|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Tue 5 Mar 11:24
I`ve just caught up with Scottish Premiership highlights and witnessed yet more compelling evidence that the handball rule, with all its nonsensical complexities, needs to be binned, and the sooner the better.
The penalty awarded to Hearts v Celtic was an appalling call by the VAR, John Beaton, but he can hide behind the equally dreadful handball rule as it stands. What was wrong with handball only being a handball offence if the ref deemed it to be deliberate?
i.e. Did the man play the ball or the ball play the man?
By all means, if the ref is in any doubt, he should go and consult the screen, but the game should be refereed by the man with the whistle, not someone looking at a TV monitor.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Tue 5 Mar 12:23
Agree - it`s an absolute joke. The incident you mention was a shocker but you if you watch match of the day and sportscene of a weekend you`ll see i`d say about 2 similar incidents every week. In my opinion 99% of hand balls are totally accidental. There was a claim in the St Johnstone game where Devlin handled as he went up for a header. Kris Boyd saying " i don`t know what his hands were doing up there" - ironically the other 2 competing players had their hands " up there" which is what i suppose you do to get some elevation when competing for a ball in close proximity with 2 others. I would not be surprised if players now get to the bye-line and deliberately target a player knowing it the ball might flick his elbow on the way into the box ( see Rangers penalty at Killie last week)
Also you hear the phrase " that`s a foul anywhere else on the pitch " etc etc. The handball you mentioned would not have been. Nobody even noticed it bar the puppet sitting in the VAR control centre with his fingers on the slow mo and rewind buttons.
Accidental handball should not be penalised in my opinion.
Post Edited (Tue 05 Mar 12:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Tue 5 Mar 12:26
probably one where the midweek decision not to award one in Dingwall then means any ball to hand situation gets given.
If you want to enhance your football experience do the referees course and then stop listening to pundits. "thats not a foul for me" maybe so mr Boyd/Shearer but as per laws of the game it is a foul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 5 Mar 13:31
Both OF managers had a go at refereeing decisions at the weekend. Coincidentally, both their teams were beaten.
Most pundits say `the refs know the laws but they don`t know the game`. The refs would probably say `the pundits know the game but they don`t know the laws`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 13:37
I thought Yang`s red was pretty harsh too - certainly not a `clear and obvious` error but the on field ref. The handball was a joke - I agree with Rodgers` assessment - Beaton seemed to want to insert himself into the game.
in the EPL I see Tierney has been taken out of the limelight for his howler at the weekend. After his error, which contributed to Liverpool nicking 3 points, he`s now on VAR duty for the Arsenal match. PGMOL really don`t help themselves...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 5 Mar 14:43
John beaton had a shocker TBH .. The Celtic penalty was never a penalty and the red card was harsh .. The Hearts penalty was a joke as well .. bad day at the office for Mr. Beaton
Why does the ref not go to the monitor straight away .. then discuss with the var assistant so they can both see what is happening ??
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Tue 5 Mar 15:31
Quote:
Buspasspar, Tue 5 Mar 14:43
John beaton had a shocker TBH .. The Celtic penalty was never a penalty and the red card was harsh .. The Hearts penalty was a joke as well .. bad day at the office for Mr. Beaton
Why does the ref not go to the monitor straight away .. then discuss with the var assistant so they can both see what is happening ??
A high foot making contact with the head is a definite straight red
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: SeasonedPar
Date: Tue 5 Mar 15:43
I was talking about the Hearts game this morning. Frankly, either I don’t understand the rules, or they’ve become so complex over hand balls and offsides no one understands.
I feel sorry for the refs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:10
"A high foot making contact with the head is a definite straight red"
Are the rules that clear cut? - I thought the wording was more subjective than that; i.e the ref should take the force of the challenge into account etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:22
as per IFAB https://www.theifab.com/
Sending-off offences
A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:
denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent whose overall movement is towards the offender’s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
serious foul play
biting or spitting at someone
violent conduct
using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or action(s)
receiving a second caution in the same match
entering the video operation room (VOR)
A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.
Suggesting it was a Serious foul play red card... which is classified as:
"Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:29
I don`t see anything specific about a high to the head in there. In my opinion - it shouldn`t be there either.
