DAFC.net
Home 22 April 2019 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parahandy  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:16

Yet more Champions League VAR lunacy - a penalty and a yellow card!!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:20

Penalty all day long.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:22

Booking in that scenario was harsh but it's another player launching themselves into a tackle to make a block and their arm comes up. Clear penalty correctly penalised. If that had been against us and not given in a game of this magnitude, the forum would be in meltdown.

Looking at games recently with no VAR liverpool should have had a goal disallowed, Chelsea had two go their way against Cardiff and Celtic had a decision go against them.

Genuinely dont get why people seem stuck in the dark ages with VAR.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parahandy  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:28

Booking was nonsensical - the dark ages with VAR? For say 140 years accidental handball was not a foul. His arm wasn't in an unnatural position so he wasn't trying to make himself bigger. This var is just a sop to the TV viewer and money driven rather than good for football
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: pars no1  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:28

finally the decisions that everyone would say that would be a foul/handball if it was outside the box are being given. Clear handball and Rose knew it as soon as it was reviewed
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parsweep  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:33

So why did VAR not give that as a pen against Liverpool .
All comes down to someone's judgement somewhere .

Bobvo

Post Edited (Tue 09 Apr 20:33)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:34

His arm was where it was because he'd launched himself at the ball trying to gain an advantage in blocking the shot. His arm is in an unnatural position because if he hadn't launched himself into a slide tackle then his arm wouldn't be anywhere near the ball. He's not stood with his arms down by his side.

Pretty sure he didn't commit to the tackle with the intent of handling the ball but his movement to make the block is deliberate and he couldn't keep his hand out of the way. It's his fault his hand is there so it's a penalty.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Grant  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:35

That's absolutely a penalty and a yellow card. Unsurprisingly the bloke with the whistle in a blue shirt knows the rules better than your average punter.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: 1985Par  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:40

"That's absolutely a penalty and a yellow card. Unsurprisingly the bloke with the whistle in a blue shirt knows the rules better than your average punter. " The rule is crap though. Google "slide tackle" and look through some images. Arms all over the place. Let's ban stretching for the ball as well as tackling now. It's pathetic.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:42

If you dive into a tackle and take someone out it's a foul, why is it any different if you dive into a block and the ball hits your hand which is a foul?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parsweep  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:45

I'll look out for the VAR fans explanation as to why no Porto penalty later .

Bobvo
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:47

I'm not watching that game so no idea at the moment.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: cmonpar  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:52

What Liverpool goal should not have been given??
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: 1985Par  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 20:59

The 4 ex-pros in the studio are unanimous that it shouldn't have been a pen. Rio Ferdinand summed it up perfectly for me - " anyone who has ever played football knows that that's not a penalty".
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: LiviPar  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:01

In basketball its a foul if the ball hits your feet. Now if you accidentally do touch the ball with your feet its a foul whether meant or not. Same with handball. You can stop the ball with any part of your body apart from your arm or hand. If it hits hit though its tough luck. Its a foul.

Post Edited (Tue 09 Apr 21:01)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parsweep  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:04

Quote:

cmonpar, Tue 9 Apr 20:52

What Liverpool goal should not have been given??


Nobody said anything abt a Liverpool goal .
I was asking why no penalty for Porto for handball

Bobvo
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:12

I did but I forgot the panel said they wouldn't review the liverpool goal as Southampton could have reset in that game. I'd say that was the wrong guidelines but technically I was wrong to say what I did.

On the point about the pundits in the studio: Ferdinand also stated defenders couldn't tackle or they'd break their neck...

The penalties against City and PSG that the ref cited were clear penalties too.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:12

Quote:

1985Par, Tue 9 Apr 20:59

The 4 ex-pros in the studio are unanimous that it shouldn't have been a pen. Rio Ferdinand summed it up perfectly for me - " anyone who has ever played football knows that that's not a penalty".


