The Ref Stop

ManU v Liverpool - handball VAR decision

I'm a bit confused that some people think the ball can just spin in a different direction mid air. It clearly touches the fingers and changed the trajectory of the ball towards the goal.

There's this weird obsession in football that we don't like small margins like tight offsides for example. For me regardless it was a slight touch with the fingers, it should of been disallowed and Attwell for some reason cant see quite clearly the trajectory of the ball changing which is the big give away its a handball.
 
The Ref Stop
I can't be bothered with VAR anymore There is no doubt that overall the erroneous outcomes have decreased but there is no way it outweighs the frustration it causes the fans and other stakeholders.

There is a problem with how (at least) one of the principles of VAR is implemented. Accuracy of the decision is more important than speed of it. This seems to be a by-product of wanting to reduce frustration which means they are going to get more decisions wrong. It is fit for purpose?

Back to the topic at hand. For me it is clear with conclusive evidence that there was a hand touch by Sesko. If you look at the magnified slow-mo of the incident, his middle and ring fingers get flipped upwards by the ball. This has to be conclusive evidence but I don't think VAR looked at it in attempt to conclude quickly (or was it available to him).

streamable.com

Watch m2-res_1080p | Streamable

Watch "m2-res_1080p" on Streamable.
streamable.com

Before
1777864158142.png

After
1777864234449.png
 
The finger movement as they brush the ball is the conclusive evidence. The change in ball trajectory further supports. This is one of the rare occasions when I think VAR would have benefited from taking a bit more time and examining more angles. Some of the earlier posts in this thread discuss this not being a clear and obvious error, but it is a factual decision so if you conclude from the evidence that there was contact then it has to be a clear and obvious error no matter how minor or unimpactful the contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I’m still not 100% convinced, but I also think the law needs to be revisited. It wasn’t brought in for things like this, rather for incidents where players blatantly scored with their arms. One I can remember is a defender blasted a clearance which hit at attacker on the arm that was by his side and flew into the goal. It wouldn’t have gone in had it not hit the arm, so I could understand the demand for change.

But contact with the hand or arm like the Sesko one is non impactful, the goal would be scored whether it brushed his fingers or not. If it needs to be examined this forensically VAR are going to need something like cricket’s snickometer. I’d rather the referee is given the option to decide if the accidental handling was impactful or not.
 
RustyRef said:
the goal would be scored whether it brushed his fingers or not
Click to expand...
I can dispute this though I know I don't have a strong argument. I believe the ball did not have enough forward momentum to enter goal before hitting the finger tips of Sesko. It's motion was upward. I would classify the touch more than just a brush. The force from the fingertips caused it to move forward, not a lot of forward force but enough to cause an impactful difference. Looking at simple biomechanics tells you the story. In the before and after pictures I posted there are some clues, the comparison of distance between the palm and the ball, the angle of the first section of the finger (proximal phalanx) and the back of the hand, and the angle between the back of the hand and the arm all compress. They all indicate sufficient force to push the ball forward.

Was the law written for cases that can only be detected after micro analysis, probably not, but as written now in a black and white way, this goal should have been disallowed.
 
one said:
Was the law written for cases that can only be detected after micro analysis, probably not, but as written now in a black and white way, this goal should have been disallowed.
Click to expand...
They've (FIFA) have been trialling using SAOT together with the ball chip to be able detect when it's hit the hand.
If so we may end up with handballs decision that a human eye couldn't detect.
 
RustyRef said:
I’m still not 100% convinced, but I also think the law needs to be revisited. It wasn’t brought in for things like this, rather for incidents where players blatantly scored with their arms. One I can remember is a defender blasted a clearance which hit at attacker on the arm that was by his side and flew into the goal. It wouldn’t have gone in had it not hit the arm, so I could understand the demand for change.

But contact with the hand or arm like the Sesko one is non impactful, the goal would be scored whether it brushed his fingers or not. If it needs to be examined this forensically VAR are going to need something like cricket’s snickometer. I’d rather the referee is given the option to decide if the accidental handling was impactful or not.
Click to expand...
As has happened with encroachment of outfield players etc at a penalty kick (impactful or not & if not carry on).
 
bester said:
They've (FIFA) have been trialling using SAOT together with the ball chip to be able detect when it's hit the hand.
If so we may end up with handballs decision that a human eye couldn't detect.
Click to expand...
I'm all for any tech that doesnt involve human involvement, or at least it doesnt look like that it does. We seem to be a lot more accepting of it even if it doesnt look right. GLT rarely causes a controversy. And semi automated offside cartoons are accepted way more than the hand drawn lines.
 
one said:
I'm all for any tech that doesnt involve human involvement, or at least it doesnt look like that it does. We seem to be a lot more accepting of it even if it doesnt look right. GLT rarely causes a controversy. And semi automated offside cartoons are accepted way more than the hand drawn lines.
Click to expand...

