A&H

LIV vs CHE

QuaverRef said:
Even if he was sure after that, I’d like him just to watch a few more replays at least for show and credibility
Click to expand...
If the questions was whether it was deliberate/unnatural biggering, I don't see how a still shot can answer that question. I don't so much buy the "a few replays" for show, but if all he is looking at is the still, and the question is deliberate/biggering, then it seems like he isn't actually making the judgment but is relying on the VAR and only looking at the screen at all for show. At that point, why go to the screen at all? (I haven't seen the actual event as every clip I've tried to look at was geoblocked--could it be that the reason for a no call on the field was that, although he though the arm was unnaturally bigger or was deliberately moved to the ball, he thought it missed the arm? In that case just looking at the still that shows contact would be all that was needed.)
 
The Referee Store
RefIADad said:
Persistent is very rarely called these days, and I really don't understand why if the Premier League and PGMOL want matches to flow more. These types of professional/tactical fouls slow the game down and reward the wrong things.

I'm all in favor of wanting matches to flow more and to not give fouls/penalties for some of the ticky-tack stuff. But cracking down on persistent offenses would be a great way to make the game more enjoyable.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'd like to see it be more of an emphasis. I really liked the Evans/Bellion analysis that suggested a line of 4 in a half or 6 in a game--regardless of type of foul--should be PI. At a third foul in a half (or 5th in a game) the player should be clearly warned. (And in my view, if there are two harder fouls, the warning should come at the second, especially if they are approaching reckless.) I don't want to see lots of cards flying, but if players know PI actually exists, it should reduce the overall number of fouls and improve the overall game.
 
socal lurker said:
I agree. I'd like to see it be more of an emphasis. I really liked the Evans/Bellion analysis that suggested a line of 4 in a half or 6 in a game--regardless of type of foul--should be PI. At a third foul in a half (or 5th in a game) the player should be clearly warned. (And in my view, if there are two harder fouls, the warning should come at the second, especially if they are approaching reckless.) I don't want to see lots of cards flying, but if players know PI actually exists, it should reduce the overall number of fouls and improve the overall game.
Click to expand...

I'm working off of memory, but I believe in the US version of "arena soccer" (for our friends across the pond, this is a version of indoor soccer played in the confines of an ice hockey rink with the side boards keeping the ball in play), four fouls in a half by one player results in a two-minute "power play" (i.e. a blue card), while six in a game is a send-off/ejection (I believe this results in another two-minute power play, but not sure). So I think the Evans/Bellion reasoning you mentioned has a lot of validation.

I know I'm always working harder to recognize persistence in the matches I officiate. I don't always remember. If I ever work matches with a fourth, I do make it a point in my pregame to have the fourth keep track of any persistence issues and let me know if we are approaching that point. But in any case, I do think clamping down on persistence is a great way to keep the temperature of a match down.

Edit - Here are the rules surrounding foul accumulation in the US Major Arena Soccer League (MASL)


12.4 FOUR FOUL PENALTY: Any player who accumulates four (4) fouls in one half
will be assessed a two (2) minute power play time penalty. Two overtime periods equal
a half and the same rule applies for overtime. Fouls accumulated in the first half will not
carryover to the second half. Fouls accumulated in the second half will not carryover to
the overtime periods. In the interval between periods, the 4th Official will provide each
Coach with a list of those players having accumulated 2 or more fouls. A four (4) foul
penalty assessed to the goalkeeper, shall not be served by the goalkeeper but rather
served by a teammate (Coach’s choice). A blue card penal two (2) minute power play
time penalty does not count towards a player’s four (4) foul accumulation.


12.5 SIX FOUL EJECTION: Any player who accumulates six (6) fouls in a game will
“foul out” of the game and be issued a red card ejection. No powerplay and no
suspension will accompany a six (6) foul ejection. All player fouls will carry over from
regulation into overtime. A blue card penal two (2) minute power play time penalty does
not count toward a player’s six (6) foul accumulation.
 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not getting picky about commentators who can't keep up with constant changes in the handling law.

I'm still trying to get my head round what the change means to take out this bit about a deflection off the player's own body:

"Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm: • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)."


Did VAR (and then Taylor) see anything to indicate whether the ball was still heading into the goal after it came off James thigh?
 
bloovee said:
I'm certainly not getting picky about commentators who can't keep up with constant changes in the handling law.

I'm still trying to get my head round what the change means to take out this bit about a deflection off the player's own body:

"Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm: • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)."