Id rather hear the opinion of 4 referees though.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parsweep  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:47

Another crap VAR decision in Liverpool's favour . Salah should have been sent off .
You can ram your VAR for me !

Bobvo
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: saltonsgonagetu  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:56

The referee in the studio said it was a definite penalty

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: SergioDuarte  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 21:58

City absolutely robbed with that Son goal. A mile offside and the ball went out of play. Absolute joke. Liversteal get away with one as well. The baws burst .
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: the saline hill puma  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:00

Quote:

Grant, Tue 9 Apr 20:35

That's absolutely a penalty and a yellow card. Unsurprisingly the bloke with the whistle in a blue shirt knows the rules better than your average punter.


Footbal has no rules it only has laws.

Post Edited (Tue 09 Apr 22:00)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: JnrB  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:00

Thatโ€™s got to be bait ๐Ÿ™„
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:15

I'm not sure if that's a pro VAR post in a round about way?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: CrossPar  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:17

People keep blaming VAR, yet VAR only gives another opportunity to view an incident. It is the rules that need to be examined, not VAR.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:20

And ill take one professional refs opinion against 4 ex pro players.



Post Edited (Tue 09 Apr 22:20)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:22

Quote:

CrossPar, Tue 9 Apr 22:17

People keep blaming VAR, yet VAR only gives another opportunity to view an incident. It is the rules that need to be examined, not VAR.


Good point.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:26

And even when the rules are right theres always going to be different interpretations so it's never going to be completely fool proof as some decisions will just be too subjective to reach agreement on.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: PARrot  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:31

Nothing is perfect but it will correct more wrongs than it wrongs ... em thingy.. you know what I mean.

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:47

Exactly ๐Ÿ˜‰
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: KilsythPar  
Date:   Tue 9 Apr 22:59

People (especially ex pros who think they know it all) have to understand that football is finally evolving after years of nothing happening. Other sports have embraced technology to excellent effect over many years. Football is finally following suit and will continue to progress. Due to the speed of the modern game, referees need help and VAR now provides that. I thought the referee at the Spurs game was excellent and used VAR sensibly.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 00:09

Anyone who thinks Salah's one with his back to the player was either intentional or reckless needs their heads looked at or just anti Liverpool as many posters are on here.

If you only turn up to moan then do it elsewhere
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Parsweep  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 07:04

Not sure what one you're referring to AAPS .
I was referring to Salah's over the top , possible leg breaker .
It was late on against Porto .
No surprise the Scouser panel were quick to skim over it .
It's certainly nothing anti Liverpool with me , I want them to win both titles .

Bobvo
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: widtink  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 12:55

Whether you are in favour of VAR or not... It's here to stay so best get used to it.
Give it time and it'll be in all leagues all over the world. Including the Scottish championship.



[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 13:02

Not one Man City player raised his hand claiming a penalty.Sterling was looking for a corner!

Tells us what the players thought about it.Some authority figure somewhere thought otherwise.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: parathletic  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 13:02

I saw that Brazilian clubs rejected it last year because the estimated cost was apparently 5.1 million euros a season so unless it's vastly reduced in cost it may be some time before it appears in the championship! It would require an extra official for every match too unless the 4th official can finally earn his corn!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 17:15

"Not one Man City player raised his hand claiming a penalty.Sterling was looking for a corner!

Tells us what the players thought about it.Some authority figure somewhere thought otherwise."

How many players saw it? I missed it in real time and didn't see the handball until the replay came on. Conversely Rose didn't complain about it because he knew he'd handled it.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 17:48

I never saw it either,but Sterling was about 3 yards from it and never petitioned for a penalty ...he appealed for a corner.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 18:21

Sterling doesn't make an appeal of any kind:

https://sport.bt.com/video/highlights-tottenham-1-0-manchester-city-91364353957995

When you see the replay from behind Rose you can see Sterling is looking at the ball and doesn't get his head up until until the contact is made so I wouldn't be so sure he does see it properly even though he's only yards away.