In my view, head on head contact is more dangerous that foot on head contact, so if we`re going down the route of a high foot to the head is `endangering an opponent` then sure contesting a header is also `endangering an opponent` - meaning headers should be banned, or uncontested...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:31
If you put your studs into someone face you are getting a red card all day long.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:35
Deleted. Duplicate post
Post Edited (Tue 05 Mar 16:40)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:43
If the ball is head height then I think it`s fair for either player to challenge for the ball using their head. What`s not on is for one player to head the ball, because it`s head height , and the other player to not make contact with the ball and instead make contact with his opponents face with his boot. In any game at any level in any league that should always be a red card.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:45
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Tue 5 Mar 16:31
If you put your studs into someone face you are getting a red card all day long.
It looked to me like Yang tried to play the ball with his foot, and his opponent arrived to contest it with his head. I can`t see that Yang deliberately tried to kick his opponent in the face. He hadn`t arrived yet when Yang started to lift his leg, I don`t think. It was certainly dangerous, but not malicious or reckless, imo.
I think we can all agree that Mr Beaton had a hat trick of nightmares involving the two pens and the red card. He should be given some time off to reflect.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:46
"denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)"
That rule was temporarily suspended for one of the Scottish Cup semi finals 2015.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egZJDmKafpo
Alan Muir had forgotten to collect his new prescription lenses from that well known opticians !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 5 Mar 16:49
GG I`ve no doubt that he didn`t intend to thurst his foot into his opponents face but he still did it. Like you admitted it was dangerous and dangerous play is punished with a red card.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 17:08
I still don`t understand why `foot to head` contact is dangerous and `head to head` contact `fair enough`? I reckon head to head contact is pretty dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Tue 5 Mar 18:47
"I think we can all agree that Mr Beaton had a hat trick of nightmares involving the two pens and the red card. He should be given some time off to reflect."
Not for me Clive, and for the following reasons:
1. The Celtic penalty was a joke - he instigated contact first then fell over. A shocker.
2. The red card was probably correct - if your foot is so high that it hits someone in the face when the opponent isn`t stooping or ducking then its reckless and endangering an opponent. Seen them given and seen them not given but not a howler by any means.
3. The Hearts penalty was a joke - but was the correct decision using current laws and guidelines. Not a shocker.
4. Also worth reiterating that Rodgers knew exactly what he was going by mentioning Beaton by name, as it plays perfectly with what his fanbase wants to hear and means he can ignore his own and his teams shortcomings.
5. Also worth pointing out that Don Robertson had the final say and could have disagreed with Brother Beaton.
As for Tierney in the Forest v Liverpool game, while it was a poor error, he made the same mistake in favour of Forest earlier in the match and on both occasions he should have had one of the other officials in his earpiece reminding him that the ball was still live when he blew the whistle. I think he just misremembered and thought he blew up while it was still in the box (in which case giving it the goalkeeper was correct). Incidentally our referee on Saturday did something similar where we had possession when he blew the whistle but instead of giving us the ball he gave it to an Ayr player who then passed it to Mehmet. It was all very strange. Also, Forest had ample opportunity to clear their lines including Hudson-Odoi trying to dribble it out from his own box and being dispossessed - to claim Tierney gave Liverpool the three points is tin foil hat stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Tue 5 Mar 19:26
On Tierney - a couple of points.
1. He didn`t make the same error when Dominguez went down. He blew before the ball had been touched by anyone outside the box, therefore returning the ball to the keeper was correct. In Forest`s case Hudson-Odoi had touched it 3 times outside the box before he blew. The touches outside the box mean the drop ball should have been awarded when Hudson-Odoi had possession. The situations were similar, but not the same, and different rules apply. A top ref should know this.
