FCSB v Aberdeen
- Thread starter DavidObs
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
LothianRef
Member
Not sure it’s a handball or a caution for me. Even if you do deem it handball I’m still not sure what the caution would be for.
I share your thoughts. Deeming that to be a handball was harsh in the first place & then to also caution seemed even harsher & unnecessary. If the pictures we saw from the slow motion clip was the same as what the Referee watched on the monitor then that may have over-influenced him. If he had sight of a mixture of real time and slo-mo, there may have been a different outcome.
I think what they have conspired to see here is a movement of the hand towards the ball, but neglecting to see that the trajectory of the ball changed unexpectedly and this was a justifiable consequence of the players movement in that situation.
It must touch the hand because the trajectory of the ball changes again.
As they are, presumably, going for a deliberate handball offence I think it fits comfortably within SPA but the original decision is perhaps not the expected outcome.
It must touch the hand because the trajectory of the ball changes again.
As they are, presumably, going for a deliberate handball offence I think it fits comfortably within SPA but the original decision is perhaps not the expected outcome.
That sums it all up in a nutshell James.
That's just not handball, defender's arm was exactly where you would expect it to be for someone running like that.
Once given though the second caution was inevitable, I can't see any possible opportunity to avoid giving it. They must have considered it non-deliberate handling though, otherwise it would surely have been a straight red for DOGSO.
Once given though the second caution was inevitable, I can't see any possible opportunity to avoid giving it. They must have considered it non-deliberate handling though, otherwise it would surely have been a straight red for DOGSO.
Yes, agree with that, though massive call to make with the implications of a penalty & the 2nd yellow. IMO there was at least sufficient doubt for it to be considered handball, though I spose with it being in Europe/European Referee, their bar is stricter.
one
RefChat Addict
Like most I agree it's is not a handball. But I am puzzled how a VAR can think of not calling it as a clear and obvious error.
Here is the bigger issue, as @RustyRef says, if it is deliberate it has to be a straight red for dogso, if it is non-deliberate cautioning it will be wrong in law. For me it is a blunder from the officials here.
Here is the bigger issue, as @RustyRef says, if it is deliberate it has to be a straight red for dogso, if it is non-deliberate cautioning it will be wrong in law. For me it is a blunder from the officials here.
Id say control and direction of play is significantly in doubt for DOGSO and thats why I think once handball is given it's SPA. The images available show that the ball was not under control and the touch was taking the ball back away from goal so I think there's sufficient doubt to be obvious.
Possibly, it isn’t that clear whether he would have had control of the ball but that was because of the ball hitting the hand. But it looks to me that without the handling he’d still have had the ball on the edge of the area centrally with just the keeper to beat. Could his touch have allowed one of the covering defenders to make a challenge? Possibly, but we’ll never know.
Think we are all agreed though that it wasn’t a handling offence, intentional or otherwise. And whether it was deemed to be intentional handling or making himself bigger the outcome was always going to be the same given he was already on a caution. Once the penalty was given there was zero way he could stay on the pitch.
Annoyingly & frustratingly and I would suggest not really what the Laws of the Game envisaged for this type of specific incident, but have to accept it.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
That is extremely harsh...
Are you stopping a promising attack when the attacker has fallen to the floor? He was falling before the supposed handball occurred. There were absolutely no other attacker nearby.
Both seemingly tugging at each other so, for me, both sets of arms in natural position for the two players. The sudden change of direction of the ball, how are you expecting the defender to even move the arm in a millisecond to avoid contact.
Are you stopping a promising attack when the attacker has fallen to the floor? He was falling before the supposed handball occurred. There were absolutely no other attacker nearby.
Both seemingly tugging at each other so, for me, both sets of arms in natural position for the two players. The sudden change of direction of the ball, how are you expecting the defender to even move the arm in a millisecond to avoid contact.
one
RefChat Addict
The only way this could be a spa caution under the laws of the game for a handball decision is for it to be a deliberate handball (not non-deliberate).
I disagree with direction being away from goal (given the right to left direction of ball is the prodominan direction) but agree there is enough doubt. However there is even more doubt that this is a handball offence in the first place which makes VAR involvement puzzling.
The point I was making is that VAR should not have been getting involved in the first place. I don't see how the referee's original decision was clearly and obviously wrong.
one
RefChat Addict
See above post. If it was deemed unintentional then it couldn't be a caution. It's a recent change in law.