I’m not suggesting they make a decision based on appeal, I’m just pointing out that even the player challenging for the ball hadn’t realised it was handball
Palace v Man City FAC
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
They can only work to the protocol that exists, and that doesn't allow them to intervene for free kicks unless it is the outcome from a sending off offence. Whilst I understand the frustration this can cause, people already complain about the amount of VAR intervention and it would be 10 times more intrusive if they were also checking for missed free kicks.
Given the dynamics of what happened, why did VAR decide if it was DOGSO or not. Once HB was identified, surely Atwell shouldve been given the responsibility of refereeing the KMS by going to the screen. Even if Atwell decided it was not DOGSO, it wouldve been a DFK and caution for SPA. Why didnt that happen?
I hought they could issue a caution if a review deemed no red card
VAR rightly reffed the HB but only Atwell should referee the DOGSO
Its all such a mess. They can fabricate 98% stats but they just wrongly had a colossal impact on the outco.e of the FA Cup Final. The very thing VAR is there to prevent
VAR rightly reffed the HB but only Atwell should referee the DOGSO
Its all such a mess. They can fabricate 98% stats but they just wrongly had a colossal impact on the outco.e of the FA Cup Final. The very thing VAR is there to prevent
Last edited:
ladbroke8745
Censorship
My thinking on this is that one of two things "probably" happened.
1)
Referee has seen it.
For this example, if the referee has seen it then the conversation with VAR is as follows:
VAR: Possible handball
Ref: Seen, going away from goal so not red.
VAR: Checking. On field decision confirmed.
Thus no further action.
2)
Referee has not seen it.
VAR: Possible handball
Ref: Not seen it.
VAR: We think it is going away from goal so not a red card but we can confirm it is a handball.
Ref: So no further action?
VAR: Confirmed.
Now.. If the referee has seen it, as per 1 (meaning on field decision), then he is wrong to not blow and give free kick.
If the referee hasn't seen it, and VAR says it is a missed handball I personally think it should be highlighted and any final call on red cards should solely be with the referee on the pitch.
1)
Referee has seen it.
For this example, if the referee has seen it then the conversation with VAR is as follows:
VAR: Possible handball
Ref: Seen, going away from goal so not red.
VAR: Checking. On field decision confirmed.
Thus no further action.
2)
Referee has not seen it.
VAR: Possible handball
Ref: Not seen it.
VAR: We think it is going away from goal so not a red card but we can confirm it is a handball.
Ref: So no further action?
VAR: Confirmed.
Now.. If the referee has seen it, as per 1 (meaning on field decision), then he is wrong to not blow and give free kick.
If the referee hasn't seen it, and VAR says it is a missed handball I personally think it should be highlighted and any final call on red cards should solely be with the referee on the pitch.
one
RefChat Addict
I am going to argue in defence of VAR using semantics like a lawyer would 
Is it an obvious GSO? Yes - this is the bar for a referee
Is it clear and obvious that it is an obvious GSO? No. This is the bar for VAR which would be much higher than for the one for referee (mathematical equivalent is when you square a number)
This shows where the ball would have ended up without the offence and offender
This shows where the defender would have ended up without the offence and offender
Is it an obvious GSO? Yes - this is the bar for a referee
Is it clear and obvious that it is an obvious GSO? No. This is the bar for VAR which would be much higher than for the one for referee (mathematical equivalent is when you square a number)
This shows where the ball would have ended up without the offence and offender
This shows where the defender would have ended up without the offence and offender
I think that is what irking me about this, the on field team failed to spot a clear and obvious factual decision in terms of a keeper handling outside of the box. If that happened on its own with no attacker in sight, then yes obviously don't get involved but when there is more than a sniff of a DOGSO involved then even if you don't fully think it's a DOGSO yourself, get the referee involved, take him to the screen because he made a clear error of not awarding a free kick and let him decide on the sanction.
I think there would be less noise about this if the referee given the free kick and a yellow card and the VAR did not intervene because of his reasons but the fact he given nothing and the VAR basically decided in his opinion it's not a DOGSO is what seems wrong about it.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
Lets take the handball away.
If he does NOT handle the ball, Haaland pokes the ball past Henderson.
What is next?
Haaland has a clear chance of scoring a goal OR Henderson could very easily take Haaland out.
Instead, Henderson has affectively cheated by handballing the ball away from Haaland, denying him the opportunity to equalise, and was not penalised whatsoever (even with a free kick).
If he does NOT handle the ball, Haaland pokes the ball past Henderson.
What is next?
Haaland has a clear chance of scoring a goal OR Henderson could very easily take Haaland out.
Instead, Henderson has affectively cheated by handballing the ball away from Haaland, denying him the opportunity to equalise, and was not penalised whatsoever (even with a free kick).
Dean Henderson after the match suggested the ball carried through into the box, how genuine this that he was unaware, but it seems that no one but the cameras detected this offence at the time with even Henderson not realising he had committed a handball offence.
@ladbroke8745 I think you are in a minority here and are massively overstating how bad a miss this was from the on-field team.
The AR from that position absolutely cannot give a definitive decision with confidence and anything is nothing short of a guess and no referee in the world is going to be in a position to call it from the long ball so I think from an on-field perspective they did not have the necessary information to make the decision on field.
Yes they can come away from the monitor with any decision they choose. They have to first be asked to view the monitor though.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
I don't think I am.
The assistant can clearly see the edge of the area, can clearly see the keeper is on the edge and has an outstretched arm outside.
I saw this and i think he wasn't being truthful. His body language showed this.
He is quite likley to have seen this incident at half-time with all the tech involved in the game.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
And this is definitely one of those.
On a yellow card, minimum, he wouldn't have wasted time in the 2nd half and if so, considering he was cautioned for this, he would've walked anyway.
But he can't definitively pinpoint the point of contact. He is moving along the line so is also dealing with the effects of flash lag too. And it takes everyone by surprise what happens so would have needed his focus directly on that at the exact second. Given he was behind play he would have been working hard and fretting about getting into position.
Any assistant referee, from that position, is guessing
I think the assistant was not in the right place to see as he was 3 or 4 yards "out of line" - behind play.
I agree.. that's why I questioned the genuine nature of the comments. Not beyond the realms of impossibility though.
ladbroke8745
Censorship
I appreciate the assistant is about 4 yards behind but if you're looking directly (and unobstructed) at that you can clearly see Henderson is on the line and his arm outstretched.
Unlike park football where the pitch is uneven, this field is perfect. Lines extremely clear to see.
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
I'd say I agree with this. I'd like to think an AR at this level would have enough knowledge to realise where Hendersons foot is in relation to his arm