2. No-one here is saying that Tierney gifted Liverpool 3 points. However it`s fair to say that it`s less likely Liverpool would have won the game without his howler - Forest would have had possession in a dangerous area with very little time on the clock. Liverpool took advantage of their good fortune. Credit to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: xgatesmafia
Date: Tue 5 Mar 20:52
Kelty has it spot on for me with regards to the Hearts game. Celtic penalty was an absolute nonsense with the Celtic player initiating contact. It was VERY surprising that the decisions that went against them were given despite for me , them being correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: 1985Par
Date: Tue 5 Mar 21:28
What’s the justification for giving Hearts the penalty for the hand ball? Did it hit his arm? Yes. The replay shows it hits him on the arm. But the ref didn’t need to go to the screen to see that. The person in the VAR centre could confirm that. Or the groundsman. Or some guy in hospitality. Or the ball boy. So presumably the ref was looking for some kind of context. Intent? Unnatural position? Leaning into the ball? Trying to gain an advantage? Did the ball travel a long way?Etc etc. in which case I can’t fathom what he found. Aye the ball hits him in the arm below the shirt line but my understanding of the rule is that there’s more nuance and more to consider than that. If there isn’t, there should be. And if there is I can’t see any grounds for it being given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 6 Mar 06:51
Quote:
kelty_par, Tue 5 Mar 18:47
"I think we can all agree that Mr Beaton had a hat trick of nightmares involving the two pens and the red card. He should be given some time off to reflect."
Not for me Clive, and for the following reasons:
1. The Celtic penalty was a joke - he instigated contact first then fell over. A shocker.
2. The red card was probably correct - if your foot is so high that it hits someone in the face when the opponent isn`t stooping or ducking then its reckless and endangering an opponent. Seen them given and seen them not given but not a howler by any means.
3. The Hearts penalty was a joke - but was the correct decision using current laws and guidelines. Not a shocker.
4. Also worth reiterating that Rodgers knew exactly what he was going by mentioning Beaton by name, as it plays perfectly with what his fanbase wants to hear and means he can ignore his own and his teams shortcomings.
5. Also worth pointing out that Don Robertson had the final say and could have disagreed with Brother Beaton.
So you`re agreeing that the 2 pens should never have been awarded?
Re the red card. I`m suggesting Yang may not have been aware of the closeness of his opponent. We often seen players scoring brilliant overhead kicks with their feet at head height. These goals are correctly disallowed if they endanger an opponent in close proximity. I can`t recall a player ever receiving a yellow card, never mind a red, in these circumstances. Now, while Yang`s red card didn`t involve him trying to score, there are enough similarities for me to believe it was harsh. I do think he should have been more aware and not gone for the ball with his foot, so a yellow would have been the right call for me.
It`s true that the ref can stick to his original decision after the VAR asks him to consult the monitor, but how often do we see that in practice? Invariably, the match official will feel under pressure to bow to the opinion of his colleague, who has almost certainly had more than one look at the incident and from different angles to boot. And do we have a different philosophy to the Premier League, where I`ve often heard it stated that VAR is not there to re-referee a game, but only to correct "clear and obvious errors."
I`m not convinced that Yang`s high foot was reckless rather than dangerous and therefore doesn`t fall under that description, but feel free to disagree.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: TrancePar
Date: Wed 6 Mar 10:39
Unpopular opinion but I think a handball should be penalised whether its deliberate or accidental. Keeps it simple. Probably a few occasions where a player will undergo tough luck and lose a penalty but football needs more goals anyway...
Life is made of small moments like these
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Wed 6 Mar 10:58
that then just turns into wingers dinking ball against a fullbacks hand on the line/in the area rather than swinging in a cross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Wed 6 Mar 12:19
I think there should be accidental handball..punished by an indirect free kick in the box - like hitting the foot in hockey is a penalty corner rrather than a penalty flick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Wed 6 Mar 20:34
GG, no I`m saying the first one (coincidently the one Rodgers failed to mention) was incorrect and the second was correct under the current rules. And as far as I know we use the same protocol as England with regards the VAR only offering advice. We don`t often see a referee stick with their original decision either in England or Scotland but it has happened in both leagues. And I see you didn`t address my other point - had the VAR been, I don`t know, Alan Muir, do you think Rodgers would have mentioned him by name once let alone twice? He was pandering to the conspiracy theorists in his clubs support and I`m sad that you`ve fallen into the same trap. So to go back to your original post - no, or don`t believe "John Beaton made a hat trick of of nightmares". I think Don Robertson made one very bad mistake, gave one borderline "seen them given" decision and gave one decision that was technically correct even if we`d all rather it wasn`t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 7 Mar 07:40
Quote:
kelty_par, Wed 6 Mar 20:34
GG, no I`m saying the first one (coincidently the one Rodgers failed to mention) was incorrect and the second was correct under the current rules. And as far as I know we use the same protocol as England with regards the VAR only offering advice. We don`t often see a referee stick with their original decision either in England or Scotland but it has happened in both leagues. And I see you didn`t address my other point - had the VAR been, I don`t know, Alan Muir, do you think Rodgers would have mentioned him by name once let alone twice? He was pandering to the conspiracy theorists in his clubs support and I`m sad that you`ve fallen into the same trap. So to go back to your original post - no, or don`t believe "John Beaton made a hat trick of of nightmares". I think Don Robertson made one very bad mistake, gave one borderline "seen them given" decision and gave one decision that was technically correct even if we`d all rather it wasn`t.
