RefSix

Che vs Ajax

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#41
"Its the new handball ball laws mate, what can I do?!"
Ugh I've had to use that a bit this season, and it's not actually helping at all.

Tbf, I really sympathised with the last one, it was an incident where a player booted the ball as hard as he could and it was going for the opposition player's face. I was amazed he got his hands up in time to block it, because he was so close to the action I thought it was going to take his head clean off. Gave the free-kick and everyone thought it was harsh as they figured that it meant that the player had to eat that ball into the face and lose some teeth in the process. :eek::rolleyes:
 

one

RefChat Addict
#42
As I've said before, selling a handball decision is surely a piece of cake for most of us without video scrutiny. WE can't even begin to agree on here, so the players/managers have no chance

"Its the new handball ball laws mate, what can I do?!";)

Sorted!
And you can use that just about every year as there is something new about it every year or two. :) . That many tweaks and still not sorted out. to be fair it is a hard one to get exact. But whats there now is just not acceptable.
 
Last edited:

deusex

RefChat Addict
#43
We caution because law says so?
How many posters have to point out how you've misread the laws before you'll accept it?
You've literally made up you're own interpretation of pg 109!!
Common sense AND the laws say you're incorrect?!?
 

one

RefChat Addict
#44
I'll just park this here.

1573178675513.png

There is no exception for the first dot point. Although it is accepted practice (and confirmed by DE/IFAB), if you play advantage which leads to a better promising attack, then you exempt that incident.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#45
Yeah that's exactly what I said wasn't it? Yeah... no

Excluding DOGSO, it is all but impossible to try to gain an advantage by handballing in the box
No defender EVER "tactically" conceded a penalty in a non DOGSO situation. Handball in the box is almost always a "brainfart" handball which does not require a caution.
So what are we cautioning for? If I was on the oppositon I'd want the handballer to carry on giving away stupid penalties!!

Also, as social lurker has posted, the law backs me up
I'm trying to understand what point is being made here so I apologise if I got it wrong, but are you suggesting it's not a booking because the defender gave away a penalty actually made the situation worse for his team?
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#46
I'm trying to understand what point is being made here so I apologise if I got it wrong, but are you suggesting it's not a booking because the defender gave away a penalty actually made the situation worse for his team?
A handball in the box does not stop a promising attack!
It grants the attacking team an even better one.
There is logically no reason to caution in this instance and the law does not call for it
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#47
I'll just park this here.

View attachment 3830

There is no exception for the first dot point. Although it is accepted practice (and confirmed by DE/IFAB), if you play advantage which leads to a better promising attack, then you exempt that incident.
Not sure what this adds to the conversation.
We all accept the above?!?!
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#49
A handball in the box does not stop a promising attack!
It grants the attacking team an even better one.
There is logically no reason to caution in this instance and the law does not call for it
I still don't think it is anywhere near that straight forward. Don't know the exact figures but it is something like 70% of penalties are scored. If a shot is on target and is handled I would potentially argue there is more than a 70% chance of it going in (especially in the OP where it looks like it is racing towards the top corner), but equally 70%, or even 75%, even 85% for that matter isn't enough to say it was DOGSO. So the handball has actually prevented a promising attack in this case. DOGSO for handling a shot is hardly ever given when the handling occurs anything other than on the goal line or at least in the 6 yard box, simply because at real time and speed the referee can't be sure if it was going in or not. Whereas he can be more sure it was on target, so a caution for SPA is fully supported.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#50
I still don't think it is anywhere near that straight forward. Don't know the exact figures but it is something like 70% of penalties are scored. If a shot is on target and is handled I would potentially argue there is more than a 70% chance of it going in (especially in the OP where it looks like it is racing towards the top corner), but equally 70%, or even 75%, even 85% for that matter isn't enough to say it was DOGSO. So the handball has actually prevented a promising attack in this case. DOGSO for handling a shot is hardly ever given when the handling occurs anything other than on the goal line or at least in the 6 yard box, simply because at real time and speed the referee can't be sure if it was going in or not. Whereas he can be more sure it was on target, so a caution for SPA is fully supported.
The angle in the OP clip was misleading. I'm saving that exactly 98.5% of the time and I didn't make it past Step 7 as a goalie
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#51
I still don't think it is anywhere near that straight forward. Don't know the exact figures but it is something like 70% of penalties are scored. If a shot is on target and is handled I would potentially argue there is more than a 70% chance of it going in (especially in the OP where it looks like it is racing towards the top corner), but equally 70%, or even 75%, even 85% for that matter isn't enough to say it was DOGSO. So the handball has actually prevented a promising attack in this case. DOGSO for handling a shot is hardly ever given when the handling occurs anything other than on the goal line or at least in the 6 yard box, simply because at real time and speed the referee can't be sure if it was going in or not. Whereas he can be more sure it was on target, so a caution for SPA is fully supported.
I see what you're saying, maybe there is a rare situation where SPA-handball in the area applies.
Certainly not in the OP though!
I'd also say that 85% is DOGSO for me... but let's not go there on this thread!!
 

