VAR again
- Thread starter es1
- Start date
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
The last goal is a foul by Sterling, no?
It's a shove in the back, not shoulder to shoulder... hard for the ref at distance... but did the VAR crew knock off early?
It's a shove in the back, not shoulder to shoulder... hard for the ref at distance... but did the VAR crew knock off early?
I genuinely didn't celebrate the goal because I was expecting VAR to overturn it
Var is the death of football....
I didn't think there was anything in the Sterling challenge, just stronger than the defender.
Also interesting that Pep has both said that both penalties were correct. For the handball that is probably because he is from Spain and that would be a penalty every single time there.
Also interesting that Pep has both said that both penalties were correct. For the handball that is probably because he is from Spain and that would be a penalty every single time there.
So are the FA rules we go by different to the FIFA/ UEFA rules? I'm confused.
FA rules we use... The first penalty isn't a penalty. It wasn't deliberate, arm in natural position and moving AWAY from the ball. Also take into consideration the speed it was pinged at him.
FA rules we use... The first penalty isn't a penalty. It wasn't deliberate, arm in natural position and moving AWAY from the ball. Also take into consideration the speed it was pinged at him.
From the sound of people on this forum, it does seem handling is taught completely different in England than the rest of the world.
Last edited:
It's the other way round. If you spoke to most European referees they would say penalty for it, English referees would be out on a bit of an island (and soon will be physically ..!) in saying no handball.
We don't use FA rules, we use FIFA laws which are defined by IFAB. FIFA and UEFA have both given out advice to their referees that they expect situations like this to be sanctioned as handball. Not saying that I agree with it, but it is what it is.
I think in fairness it has always been taught correctly in England, in that the handling has to be intentional. FIFA and UEFA have since offered guidance / instructions to their referees, as have many national associations, but it hasn't been reflected in the laws of the game. If we look at the law as it is written ...
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.
The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
It is therefore not beyond the wit of man to take that how it is written and say that Otamendi did nothing wrong, and I am pretty sure if that happened in the Premier League he wouldn't have been penalised, with or without VAR. The hand certainly didn't move towards the ball that is for sure.
England teaches it one way. UEFA, FIFA, and almost every other FA in the world say this is a PK. But sure, we'll go with England being the only right ones.
The question which I’d ask is simply, could Otamendi have done anything about it? The answer is quite clearly No
Yes. Because they're the only ones adhering to what the LOTG say.
You've selectively quoted me there which isn't fair and I take offence as I went onto explain what the problem was. Namely that as the laws are written that really cannot be handball, but other organisations have issued directives that mean that it is.
Did the hand move towards the ball? No, it categorically moved away from it.
Was it an unexpected ball? Arguably not but it was travelling at speed and as the TV pundits said he had 0.7 seconds to react which isn't a lot.
As I'd also said, under current FIFA and UEFA expectations I think that was a penalty. But equally I don't think it is in any way justified as a penalty as the laws are written, and the laws are what ALL referees should be basing their decisions on.
And UEFA wonder why we boo the anthem!
I was high up behind Otamendi and there was no obvious move of hand to ball. I've not seen the slo-mo but is Pep agreeing with the VAR? (Obviously it took a long time as the line to EUFA HQ was a bit slow.)
Seriously, if the pitchside monitors don't work how can a clear and obvious mistake take so long to decide?
The pre match included a EUFA graphic of how VAR works. It actually said they'd only change a decision if it was a clear and obvious error -but the match referee could then look at the monitor for a final decision... ( on his own clear and obvious error!)
I was high up behind Otamendi and there was no obvious move of hand to ball. I've not seen the slo-mo but is Pep agreeing with the VAR? (Obviously it took a long time as the line to EUFA HQ was a bit slow.)
Seriously, if the pitchside monitors don't work how can a clear and obvious mistake take so long to decide?
The pre match included a EUFA graphic of how VAR works. It actually said they'd only change a decision if it was a clear and obvious error -but the match referee could then look at the monitor for a final decision... ( on his own clear and obvious error!)
A decent game ruined by poor VAR and silly interpretations of what's deliberate handball,....
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
But that's just the point - "looks like a foul" is not the criteria for reversing a referee's original judgement. As the protocol states, it's:
That's something Peter Walton got wrong in discussing Manchester City's first goal. He said the VAR would have looked at it to see if there was a foul in the attacking phase leading to the goal. That's incorrect - VAR should not be looking at "was it a foul?" they should be looking at whether it was a "clear and obvious error" not to have given a foul.
And why was the referee looking at the Morata disallowed goal in slow motion? At least on the highlights I saw, that's all he appeared to look at. From the Laws VAR section:
one
RefChat Addict
While you are right about "clear and obvious error" concept, I have a feeling had VAR reviewed the foul leading up to the first goal there was a good chance he would have deemed it a clear and obvious error. The reason it was not reviewed was while it was in the lead up to the goal, it was not in the ‘Attacking Possession Phase (APP)’ so it can not be reviewed. Schalke got clear possession and control of the ball after the foul which puts the foul out of the reviewable window. There is over two pages explanation for it in the protocol but this is the gist of it.
Last edited:
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Am giving the handball pk and sending off for the handball also.
Its denial of clear goalscoring opportunity by use of the hand.
If you are penalsing the handball, it follows suit a red should follow
Its a clear chance to score! This ball is flying direct to the goal!
Its denial of clear goalscoring opportunity by use of the hand.
If you are penalsing the handball, it follows suit a red should follow
Its a clear chance to score! This ball is flying direct to the goal!