Thanks for clarifying your position, KP. I think we`ll have to agree to disagree, as I firmly believe both pens should never have been awarded and the red card was extremely harsh.
( I`ll not mention that I was a fully qualified referee during my pleuky youth and I concur with all Don Robertson`s original decisions and do not believe VAR should have got involved.)
I agree that Brendan Rodgers was shitstirring by mentioning John Beaton by name, but you yourself refer to him as "Brother Beaton" - why is that? Does he belong to some secret organisation, or only drink in certain pubs? The "paranoia" taunt is always levelled at Celtic fans, but it`s probably true of some football fans of every other club in the country. I`m sure you will remember the ire and angst among Rangers fans when their club went down the pan in 2012. (Luckily, they found a new club to support, playing in the same colours and the same stadium, almost immediately. )
And who was it who said, "Just because I`m paranoid, doesn`t mean they`re not out to get me"? 😀😀😀
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Thu 07 Mar 07:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 7 Mar 08:49
GG back in the day when you were a qualified ref the attitude was to allow a lot more physical challenges to go unpunished. These days kicking players in the face is more frowned upon.
I remember last season Kemar Roofe was shown, quite rightly , a straight red in a European game for thrusting his boot into the opposition goalies face while trying to get to the ball first. Not intentional but still dangerous.
Of course high feet challenges aren`t always punished by reds as Nigel De Jong will attest to after only receiving a yellow for his kung fu style kick to the chest of Xabi Alonso in the 2010 world cup final. I`m sure he believed he was trying to win the ball though.
As for Sunday`s game had Celtic converted their ill gotten dodgy penalty (only given because of a bias towards Celtic I must assume) and gone on to win the match then Rogers wouldn`t have said a peep about the refereeing performance.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 7 Mar 09:34
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Thu 7 Mar 08:49
GG back in the day when you were a qualified ref the attitude was to allow a lot more physical challenges to go unpunished. These days kicking players in the face is more frowned upon.
I remember last season Kemar Roofe was shown, quite rightly , a straight red in a European game for thrusting his boot into the opposition goalies face while trying to get to the ball first. Not intentional but still dangerous.
Of course high feet challenges aren`t always punished by reds as Nigel De Jong will attest to after only receiving a yellow for his kung fu style kick to the chest of Xabi Alonso in the 2010 world cup final. I`m sure he believed he was trying to win the ball though.
As for Sunday`s game had Celtic converted their ill gotten dodgy penalty (only given because of a bias towards Celtic I must assume) and gone on to win the match then Rogers wouldn`t have said a peep about the refereeing performance.
Do you think I`m from the Jurassic era, TOWK? 😉
Yes, refs let a lot of shocking "tackles" go unpunished, probably before my time, tbf. (I refereed Saturday morning U-18 games in the`70s, so didn`t have too many psychopaths to deal with.) 😀
My point about Yang`s red card is that I don`t think he saw his opponent when he went for the ball with his high foot. Should he have had a look around first? Is there time to do that in the Premiership? Not arguing that it was dangerous, but I would contend that it was not reckless or intentional, unlike De Jong`s callous disregard for Xabi Alonso in the incident you mention above.
The regret I have about VAR is that it usurps the match referee`s authority and discretion and still gets decisions wrong. I can always forgive the match ref getting it wrong (except when it involves the Pars) but not so much the VAR, who is able to watch it several times and from different angles.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