JH

RefChat Addict
#52
A handball in the box does not stop a promising attack!
It grants the attacking team an even better one.
There is logically no reason to caution in this instance and the law does not call for it
A DOGSO penalty offense doesn't stop an OGSO by the same logic!!!
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
#53
A handball in the box does not stop a promising attack!
It grants the attacking team an even better one.
There is logically no reason to caution in this instance and the law does not call for it
Is that a consideration? As an isolated incident, the foul/handball is committed and the referee blows the whistle to stop play. The promising attack has been stopped. Bar DOGSO and the changes of card colour if it’s outside or inside the PA, does the restart matter in terms of the card choice? Yes, they get a penalty but the foul itself did at that moment, stop a promising attack
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#54
A DOGSO penalty offense doesn't stop an OGSO by the same logic!!!
I disagree for the reason that a for a foul to be DOGSO it should have been a better chance of a goal than a pen (so >80%) IMO
The red card is the punishment for you unfairly reducing the opposition's chance of a goal.
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#55
Is that a consideration? As an isolated incident, the foul/handball is committed and the referee blows the whistle to stop play. The promising attack has been stopped. Bar DOGSO and the changes of card colour if it’s outside or inside the PA, does the restart matter in terms of the card choice? Yes, they get a penalty but the foul itself did at that moment, stop a promising attack
It matters 100%. Even the LoTG make the distinction that SPA does not apply when awarding a penalty provided it was an attempt to play the ball
 

one

RefChat Addict
#56
for a foul to be DOGSO it should have been a better chance of a goal than a pen (so >80%) IMO
I find this statement random inference. Do you have a source for this logic?

To make the point, one on one with the keeper is a DOGSO almost every time. What is the conversion rate on one on one with keepers?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#58
It matters 100%. Even the LoTG make the distinction that SPA does not apply when awarding a penalty provided it was an attempt to play the ball
Which handball isn't.
Even Dogso is still a Red for a penalty for hand ball so you can't start downgrading sanctions because the team have a penalty if its not an attempt to play the ball.
Handball. Promising attack stopped. Caution. Irrespective of what is to follow in terms of restart
 

deusex

RefChat Addict
#59
Does not apply to handball.
As above (no exemptions in case of handball)
Oh sweet JESUS!!!
I KNOW IT DOESN'T!!!!
I was merely using it as an example as to where the laws change the sanction based on whether a penalty was given!!
I can only assume you (and JamesL) are being deliberately obtuse.
Let's leave this thread now. We both think we are in the right
St Peter can decide who was right at the gate
 

one

RefChat Addict
#60
Love a bit of drama in a post. It's not about right or wrong. It's about who can shout louder.

If you agree that it doesn't apply to handball (which your previous posts didn't imply) then I don't think we need to get St Peter involved.

I am not deliberately obyuse. It comes to me naturally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top