Did VAR (and then Taylor) see anything to indicate whether the ball was still heading into the goal after it came off James thigh?
Click to expand...

As a handball consideration, the idea of the self play still exists, for example heading the ball onto your arm which is naturally placed, but it's not used in cases that are deflections or balls played by the opponent.
 
cwyeary said:
As a handball consideration, the idea of the self play still exists, for example heading the ball onto your arm which is naturally placed, but it's not used in cases that are deflections or balls played by the opponent.
Click to expand...
Clear as mud.

Now I'm trying to imagine how it would be possible to head a ball onto your own hand or arm if the arm were not unnaturally extended away from the body.

(As an aside - really - if these were the rules last season, would City have had a penalty in the champions league final where the ball came off James's chest onto his outstretched arm? Asking for a friend.)
 
bloovee said:
Clear as mud.

Now I'm trying to imagine how it would be possible to head a ball onto your own hand or arm if the arm were not unnaturally extended away from the body.

(As an aside - really - if these were the rules last season, would City have had a penalty in the champions league final where the ball came off James's chest onto his outstretched arm? Asking for a friend.)
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if the arm is "unnaturally bigger" if it is in a "justifiable position for the players movement"

As an answer your question the player had to deliberately play the ball to over rule the unnaturally bigger offence.
 
JamesL said:
Doesn't matter if the arm is "unnaturally bigger" if it is in a "justifiable position for the players movement"

As an answer your question the player had to deliberately play the ball to over rule the unnaturally bigger offence.
Click to expand...
Clear as mud. I think you mean overrule the unnaturally bigger defence, under last season's rules - and for those of us behind the goal at Porto it looked like James had deliberately moved his arm toward the ball and made his body "unnaturally bigger".

As I read the law now, deliberate handball and "unnaturally bigger" handball are different offences. Neither overrules the other.

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball (it would help to have an "OR" here);
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger

The latter includes accidental handball, unless you think "By having their hand/ arm in such a position, the player takes a risk" inevitably implies intent. In the present context, is it really the case that VAR only showed a still of the incident? If that's part of the protocol that suggests having a look at the screen just for public show, why bother when it looks worse than not looking?
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball (it would help to have an "OR" here);
Click to expand...
IMO it won't help. If it was an 'OR' then it should have a dot point of its own. All the dot points are 'OR'ed here. (Consciously) moving hand towards ball is just an example of deliberate.
 
This is a fascinating (read: :wall: ) topic to read on fan forums at the moment, with many getting bent out of shape trying to wiggle the laws to show that it can't be a sending off offence.

There's like five threads on reddit about it at the moment and every time I read them I remember why there's almost no point trying to explain the laws to fans at the best of times.
 
RobOda said:
there's almost no point trying to explain the laws to fans at the best of times.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's a guy on Facebook saying that the laws say it is only a red if deliberate cheating (whatever unintentioal cheating is I don't know) .
 
JamesL said:
Yes, there's a guy on Facebook saying that the laws say it is only a red if deliberate cheating (whatever unintentioal cheating is I don't know) .
Click to expand...

It's no better on The Athletic (where you'd at least expect some more intelligent discussion because it's a paid site). I copied and pasted the relevant Laws, but I'm sure people will still refuse to believe those of us who know this stuff.

I'm just pointing people to download the IFAB Laws of the Game app to educate themselves, but we all know that won't happen.
 
Pretty funny that when I copied and pasted the parts of Law 12 that showed Anthony Taylor was 100% correct awarding the penalty and sending James off for denial of a goal by handling, the fury stopped in the comments section of The Athletic.

People do a pretty good job of being ready to draw and quarter the referee until they are proven wrong. Then they just slink away without so much as an apology . . .
 
JamesL said:
Doesn't matter if the arm is "unnaturally bigger" if it is in a "justifiable position for the players movement"

As an answer your question the player had to deliberately play the ball to over rule the unnaturally bigger offence.
Click to expand...

I’m going to quibble with your language here. If the arm is in a justifiable position, then it it isn’t unnaturally bigger. The justifiable language isn’t an exception but an explanation of what “unnaturally” means.

As far as the deflection exception being taken away—it really wasn’t. That language never applied if the player had deliberately handled the ball or made himself unnatur bigger.

what really happened in the revision is IFB threw out a lot gobbledygook and went back to basics. (While biggering was not specifically in the Laws below, it was understood as a specie of deliberate handling as the player deliberately made himself bigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top