I'd say Rose's reaction is far more telling and he's come out and said he couldn't complain about the decision.



Post Edited (Wed 10 Apr 18:21)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 23:02

The only appeal he makes is when it goes behind and that was for a corner.We can agree to disagree whether he saw the initial strike hit Rose's hand.

It's weird i'm sure if that happened on any other part of the pitch nothing would have been given.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Wed 10 Apr 23:35

I completely disagree. If someone slides in to try and intercept a pass and it hits their hand like that it's a free kick and nobody bats an eyelid IMO.

As I said, Rose himself had come out and said he has no complaints.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Bandy  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 08:45

It's a clear penalty, given correctly. Likewise VAR correctly awarded Barcelona's goal last night. If that hadn't been given it would have been an absolute howler - at no point was Suarez close to being offside.

Given the increasing number of pens given for handball I'm looking forward to more John Terry style 'dive bomb' blocks.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 13:00

Handball happens all the time in open play and ref's have just waved it on.do we stop the game when every ball hits every hand or just when it could be a game changing goal/decision?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 13:19

No but 9 times out of ten what you've described there is when a player is on his feet with his hands down by his side.

As soon as someone goes in for a slide tackle and the ball hits their hand it's almost always a free kick.

Post Edited (Thu 11 Apr 13:19)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 13:22

Almost always isn't good enough:)...i think we should demand 100% certainty.I wonder if Rose would have been so forthcoming if lloris hadn't saved the penalty or Spurs had gone onto lose.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: JnrB  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 13:37

In regards to hand ball decisions. Next season there are extra guidelines for giving handball decisions in the updated fifa rules changes.

: making the body bigger with the arm in an unnatural position.

: arm/hand above shoulder height.

: even if accidental and the ball goes in to the goal off an arm/hand

: even if accidental a goal is created after hitting an arm/hand.

All will be given as a foul for hand ball.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 13:41

There could be 5 or 6 pens every game if that goes forward.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 14:36

Quote:

richie5401, Thu 11 Apr 13:41

There could be 5 or 6 pens every game if that goes forward.


It has gone forward. And I bet that defenders are a darn sight more careful in future. Hopefully it will actually result in more goals from open play. After all it's all about.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 14:42

If your a defender(or anyone really) how do you prevent an accidental handball?

Attackers are going to start deliberately aiming for hands if they don't have a clear sight of goal.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 15:25

That wouldn't have any impact unless the arm was outside of the normal position of the body for defenders.

For attackers its only going to remove the advantage they accidentally gained with the ball hitting their hand.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 16:06

Yep,that word accidental is going to cause more problems than it solves.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 16:15

Not really it's any handball now that results in a goal whether accidental or not.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 16:22

Who would be a defender.Their hands may be tied literally!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: Bandy  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 16:34

What about that 'natural silhouette' stuff? If that part of the new laws?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 16:50

The natural silhouette language is obviously way more contentious as it's open to referees interpretation but my understanding is that when you are stood or running normally your body will have an outline shape (its silhouette) and if the ball hits your hand when your within what would be deemed to be an ordinary position then it wouldn't be a free kick or penalty.

If you step across or try to block a shot and you make your body and your hands are no longer in a "normal" body position (not a great description on my part) then it's going to be a penalty.

It sounds complex but in practice I think it will only be slightly more restrictive than the "unnatural position" descriptions banded about in the past.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 17:10

Quote:

richie5401, Thu 11 Apr 14:42

If your a defender(or anyone really) how do you prevent an accidental handball?

Attackers are going to start deliberately aiming for hands if they don't have a clear sight of goal.


The accidental parts are for when an attacking team gains an advantage from an accidental hand ball.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 17:19

What if the defending team gains an advantagesm from an accidental handball?

Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 17:26

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Thu 11 Apr 17:19

What if the defending team gains an advantagesm from an accidental handball?


Richie had asked the question with regard to the following post.
Would seem a tad unfair if a goal was scored after a defender accidentally hand balling but instead a foul was given.

