If we all just agreed with people who are more qualified then this forum wouldn’t exist. It’s called debate. Don’t focus on the fact I’m bored of your catchphrase, focus on the fact I was looking for constructive feedback on a refereeing forum
World Cup Should this be a penalty?
- Thread starter The Referee
- Start date
I answered perfectly, it’s just not handball and my esteemed colleagues agreed. You been an advocate of the VAR process I’m surprised your even arguing. When you agree with it it’s brilliant and when you disagree it’s wrong. Sounds like your opinions needs adjusting on this one! 
I answered perfectly, it’s just not handball and my esteemed colleagues agreed. You been an advocate of the VAR process I’m surprised your even arguing. When you agree with it it’s brilliant and when you disagree it’s wrong. Sounds like your opinions needs adjusting on this one!
Because VAR didn't give it doesn't mean that the original decision was correct, or indeed that VAR got it right. As I said, we don't even know if it was working at the time, and as I posted earlier VAR has just somehow failed to get involved in the most obvious of obvious cases of SFP.
I’m an advocate of VAR but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every refereeing decision made using it or when not used as that’s still down to the interpretation of the referees in charge. They don’t think it’s a penalty yet I do, that’s not me mixing up my opinions on VAR.I answered perfectly, it’s just not handball and my esteemed colleagues agreed. You been an advocate of the VAR process I’m surprised your even arguing. When you agree with it it’s brilliant and when you disagree it’s wrong. Sounds like your opinions needs adjusting on this one!
All I was simply asking was why don’t you think it’s a penalty so maybe once you can come up with a constructive point and maybe other referees on here may think ‘actually yes, excellent point’, or maybe strike up a debate where others opinions can be taken on board. Guess not
They could simplify all this, just make it hand only, and regardless of intent, like Ice hockey, it’s a DFK, it’s same for both sides, just a thought, then all this argument disappears!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Keep in mind that the VAR isn’t tasked with fixing all mistakes, but (in this context) only ones that are clear errors. So the VAR’s threshold for recommending a review is higher than the initial R threshold for sending off the player for SFP. It I do find it ironic that even though SFP and VC were among the key reasons used to advocate for VR, the threshold for actually using it on SFP and VC has been extremely high. (Was the same in the MWC.) With the contact to the hand (even though close to the head), I presume the VAR thought it wasn’t sufficiently clear and obvious to warrant review.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Yeah, but then the game for forwards who get trapped is to flick the ball at arms, which would be ugly and unsatisfying. Hockey is a different game.
I know but it’s very subjective at the moment!
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
And has always been. The Game has just drawn the line at differently at different times and in different places. Unless you go whole hog on any touch is an offense, there will always be subjectivity at the border. But is it really that different from other fouls? The line between an illegal and illegal charge? Or between holding that is trifling versus holding that warrants a PK?
This, IMO, highlights one of the inherent problems with VR for soccer: many decisions are subjective, and many erroneous think that somehow VR will make that not true.
But giving a yellow card to a player who kicks an opponent in the head with a straight leg can only be a clear error.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It it wasn’t the head—it was the hand near the head. I’m not saying this couldn’t or shouldn’t have gone to review to be one a send off. But the reality has been, especially in FIFA competitions, the bar for clear error on potential SFP or VC has been very high.
The PK... I could go either way. Proximity has always been key consideration (imo) and the girl only had a 100ms or so to react (deliberately or not). I'd expect it to be given under the new Law. The flying kick is just laughable
Not sure how VAR can not be working btw... this is 2019
Just shows that frequently, the controversy just shifts from the R to the VAR, but it doesn't go away
Not sure how VAR can not be working btw... this is 2019
Just shows that frequently, the controversy just shifts from the R to the VAR, but it doesn't go away
Last edited:
It's a wrong decision, only thing I can assume is that the referee saw there was no contact with the head and decided it was just reckless.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
If we're talking about the Cameroon player, she didn't kick the opponent in the head. I think this is one of those where you could say (and the commentators did) that she was a little lucky not to get a red card but on the other hand, while kicking someone on the arm is at a minimum reckless, I'm not convinced this is a nailed on red card to the extent that a yellow had to be overturned as per the requirements of the VAR Protocol.
Here's an image showing where she caught the Dutch player on the forearm.
Even under the new laws, that's still not a criterion for deciding if it was a handball.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I think this is a good example of slow motion making things look worse than they are. You can use the slow motion for one thing, though. Look at how much distance there is between the top edge of the ball and the defender's arm at the moment the Scottish player kicks it. I would estimate 6 inches or so.
The law says that:
The Referee
Well-Known Member
@Peter Grove
Don't forget this:
It is usually an offence if a player:
Don't forget this:
It is usually an offence if a player:
- 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)
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I know that but I left it out because I don't feel it applies. Her arm is not above the shoulder and she had not made her body unnaturally bigger (IMHO). Her arm was in a natural position for the movement she was making at the time, as far as I'm concerned.
I think that is the issue - has the arm made her body unnaturally bigger? If you think yes, it should be a penalty. If you think no, it shouldn't be a penalty.
And I think this is where there will be differing views.
Can someone clarify, or does the LOTG say, the word ‘Unnatural’, or is it just make up a view to suit an argument?