Like I said, only repeating what I've heard/seen discussed via other means. Does the VAR have complete control over what feeds/angles are made available to them within a hurried time frame? I honestly don't know. It wasn't football but rugby that first raised the question anyway.
.Agree, and this is probably the only area where England have done well with VAR. They are getting far less involved with handball than UEFA are, and there is much less controversy around handling. The Newcastle player's arms were very clearly in an expected position for the movement being undertaken. UEFA seem to have instructed their referees that if the arm is out from the body, no matter what movement the player is making or how close the ball is played from, they should penalise it. That isn't a problem with the laws, it is a problem with the interpretation of them.Contrary opinion alert ...!
No, no, breathe again, I'm in no way going to suggest that this was a correct penalty decision
My opinion is that the handball law is currently EXCELLENTLY worded. It is just being horribly and inconsistently applied, especially at higher levels.
Basically, if you ignore the Accidental Handball resulting in a goal piece, then, in law, there are currently just two actions that should result in a handball offence. Either the player deliberately moves their hand / arm towards the ball or they place their arms in a position which is unnatural for the body movement being undertaken. We can all agree that these two things are against the spirit of the game and should be penalised, right? And any other touch of the hand / arm to the ball is a complete accident and shouldn't be penalised ... makes sense to me! So ... if all referees / associations were properly applying the law as it is written then we would be having far fewer handballs given and (a little) less debate on a subjective topic where some debate is inevitable.
Net, net, the 'solution' to this is absolutely NOT to (yet again) change the way things are written. But simply to enforce the current law properly as it is written and intended.
I dunno. I find people can misinterpret darn near anything. I mean, how much more specific can you get than natural for what they are doing. This part seems to be being ignored rather than being a lack of clarity. IFAB added it specifically to get rid of some of the unreasonable “biggering” calls, but it seems to just be completely ignored in some places. (I do think part of it is that in slo mo, many things look unnatural even when they aren’t.)
We'll exactly. "Natural" in IFAB-speak is clearly not expected to include arms being out for balance, or reflexes to protect your face, or when correcting for being pushed up by a moving opponent. This particular incident aside, handball has been given for all of those and considered "correct" even though most laymen would consider all of those natural actions.
Is it a question of IFAB speak or of how associations are implementing? the more I think about it, the more I think that in application, not withstanding the language of Law 12, what biggering is meaning is the player “fails to take reasonable precautions to avoid the ball striking the player’s arm.“
