt line, automatic penalty under the new laws.

I think we have almost total consistency (not moving away from it which suggests we had it when as was subjective previously by default we didn't), as demonstrated by Ward, Doherty, Lindelof, Leeds first day of season. All given, for almost identical offences, quite possibly none would have been last year, but since the law change, all correctly given this season.

Havertz and Gabriel, not given that almost certainly would have been last year, but laws have now changed, and I believe neither have been hit where it is now classified to be a part of the arm for handball purposes.

And Calvert-Lewin and the other Ward "handball" not being given because they did not make themselves unnaturally bigger (and the Ward one hit above the "T-Shirt" line also)

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

I think in this case (as in several this season), the action you describe ‘tucking arms behind their back’ is in fact an act of the player making their body smaller, rather than ‘unnaturally’ bigger.

The whole mess has been created by IFAB /PGMOL using this incorrect terminology, which has lead to players creating this body shape when they have time to do so, and now in all other occasions like this/ Doherty/lindelof, players are penalised because they can’t react- oddly enough because they are so close to play.

Re havertz- totally incorrect. The ball hit his forearm (long sleeved top clearly muddying the waters of the Tshirt line rule there it seems). Perversely, the goal was allowed to stand because the subsequent clearance by the defender fell to mount, whose shot was parried. So the handball is disregarded due to two further passages of play

So accidental handball is ok for attackers but not defenders.

Quite simply, the new law re-writes haven’t been done to ensure fairplay.

VAR could have been used to judge intent quite effectively (whether deliberate attempts to play the ball with the arm or an exaggerated movement to make the body bigger). Instead we’re left with this mess, with rule book clauses and addendums which confuse rather than clarify.

Out of interest, what did you think about the Calvert-Lewin handball incident in the same game?

Exactly this! Every sport I've ever been taught talks about maintaining a stable base or an athletic position ready to move with power.

Not once has this involved having my arms behind my back or by my side like a penguin.

 

[mr ashley]

 

[mr ashley]

We will have to agree to disagree at the moment on the Havertz one at this stage, I do not think it is handball as hit him too high.. Basically if it hits anywhere on his arm where normal short-sleeved football shirt would be it is not an offence, Everything I have seen suggests it does, and I suggest VAR did as well, otherwise would have given as offence, they certainly looked at it. There is also argument arm was against side of body aswell, and as deflected off body first would make it not an offence.
Well on the Calvert-Lewin incident you describe that clearly should not be handball then, he is not making himself unnaturally bigger, so not an automatic offence, and as I haven't seen it cannot advise if subjectively should be given, but as has not been on any highlights programme, I assume it is nothing and no penalty is totally correct decision.
The Ward one is a penalty, arm away from body, hits it below T-Shirt line, automatic penalty under the new laws.

I think we have almost total consistency (not moving away from it which suggests we had it when as was subjective previously by default we didn't), as demonstrated by Ward, Doherty, Lindelof, Leeds first day of season. All given, for almost identical offences, quite possibly none would have been last year, but since the law change, all correctly given this season.

Havertz and Gabriel, not given that almost certainly would have been last year, but laws have now changed, and I believe neither have been hit where it is now classified to be a part of the arm for handball purposes.

And Calvert-Lewin and the other Ward "handball" not being given because they did not make themselves unnaturally bigger (and the Ward one hit above the "T-Shirt" line also)

 

[JimmyG2]

Intent is all
Inadvertence is an irrelevance.

 

[Gbspurs]

The penalty decisions are stupid. Our one against Hojbjerg last week and the Palace one against Everton yesterday should never be a penalty.

Players have arms and hands, surely the offence should be based on how they use them.

Spreading your arms like a keeper and blocking the ball = penalty. Random ball hitting your hand which is by your side whilst you aren't looking = no penalty.

The current rules are an offense to the game and need to be changed urgently.

 

[Shadydan]

That's as much as handball than the one that Palace conceded, both should be given under the current rules but like what's been said the current rules are total bollocks.