Quote:

JnrB, Thu 11 Apr 13:37

In regards to hand ball decisions. Next season there are extra guidelines for giving handball decisions in the updated fifa rules changes.

: making the body bigger with the arm in an unnatural position.

: arm/hand above shoulder height.

: even if accidental and the ball goes in to the goal off an arm/hand

: even if accidental a goal is created after hitting an arm/hand.

All will be given as a foul for hand ball.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 18:02

Quote:

The One Who Knocks, Thu 11 Apr 17:19

What if the defending team gains an advantagesm from an accidental handball?


Depends on whether your hand is within the natural silhouette of your body is my understanding.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Thu 11 Apr 21:40

Quote:

richie5401, Thu 11 Apr 16:22

Who would be a defender.Their hands may be tied literally!


Why should a defender have the "advantage" of using more of his body than the attacker? To me it is a long overdue change. What I would also like to see is penalties given for challenges that would always be a foul anywhere else on the pitch. There has always been this perception that a foul in the box has to be more serious to get a penalty. A foul must become punished wherever it happens.

Post Edited (Thu 11 Apr 21:41)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 00:31

Completely agree MS.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 00:41

So what is an unnatural position for a defender to have his hands.Most will hold there arms away from their body to get set.Is that unnatural?Doesn't sound like it.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 09:24

Quote:

richie5401, Fri 12 Apr 00:41

So what is an unnatural position for a defender to have his hands.Most will hold there arms away from their body to get set.Is that unnatural?Doesn't sound like it.


It's their. And it's pretty simple. If you use your arms to make yourself larger than is natural it's a foul.
The tackle that started this thread was a perfect example. There was absolutely no need for his arm to be in the air when he dived into the challenge. He was clearly making his body as large a possible. Thankfully VAR caught him out. Would have been missed normally although I did shout for a penalty as it happened.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: 1985Par  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 09:50

"It's their. And it's pretty simple. If you use your arms to make yourself larger than is natural it's a foul.
The tackle that started this thread was a perfect example. There was absolutely no need for his arm to be in the air when he dived into the challenge. He was clearly making his body as large a possible. Thankfully VAR caught him out. Would have been missed normally although I did shout for a penalty as it happened. "

Moviescot ,can I respectfully ask? Have you ever played competitive football, even at an amateur level? If so, where did you put your arms when you were moving at speed and stretching for a ball?



Post Edited (Fri 12 Apr 09:53)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 09:51

The PSG and Otamendi penalties were also really good examples of players either trying to block a shot or making the wrong decision on how to position their bodies to avoid committing a foul.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 09:58

You can put them wherever you want but if you're making yourself bigger looking to seek an advantage in blocking a shot and you stop the ball with your hand then you're going to be penalised.

As you more than likely would if you slid in to intercept a pass in the middle of the park and it hit your hand.

Free kicks have already been given for donkeys when the balls hits players on the hand in other areas in the pitch, it's now being applied (hopefully) a bit more consistently in the box.

And I'd wager most of the people on the forum have played the game with a proper referee on at least one occasion.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: mach1  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 10:12

Quite often during a tackle or blocking action arms are spread to help balance and to avoid injury when the tackler falls to the ground.

A good referee who has played the game should be able to tell when unnecessary arm movement is made to block the ball or otherwise gain advantage.

I see it like another tackling situation which has become prevalent today when a tackler goes in but just after impact raises his leg unnecessarily high to catch his opponent.
To me that could be seen as dangerous play even if the tackle cleanly got the ball.

The difficulty in all these types of situation is not the law but the interpretation of it.

VAR could and should help officials to make the fairest interpretation.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 10:24

See respectfully I disagree with that. Why should a necessary arm movement needed as part of the tackle be allowed if it stops a goal bound shot?

