What reaction?
City vs Real
- Thread starter James P
- Start date
Because this is a refereeing forum, and as referees we can only go on the current laws. Just as the officiating team had to do on the night, and under the current laws it is as blatant as it comes. If it was last season he might have got away with it as it deflected off someone else onto him, but we aren't in last season, we are in this season and therefore it is handball.
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Seriously FFS! Even when City win, the same person plays the "There's a conspiracy against City" card! 
It's a factual decision though.
Once VAR sees a handball it either is or isn't.
Havent seen it but read on earlier post above the shoulder in which case that would have always still been an offence in old law too...
The questioning on if handballs gone the wrong way, debating whether or not it’s blatant when his arm is clearly in the air, that sort of reaction.
Considering the amount of beneficial decisions City have had go their way this year, it’s even more mind blowing.Seriously FFS! Even when City win, the same person plays the "There's a conspiracy against City" card!
To give Bloovee rare defence, on that first part I think he’s agreeing with you. He was responding to me. I said for Llorente’s handball the other year it wasn’t clear and obvious whether it hit his hand which was perhaps poor wording from me. What I more meant was that it was hard to tell whether it actually touched Llorente’s hand on the replays. Either way it’s irrelevant, it was fine that year in the laws.
I object on linguistic grounds to the word "blatant". If it wasn't deliberate it can't be blatant. There's no advantage, another defender would have cleared it if it hadn't hit his hand. The deflection off the hand actually made it more likely the ball went to an attacker.
All I'm saying is that matches should not be decided on a mischance (which under the law still leaves some discretion for the referee's opinion). Just because the law has changed, it doesn't mean it won't change again. If I was writing the law from scratch, it wouldn't be a penalty for handling unless it was DOGSO.
I also think it's terrible practice to develop interpretation, produce loads of stuff explaining the nuances and giving illustrations, then next season rip it all up. (And still not know which part of the ball hitting which bit of the arm constitutes handling.)
Anubis
RefChat Addict
To play on is more beneficial than stopping play
how more beneficial than a goal would you like? The world cup, champ league and eurovision song contest winning medals to be handed out?
its brilliant. Its black and white wait and see, To have the awareness, confidence, and bravery to do that, in that game, wth eyes of world on him, he deserves whatever % of it was luck.
maybe you harbour some envy as your Utopia would be a champ league semi and to pull that off, and, its never going to happen
the rest of referee world will look on and cheer.
So you're saying you disagree with the law rather than the decision is wrong. Fair enough.
That's what makes it even better. It's not obvious to start.
Easy to just blow the whistle and give the foul.
Ref gives the play that 1 or 2 seconds to develop, not rushing, and balls in the net. If nothing comes of the wait and see he is poised to give the kick no one bat's an eye lid, as. It is we all get to applaud some great refereeing.
Last edited:
Well, yes. I'm not sure why anyone assumed differently...
Under the current law, which I keep coming back to is all we can really talk about on here, it is as blatant as it comes. Hand up in air, ball hits hand, referee blows whistle, penalty. What is in any way confusing about this?
Did I miss the Covid symptom that makes us all go back 5 years in time ... ?
It's a penalty now, move on.
Well no, because he doesn't decide to play advantage there, he waits and sees. He only decides to play advantage when the ball falls to Silva on his left foot. Was luck involved, yes to an extent because the shot could have sailed over the bar. But there is also a lot of skill involved, it would have been very easy to blow there and then but he has done what every referee should do, waited a second to see what happens. If the ball hadn't rolled to Silva, or it had and his route to goal was blocked, he would have pulled it back for a free kick.
Then I think the biggest problem now is not "last week's ref" but "last year's laws". ("Blatant" now, not an offence last season.)
But there's nothing in the current law 12 about "hand up in the air" (and both players were in the air, Benzema's arms too were extended). It's whether the position of the hand/arm is a consequence of or justifiable by the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Are all players jumping for the ball supposed to keep their arms pinned to their sides? The technique to head a ball involves swinging the arms .... I know Laporte's hand was away from the body, but we are talking about science here - maybe the laws of the game versus the laws of science. What does "justifiable" mean? Does it imply intent to have arms in the "wrong" place, or mere carelessness? (Or is it just more meat on the bone for saying the laws are made for referees not players?)
Training the Vertical Jump to Head the Ball in Soccer : Strength & Conditioning Journal
NVOLVED IN VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE AND HOW THEY RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO HEADING THE BALL....
journals.lww.com
Either way, my other point is that even if it's an offence under this year's rules, it doesn't merit the punishment of a free shot on goal when there was only a slim chance that the attacking team would benefit from the accidental offence.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
If you wish to get the penalty kick award changed so that it is only applied when in your opinion a goal may well have resulted from the attack, you should phrase it carefully when you apply to IFAB for approval.Then I think the biggest problem now is not "last week's ref" but "last year's laws". ("Blatant" now, not an offence last season.)
But there's nothing in the current law 12 about "hand up in the air" (and both players were in the air, Benzema's arms too were extended). It's whether the position of the hand/arm is a consequence of or justifiable by the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Are all players jumping for the ball supposed to keep their arms pinned to their sides? The technique to head a ball involves swinging the arms .... I know Laporte's hand was away from the body, but we are talking about science here - maybe the laws of the game versus the laws of science. What does "justifiable" mean? Does it imply intent to have arms in the "wrong" place, or mere carelessness? (Or is it just more meat on the bone for saying the laws are made for referees not players?)
View attachment 5640
Training the Vertical Jump to Head the Ball in Soccer : Strength & Conditioning Journal
NVOLVED IN VERTICAL JUMP PERFORMANCE AND HOW THEY RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO HEADING THE BALL....
Either way, my other point is that even if it's an offence under this year's rules, it doesn't merit the punishment of a free shot on goal when there was only a slim chance that the attacking team would benefit from the accidental offence.
After IFAB consider your recommendation please let us know what they decide.
In the meantime, this was a penalty kick, and as RustyRef has said politely and eloquently *Move on"
There's also nothing in the laws of the game about studs into the shin being excessive force or studs onto the foot being reckless. They are a part of a long list of considerations that both IFAB and UEFA have published for referees to be on the same page when it comes to judging decisions. These considerations and examples are needed since when all you list now is the arm being unnaturally away from the body you do need additional information on how to apply that so that in something like the champions League you have as consistent of application as humanly possible.
So while you are correct that the arm above the shoulder, the plant arm being used to support the body, or the ball being played deliberately by a player and up into their arm no longer being listed in the laws of the game they are still active considerations that professional referees are taught to use.
That's why it's hard just to "move on"! I'm all in favour of training "professional" referees to try and ensure consistent interpretation, but are they really being taught to give "active consideration" to stuff that was deleted from the law? And do not we lesser mortals deserve to possess this secret knowledge?
In CONCACAF's advantage education video, there is an example of a great advantage wherein the referee puts the whistle to his mouth, realizes an advantage, and plays on. It's not even a consideration to talk about putting the whistle to mouth. These are professionals playing professionally. Concerns for Level 7s are not the same as concerns for Elite Group Europeans.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I feel you're being deliberately obtuse.
Firstly, you're deliberately ignoring the whistle to lips.
You make this false claim that I've said a free kick is more beneficial than a goal.
All I've said is that advantage isn't resulting in a good chance 80% of the time.
I'm not sure that's that controversial.