Is it justified in law?
I can't see the video, but if what you describe is correct and the handball was accidental but led to a goal scoring opportunity or a goal, the caution is not correct.The YC is correct. The fact that the player is trying not to handle the ball is now irrelevant, however absurd that may sound
I actually thought they got it right.
For me , Calvert-Lewin could have headed that ...
"In an attempt to" implies handling should be deliberate. Poorly worded but we know what it means. It's not the first time the laws mean something but word it a different way. It won't be the last time either.Looks like "handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal" should be rewritten to include the word deliberate.
Calvert Lewin tried his very best not to handle that ball but he was attempting to score and he did end up scoring with his arm.
Only if it's deemed to be deliberate handling.I'd had a few sherbets when I saw the incident last night. This was a case of scoring with the hand or arm, not creating a GSO. Is my recollection correct? Does scoring with the arm have any bearing on whether it's a caution?
1. That's the point we are making too. We think VAR thought it was deliberate.
2. When reviewing the decision for one of four reviewable incidents, if a yellow card offence is detected, it is permissable to issue the yellow card.
Thanks for clearing that up but I'm not happy with no. 2. For example:
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee issues no sanction.
- VAR reviews the challenge for potential serious foul play.
- VAR concludes there was no serious foul play but does detect the reckless nature of the challenge.
- VAR can not recommend a yellow card.
The VAR protocol seems very inconsistent; perhaps I'll give it a read, although I was saving that for when I get promoted to the Premier League
You seem to be mixing up what a check is and what a review is. I blame the EPL system where there is no OFR (on field review) and a check and review seem to be the same thing . What you are saying is not possible if the protocol is flowed correctly. In the first instance VAR 'checks' to see if the incident needs to be reviewed (there is a clear and obvious error). Once he concluded there was no serious foul play (there was no C&O error), the incident can not be reviewed and nothing can be changed.Thanks for clearing that up but I'm not happy with no. 2. For example:
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee issues no sanction.
- VAR reviews the challenge for potential serious foul play.
- VAR concludes there was no serious foul play but does detect the reckless nature of the challenge.
- VAR can not recommend a yellow card.
The VAR protocol seems very inconsistent; perhaps I'll give it a read, although I was saving that for when I get promoted to the Premier League
You seem to be mixing up what a check is and what a review is. I blame the EPL system where there is no OFR (on field review) and a check and review seem to be the same thing . What you are saying is not possible if the protocol is flowed correctly. In the first instance VAR 'checks' to see if the incident needs to be reviewed (there is a clear and obvious error). Once he concluded there was no serious foul play (there was no C&O error), the incident can not be reviewed and nothing can be changed.
However using the same challenge in your example, lets say
- A player commits a reckless challenge but the referee sends off the player for SFP.
-VAR checks and finds a clear and obvious error since the challenge clearly was not SFP
- VAR recommends a review and referee accepts it
- The incident is reviewed (by VAR or by referee as OFR)
- It is found that the challenge was only reckless, the red card is withdrawn and a caution is issued in line with LOTG.
VAR can be used to give cautions if they're seen while using OFR to review something else.You're right, the Premier League has messed with my head a bit. Now, I think about it, in the World Cup, I remember Ronaldo (against Iran, I think) getting a yellow card after an on-field review. The referee initially missed the incident and was reviewing for violent conduct. Looks like VAR can be used to give yellow cards - sometimes
which is effectively what happened the OP. Unless the referee just assumed the handball was deliberate through miscommunication.VAR cannot recommend a caution...
"Thought" it was deliberate? Wouldn't they have to "know" before it was a clear and obvious error?1. That's the point we are making too. We think VAR thought it was deliberate.
2. When reviewing the decision for one of four reviewable incidents, if a yellow card offence is detected, it is permissable to issue the yellow card.