Liverpool Vs Bournemouth
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
Disagree, if you watch the slow replay, deliberate movement of the hand to touch the ball. First contact on arm OK, second movement deliberate
Nope 100% natural movement, anyone who’s played football will know he didn’t know where his hand would go
Can't tell if you're trolling
This is a clear example of a
Intentional handball. Its not that obvious live but it's crystal clear on replay.
redref2005
New Member
Second movement was blatently intentional to tip the ball away. Surprised VAR missed it but at the speed the game goes it's probably to be expected. Entertaining game as neither team seems to be able to defend breaks!
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
How exactly do you know what football expects? Who is the judge of what football expects?
The officials making a decision does not necessarily mean it must be correct. Otherwise Howard Webb wouldn’t have to come out multiple times a season to apologise for mistakes
right guys, close the forum. We can never discuss subjective decisions again
Carragher at HT claims the VAR comms to the ref he heard was that it wasn't given due to the ball hitting the arm directly after a play off the foot. Which is true, but that's not the claimed HB, that was the touch by the hand that followed the arm, that looks a lot like an additional deliberate movement.
And then of course, official statement quoted at HT states that it WAS HB, but VAR doubted if it was DOGSO so didn't intervene.
So either Carragher misunderstood or is making up what he heard, or the VAR just didn't see the actual HB, called "check confirmed" too quickly and then has had to come up with a different reason for not getting involved. Doesn't seem great.....
And then of course, official statement quoted at HT states that it WAS HB, but VAR doubted if it was DOGSO so didn't intervene.
So either Carragher misunderstood or is making up what he heard, or the VAR just didn't see the actual HB, called "check confirmed" too quickly and then has had to come up with a different reason for not getting involved. Doesn't seem great.....
Last edited:
bester
RefChat Addict
From Premier League match centre
"The referee’s call of no red card to Senesi was checked and confirmed by VAR – with the action deemed not to be a clear handball offence nor denial of a goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO), due to the distance from goal."
Will await the mic'd up show
"The referee’s call of no red card to Senesi was checked and confirmed by VAR – with the action deemed not to be a clear handball offence nor denial of a goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO), due to the distance from goal."
Will await the mic'd up show
For the subs I have no explanation, but after goals they now start adding time after allowing 30 seconds to elapse first, so it is possible that the goal genuinely didn't have an impact on the amount of time added (although I didn't watch the game so can't comment on whether that was actually the case or not!)
one
RefChat Addict
Deeming the action as not a clear handball is baffling on its own, but then if that is the case why do they need to comment on DOGSO?
I would have accepted no intervention due to it not being a clear DOGSO had they just siad that. Reference to not clear handball loses all credibility.
- Status