Why is the defender entitled to that advantage?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: 1985Par  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 11:44

Londonparsfan - have you ever played football? I have to ask in order to try and get my head round some of the stuff you're coming out with. With respect, you're opinion on handballs seems to have been formulated from watching a lot of (very) slow motion replays on TV. A lot of what you say seems to be theoretical desirable but totally impractical. Stuff like " Otamendi making the wrong decision on how to position his body" for example. How much time do you think these players have to react? You seem to view the game in a slow motion time frame. Do you have any experience of actually playing to justify these notions. You can't play competitive football with your hands by you sides and to suggest that if your hands stray into the air ( for balance, i'd wager) then a player is deliberately seeking an advantage, just baffles me.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:02

"Larger than is natural"..i have no idea what that even means,MS.Purely subjective in most cases, a lot of handballs are given when players hands/arms are in a balancing position.

Keeping you hands by your side when someone crosses a ball is an unnatural position.Making yourself bigger is an essential part of defending,that is being punished.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:15

I actually spent the overwhelming amount of my spare time kicking balls about up to the age of 30 then work got in the way so not so much recently but I dont think the game has changed that much and my opinion is formed on playing the game, it's certainly not influenced by half wits on BT Sport who must have one of the worst collections of pundits on TV.

Otamnedi had a split second to make his decision and he made the wrong one. Harsh but true. He could have got his hand out the way but he made the wrong move and blocked the shot. I've said before I think the bookings in that scenario are a poor rule as it's not deliberate but he chose where to put his arm and he ended up blocking the ball with his arm. If that happens in the middle of the park it's a free kick, why is it any different in the box?

If I jump for a header and my hand goes up which i think we'd agree it does and I accidentally knock it into the goal - should that count? Should that not be a foul even if my hand is in a natural position for an attacking header? Why is it different for a defender blocking potential goals vs scoring goals?

You obviously cant play the game running about with your hands glued to your side but you absolutely can choose which motions you to take that expose you to a higher risk of the ball hitting your arm.

There needs to be a risk vs reward decision: do you dive into a block or not?

You seem to think I'm saying the players are deliberately seeking an advantage; I'm not. I am saying that if you don't penalise these handball though that they do get an advantage as you can commit to tackles and blocks knowing that you dont have to worry about hand balls being given against you.

I'll ask again though why is a defender entitled to have the ball hit his hand in any of the Otamendi/Rose or Kimpembe situations that seem to be causing most beef?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:17

Quote:

richie5401, Fri 12 Apr 13:02

"Larger than is natural"..i have no idea what that even means,MS.Purely subjective in most cases, a lot of handballs are given when players hands/arms are in a balancing position.

Keeping you hands by your side when someone crosses a ball is an unnatural position.Making yourself bigger is an essential part of defending,that is being punished.


To be fair handball rules have always been subjective. What is an unnatural position?

Making yourself bigger is an essential part of defending but you cant stop the ball with your hands if you do. That's the part that's being punished not the rest.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:19

Others are asking the question as well LPF..How do you slide to block a ball with your arms by your side.That would be completely unnatural.When does it go from natural to illegal.That is the real grey area.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:26

So you can't make yourself bigger?You essentially have to be smaller.or risk a foul or penalty.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:27

I'm not saying theres going to be no ambiguity there absolutely will but that's always been in there for handball decisions. No doubt there is going to be a fair whack of controversy and it's almost inevitable that at some point there will be a comparison on SKY of one ref that gave a penalty because the arms are outside of the silhouette when another doesn't and the situations look exactly the same.

I still think it's the correct move to try and clamp down on the more obvious ones such as the PSG one. The boy was about 4 foot off the ground. That is not a natural position. In fairness his hands weren't in a daft position considering he had jumped to block the shot. The fact is though that in choosing to jump to block the shot, he stopped the ball with his arm.

Unnatural or not he wouldn't have stopped the ball with his arm if he hadn't jumped. Why is he allowed to jump and block the ball with his arm?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:32

I would agree with the "more obvious ones" many will intentionally try to block a shot with their arm.The problems or occur when it isn't clear but a penalty is given anyway.there seems to be no consideration given to the art of defending.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 13:43

See that's my point though that it shouldn't come down to intent. Intent should be used to determine whether it's a booking or possibly a red. You can unintentionally block the ball with your hand because you've moved your body.