I’m just thinking the game is going in a direction I truly do not like. I get GLT & to a certain extent VAR (I just wished they had implemented clear & obvious from the outset), even semi-automatic offsides (but with an appropriate tolerance level), but SAOT would open up another can of worms & where does it stop.
 
DavidObs said:
I’m just thinking the game is going in a direction I truly do not like. I get GLT & to a certain extent VAR (I just wished they had implemented clear & obvious from the outset), even semi-automatic offsides (but with an appropriate tolerance level), but SAOT would open up another can of worms & where does it stop.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I think a lot of the game's issues could be improved with more sensible wording of the laws, handball for example
 
555Ref said:
Agreed, but I think a lot of the game's issues could be improved with more sensible wording of the laws, handball for example
Click to expand...
Yeah, IFAB tried that with HB and just made things worse . . . . the problem with HB is not the wording. The problem is there are many competing views on where lines shoudl be drawn. And most of the lines are actually hard to implement in a black and white fashion. Even here, there is no consensus of whether the inadvertant trivial touch of a hand before the ball goes in the goal should be a HB and deny the goal.

I'm certainly not defending IFAB drafting by any means--a really good copy editor would be a great addition. But the challenges are far, far more than the words used.
 
I'm watching that Sesko goal on Ref Watch where they said the camera angle that clearly shows the deflection of the ball wasn't found until 22 minutes later. No wonder the VAR couldn't tell, it makes sense now why they gave it. Also, why did it take such a long time to find that camera angle?
 
dadofref said:
With the angles available it's neither clear nor obvious, and the ball would have gone in anyway. The VAR can't infer evidence of contact from ball movement only, they have to be sure.

It was a correct outcome for VAR not to overturn, the only thing they did were wrong was watch the replays in slow motion more than once, because it's not a clear and obvious error by any definition of those words.

Had it not been given as a goal, then VAR would have had to consider a penalty and DOGSO for the foul on Sesko in the build up to the goal.

I'm more perplexed by the overall quality of Darren England's performance, I thought he missed a lot of obvious fouls - including the deliberate two-handed push in the back on Sesko that sent him flying into the advertising boards (which IMO should have been a yellow card as well as a foul) - and then penalised other tackles where there was nothing in it. I thought he had a pretty awful (inconsistent) game to be honest.
Click to expand...
"The ball would have gone in anyway" is I'm sure the one thing we can all agree on to be irrelevant.
 
FinalWhistle said:
I'm watching that Sesko goal on Ref Watch where they said the camera angle that clearly shows the deflection of the ball wasn't found until 22 minutes later. No wonder the VAR couldn't tell, it makes sense now why they gave it. Also, why did it take such a long time to find that camera angle?
Click to expand...
As has been mentioned, VAR have limited access to cameras compared to Sky, for some reason.
It could be that Sky hadn't released that feed to them.
It could be that the operators, despite being a few years in now, haven't been fully trained on what buttons to press to get various differing angles.
Remember, we dont see every angle by Sky live when watching. Sometimes they showed more conclusive angles at half time or full time themselves, after having maybe waited 20 minutes themselves to find it.
As I said previously, we could ask them to sit there all afternoon trawling through 40 different camera angles to find that one to rule it out (fans dont want detailed forensics, unless its against their team of course). But as fans we want speed, and the biggest thing, depending on what fanbase it is affecting at the time, is clear and obvious.
The thing fans keep saying is "if it takes this long its not clear and obvious". But the next check against them they then moan "how could they not see that. Ive watched 3 hours worth of replays and they missed it", forgetting the same procedure they expected in their favour.

Hence why I kept saying doubt previously.
Other than opinion based decision (ie fouls), factual ones... unless you want them to sit there for 5, 10+ minites to come a decisive conclusion, killing the games mood, if in any doubt go with on field call.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top