Arsenal vs Bournemouth
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
LothianRef
Member
From the replays shown in that clip there is nothing conclusive. It looks like it might hit his arm but you can’t tell with 100% certainty, so if the onfield decision is goal then that’s what you go with. Jamie Redknapp actually gives a very fair analysis of it.
I'm 100% certain it hits his arm
one
RefChat Addict
There are three types of handball offences
No one is arguing the OP is 1 or 2. The argument is it is the third one. But all reasoning are subjective. Yes the flight and trajectory suggests it touched the arm. Yes on the balance of probabilities it hit the arm. I go as far as saying it is extremely likely it hit the arm. But none of those establish fact.
Saying the decision was clearly and obviously wrong doesn't work here. We have to establish that the decision is factually wrong and for me that can't be done.
In this case, what has failed is VAR technology, not VAR.
- Deliberate handball
- non-deliberate, but arm/hand in unnatural position for legal action
- none of the above but a goal scored as a result
No one is arguing the OP is 1 or 2. The argument is it is the third one. But all reasoning are subjective. Yes the flight and trajectory suggests it touched the arm. Yes on the balance of probabilities it hit the arm. I go as far as saying it is extremely likely it hit the arm. But none of those establish fact.
Saying the decision was clearly and obviously wrong doesn't work here. We have to establish that the decision is factually wrong and for me that can't be done.
In this case, what has failed is VAR technology, not VAR.
There’s a very big difference between you thinking it hit the arm, or even being 99% sure it did, to having to be absolutely 100% certain. If there is any possibility whatsoever that it hit the torso rather than the arm they have to allow the goal. There has to be absolutely conclusive evidence that it hit the arm to disallow the goal.
one
RefChat Addict
Do you still think the same after seeing this angle?
Yes, you can see it!Do you still think the same after seeing this angle?
And there is
Officials do, VAR can’t. There is a huge difference.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Awful defending - if Odegaard had played the ball instead of fouling Evanilson there wouldn't be a goal or an inconclusive debate.
Lucarelli99
New Member
Should have been a penalty anyway, but the big teams always get away with the dark arts at corners!
. Not for a fact.99.9% certainty it hits the arm = 0.1% doubt.
Combine the fact this isn’t 100% factual with the fact that if it did hit the arm it’s probably down the the fact he’s being fouled, meaning the alternative is a penalty kick and a dogso red card that nobody is asking for, the best outcome for the game is to just allow the goal.
Combine the fact this isn’t 100% factual with the fact that if it did hit the arm it’s probably down the the fact he’s being fouled, meaning the alternative is a penalty kick and a dogso red card that nobody is asking for, the best outcome for the game is to just allow the goal.