If we're in the middle of the park and theres a counter on and you've just clipped a great ball past me putting someone clear and I punch the ball out the air that's a clear foul and a card of some description possibly a red.

In the same scenario if I step or slide across to block the pass with the intention of trying to make a fair tackle but I block it with my hand it's a free kick but I might avoid the card. No one bats an eyelid at the free kick given there because I've handled the ball.

Why are the same scenarios in the box different? You defend outside of the box and you see loads of examples of players stepping across passes trying to intercept them with their hands in normal positions and it's a foul.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 14:06

Intent is a factor then.Only one person can truly determine that and they seem be getting no benefit of the doubt.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 14:09

So if I go in for a diving header and my hand accidentally plays the ball into the net when it's in a natural position relative to attempting a diving header, are we saying it should stand?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 14:11

Would it be a goal if you head it,hits your hand and goes in?In the above scenario i would say no.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 14:56

See this is where I get lost. One accidental hand ball is a foul and one isn't. Why is the attacker penalised and the defender not?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 15:02

Again it goes to intent...How do you prove it?It's a decision made by a third party.

There seems to be no reasonable doubt involved.It hit his hand...penalty.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 15:07

Theres no intent in the scenario I gave you with the header and we both agree on that one that it shouldn't stand.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 15:27

There are easy ones to spot and there are grey area ones.The latter are being treated with the no doubt.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 15:43

Yeah but I'm making a direct comparison between an example where an attacker accidentally handles the ball into the net with no intent to a challenge like Rose's or Otamendis where there was no intent to prevent a goal with their hands.

The attacker should have a free kick awarded against them but the defender doesn't which doesnt seem very equal to me and the justification seems to be defenders arms go out when they block or tackle. Attackers hands go up when they jump.. Theres no intent in either scenario.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 15:59

I think when they use the term unnatural makes it confusing.A defender's arms outstretched on many occasions isn't unnatural.They seem to be trying to erase that line.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 16:11

Quote:

1985Par, Fri 12 Apr 09:50

"It's their. And it's pretty simple. If you use your arms to make yourself larger than is natural it's a foul.
The tackle that started this thread was a perfect example. There was absolutely no need for his arm to be in the air when he dived into the challenge. He was clearly making his body as large a possible. Thankfully VAR caught him out. Would have been missed normally although I did shout for a penalty as it happened. "

Moviescot ,can I respectfully ask? Have you ever played competitive football, even at an amateur level? If so, where did you put your arms when you were moving at speed and stretching for a ball?


Yes I did. My arms were never above my head which was the case in this instance. I played at junior level for 3 years then amateur until I was 35.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 16:55

Quote:

richie5401, Fri 12 Apr 13:19

Others are asking the question as well LPF..How do you slide to block a ball with your arms by your side.That would be completely unnatural.When does it go from natural to illegal.That is the real grey area.


You don't slide with your arms in n the air.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: richie5401  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 17:00

The iconic picture of Roy Barry and John Lunn trying to stop Jinky crossing the ball would suggest otherwise.

What would have happened if Jinky cut the ball back to the 18 yard D and hit Roy's raised left arm?Penalty?



Post Edited (Fri 12 Apr 17:00)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: VARcical again
Topic Originator: moviescot  
Date:   Fri 12 Apr 20:13

Quote:

richie5401, Fri 12 Apr 17:00

The iconic picture of Roy Barry and John Lunn trying to stop Jinky crossing the ball would suggest otherwise.

What would have happened if Jinky cut the ball back to the 18 yard D and hit Roy's raised left arm?Penalty?




Yes if in box.

Post Edited (Fri 12 Apr 20:14)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


f=[], target=[], forgotpass=[] ,
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email: