City v Wolves
- Thread starter one
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
My view is that the initial decision not to award a penalty was fine & the defender’s arm in a natural position & similar to that of the City forward close by (for reference). I am also content for VAR to have referred the Referee to have a look again at the incident & congratulate the Referee for sticking with his original decision.
I think it's a modern pen, calling the arms 'natural position' I don't agree with - however i really don't think this is the sort of pen football should be encouraging so don't mind it not being given as long as similar instances/incidents go the same way.
Thought he had a top game overall
Thought he had a top game overall
I think we are likely to see that if the same incident that happened yesterday with the Wolves player than the Referees in the World Cup will be awarding a penalty. However, in my world of ‘deliberate’ handball, never in a million years. We have got it right with what the Laws were originally designed for (well we got it right yesterday!!) & Europe have not - but most players/clubs (in Europe) would accept it as the norm. Hopefully Pep will not receive any phone call he is expecting from Howard W today.Football has got itself in a bit of a mess, likely a penalty in Europe & Scotland but not in EPL.
If the defender has his hands down by his side, that would be an unnatural position.
What will the World Cup referees view be of a ball hitting an arm in the penalty area?
If EPL players get to think a Schmeichel star-jump is a "natural" position, they'll be giving away a lot of penalties in the World Cup.Football has got itself in a bit of a mess, likely a penalty in Europe & Scotland but not in EPL.
If the defender has his hands down by his side, that would be an unnatural position.
What will the World Cup referees view be of a ball hitting an arm in the penalty area?
It's not deliberate handball though, is it? If it was deliberate, there wouldn't be a whole clause in the laws about unnatural position as something distinct from deliberate handling (like it or not).
That’s the point I was attempting to make - it’s not deliberate handball. However, whilst the laws have attempted to clarify with natural/unnatural arm positions - some are just taking it too far & not taking into account that if they didn’t have their arms out for balance they would fall flat on their face lol!
For me I think the ref made the right decision but not because the arms are supposedly in a natural position but more the fact it's just too close and his arms never moved towards the ball, if say it was quite a bit further back and it still hit his arms whilst in that position I would expect a penalty to be given.
The surprising thing for me was who was on VAR that decided a clear and obvious error has been made because England probably quite rightly rejected a review last season citing it's too close and arm in a natural position. No doubt we will hear the audio on this, just ashame we probably have to wait 3 to 4 weeks for that to happen though!
Interesting too see Barrott in the VAR booth also, first time ever I believe for him.
The surprising thing for me was who was on VAR that decided a clear and obvious error has been made because England probably quite rightly rejected a review last season citing it's too close and arm in a natural position. No doubt we will hear the audio on this, just ashame we probably have to wait 3 to 4 weeks for that to happen though!
Interesting too see Barrott in the VAR booth also, first time ever I believe for him.
one
RefChat Addict
My thoughts are torn a little between a penalty and no penalty. It is not natural/unnatural position problem for me but I see an element of deliberateness which it is only evident from multiple video replays. right at the moment attacker is about to flick the ball back, defender's arm makes a widening movement which is deviating from its natural forward movement. I can give the benefit of doubt here as it also coincides with his leg moving forward for blocking and the arm widening could be for balance. But the telling factor can be that his palm locks wide open from a slightly closed hand.
On the process, I can see why the referee didn't give it. I can also see why VAR though it was a clear and obvious error (review should never be about "take another look"). I am ok with the referee thinking his original decision was correct. But the biggest point for me is the referee having the balls (courage) in his first EPL game to refuse to budge into a VAR recommendation if they think they were right in the first place. I have seen more experienced EPL referees on multiple occasions looking very reluctant to change their original decision but still do.
On the discussion here about deliberate vs unnatural position; something I think I have pointed out before. As a rhetorical question, why would a player have their hand/arm in a position which is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Especially when the ball is close by?
On the process, I can see why the referee didn't give it. I can also see why VAR though it was a clear and obvious error (review should never be about "take another look"). I am ok with the referee thinking his original decision was correct. But the biggest point for me is the referee having the balls (courage) in his first EPL game to refuse to budge into a VAR recommendation if they think they were right in the first place. I have seen more experienced EPL referees on multiple occasions looking very reluctant to change their original decision but still do.
On the discussion here about deliberate vs unnatural position; something I think I have pointed out before. As a rhetorical question, why would a player have their hand/arm in a position which is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Especially when the ball is close by?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
If the R was right to not award a PK, then the VAR was wrong to send it down. The protocol does not provide for VAR”s to send things down for “ the Referee to have a look again.” If it’s not a C&O error, then the VAR should not have sent this down. (FWIW, I think this considered a HB in the modern game everywhere in the world except the UK, and would be a good VAR intervention everywhere else. The PL seems to have moving standards too often, but I would expect the PL to say this should not have been sent down—and likewise should not have been sent down if it had been called.)
No one runs naturally with arms in that position.
The EPL Refs have made reasonably concerted effort to maintain our version (the version actually stated in the book, rather than some foreign interpretation) of HB, but all that happens is they lose in the end meaning they're always lagging behind. I'd rather have our own rule book than accept this sort of HB interpretation
Shame on Darren England for putting this newbie Ref under immense pressure with a poor review indication. Well done Hallam for telling DE where to go. I think DE must've been told to justify the existence of the monitor by encouraging a very rare shun of a review by the Ref
Last edited:
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The Manchester City player in the OP's picture does not agree with your statement . . .
I hope you and others aren't just going off a still.
The arms only go out when Marmoush looks as if he might cross the ball - or as if he might do what he did.
Last edited:
It's an acceptable position for me, when you are running and then slow down it is completely natural for the arms to come out.
It's probably more of a handball than the one given in the Palace Chelsea game today....
It's a completely different section of law and the only circumstance in which an accidental handball is given even if deemed a natural position (Denial of a goal). Obviously the right decision and a good (relatively) recent law change to make these a caution instead of a dismissal.
Edit: Seems that I could have been very confidently wrong here, seems to be that you still have to make the body unnaturally bigger in order to be an offence (hard to argue that is the case in this instance). I would be of the opinion that if you cannot score a goal with an accidental handball, you shouldn't be able to prevent one either, however seems to not be written in law as I thought it was!
Edit: Seems that I could have been very confidently wrong here, seems to be that you still have to make the body unnaturally bigger in order to be an offence (hard to argue that is the case in this instance). I would be of the opinion that if you cannot score a goal with an accidental handball, you shouldn't be able to prevent one either, however seems to not be written in law as I thought it was!
Last edited:
- Status