WHU v TOT
- Thread starter one
- Start date
Hard to say from the still as can't see what went before but just looking at the body shape of the player it is potentially a Justifiable position for the action/movement - almost impossible to extend leg 90 degrees from body without the arm extending for balance and the extension here appears to be reactive to ball from close range.
one
RefChat Addict
I would accept this as an explanation if you as the referee don't give a handball. Can you use this as justification to say the referee was clearly and obviously wrong?
As context, the review replays concentrated on the ball hitting the head first before hitting the hand. I don't see why?
Seen a video now, which is more helpful than the still.
It's a HB offence for me, never mind over ruling it.
The only conclusion I can think of is they are using the old it not an offence if it is played off another player who is close.
For me, there is an unnatural movement of the arm towards the ball on the video.
I suspect the VAR intervention came as a result of the ball hitting Cresswell’s head deflecting it onto his arm.
I can see the arguments either way in whether this is a handball offence as the arm is certainly extended and not greatly naturally positions even before the ball hits his head.
I can see the arguments either way in whether this is a handball offence as the arm is certainly extended and not greatly naturally positions even before the ball hits his head.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
There seems to be some element of an idea out there that HB decisions have an objectively correct decision. That seems to make the C&O standard much easier to meet than for a contact foul. Ik. Not agreeing that is the way it should be, but I think that is how VARs in many places are looking at HB review.
Under the old law it would have absolutely been a wrong decision to give handball as it definitely deflected off his head onto his arm. You can't blame the referee for that though, as from some angles you just couldn't see it touch the head.
With the current law that doesn't really come into it. All that can be looked at is whether he made his body unnaturally bigger. I think he did, but it could probably be argued that he did so justifiably because of how he jumped for the ball.
With the current law that doesn't really come into it. All that can be looked at is whether he made his body unnaturally bigger. I think he did, but it could probably be argued that he did so justifiably because of how he jumped for the ball.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Not quite right. Under the old law, “biggering“ (and deliberate) trumped a deflection, so the application should be the same.
It was hand/arm above the shoulder that over ruled played off a player who was was close or played off another body part first.
I don't think it even hit his arm though. The angle from in front shows it clearly hits his head and bounces closely by his arm, but no clear evidence of it hitting his arm. That is why it took so long, the VAR was checking if it actually hit his arm.
The picture above is misleading as it is in 2D.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Doesn’t really matter since we’re a couple of years past and it was poorly written, but the “above” offenses that were not exonerated by a deflection included “biggering.”
It definitely hit his arm, that seemed pretty clear to me from all of the replay angles.
I agree with you - head hit first … but … I genuinely thought that VAR is meant to correct a “clear and obvious” error - if it took VAR that amount of time AND a visit to pitch side screen - surely means that it was not C&O?