FA Cup - MNC vs MNU

[RustyRef]

What's a natural position? The attacker heading the ball toward Grealish had his arm above his head while stretching to head the ball. Unless you are arguing it was a deliberate handball by a player with his eyes closed.

So what, it didn't hit his hand? If it had then the goal would have been disallowed for handball, but it didn't and hit hit Grealish's hand.

Where in law does it say that having your eyes closed means it isn't a handball? And I am absolutely not saying it was a deliberate handball, because law is very clear that if your arm is not in a justifiable position for the action being taken then it is a handball even if accidental. As I've already said, I could accept either viewpoint as to whether the arm was in a natural position or not, but saying it can't be handball because he had his eyes closed and it was accidental is just not in any way supported by law.

 

[bloovee]

So what, it didn't hit his hand? If it had then the goal would have been disallowed for handball, but it didn't and hit hit Grealish's hand.

Where in law does it say that having your eyes closed means it isn't a handball? And I am absolutely not saying it was a deliberate handball, because law is very clear that if your arm is not in a justifiable position for the action being taken then it is a handball even if accidental. As I've already said, I could accept either viewpoint as to whether the arm was in a natural position or not, but saying it can't be handball because he had his eyes closed and it was accidental is just not in any way supported by law.

Now you're comparing apples and oranges! (If not you, some comments earlier implied that Grealish had lifted his hand deliberately.)

I was trying to point out that both players had their arms up - it was a natural thing in jumping, neither intending to handle the ball. Even then - back to the consequences - If the attacker had been penalised for an arm in an unnatural position, the outcome would be a DFK and not a 95% chance of scoring from a penalty (so the only apple would be if the clauses about a player scoring a goal after handball apply, and that's any handball, not just from arms in an "unnatural position" (and even then open to what "immediately after" means). If the ball hit the attacker's hand (in a "natural" position) and he then passed the ball to a team-mate who scored, the goal would be given.

The attack could still have a goal ruled out for the ball hitting an attacker's hand "in an unnatural position" but the reality is that that would be much less likely than a penalty given against a defender doing the same thing.

 

[RustyRef]

Now you're comparing apples and oranges! (If not you, some comments earlier implied that Grealish had lifted his hand deliberately.)

I was trying to point out that both players had their arms up - it was a natural thing in jumping, neither intending to handle the ball. Even then - back to the consequences - If the attacker had been penalised for an arm in an unnatural position, the outcome would be a DFK and not a 95% chance of scoring from a penalty (so the only apple would be if the clauses about a player scoring a goal after handball apply, and that's any handball, not just from arms in an "unnatural position" (and even then open to what "immediately after" means). If the ball hit the attacker's hand (in a "natural" position) and he then passed the ball to a team-mate who scored, the goal would be given.

The attack could still have a goal ruled out for the ball hitting an attacker's hand "in an unnatural position" but the reality is that that would be much less likely than a penalty given against a defender doing the same thing.

If Wan-Bissaka had handled it and a goal had been scored in that attacking phase it would have been checked and disallowed. If a goal wasn't scored it couldn't be checked as not withing the VAR protocol. Grealish's handling was checked as he was in his own penalty area so was required to be a VAR check under the protocol.

Saying that both hands were up is like trying to say to a traffic officer that you shouldn't be given a ticket for doing 60 in a 40 zone because someone in the next lane was doing the same speed, it wouldn't wash. The law even talks about the consequence of having your arm in that position, you take a risk and if the ball hits them you are in trouble even if it was accidental.

 

[bloovee]

If Wan-Bissaka had handled it and a goal had been scored in that attacking phase it would have been checked and disallowed. If a goal wasn't scored it couldn't be checked as not withing the VAR protocol. Grealish's handling was checked as he was in his own penalty area so was required to be a VAR check under the protocol.

Saying that both hands were up is like trying to say to a traffic officer that you shouldn't be given a ticket for doing 60 in a 40 zone because someone in the next lane was doing the same speed, it wouldn't wash. The law even talks about the consequence of having your arm in that position, you take a risk and if the ball hits them you are in trouble even if it was accidental.

I meant that both players had their arms up, and that would suggest that the position of their hand/arm could be a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Did they do it intending to handle the ball? No, they did it for balance or momentum, and it's a natural position in that specific situation.

If - not your point but someone else's - a review for SFP would only be given if 100% of referees would call it SFP, then what percentage of referees are needed to say this wasn't a C&O error because they could say that the position of the arms was justifiable by the situation?

(The speeding analogy would work fine if we couldn't readily think of cases where handball wasn't given. Apparently handball, unlike speeding, is OK in a congested area.)

 

[RustyRef]

I meant that both players had their arms up, and that would suggest that the position of their hand/arm could be a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. Did they do it intending to handle the ball? No, they did it for balance or momentum, and it's a natural position in that specific situation.

If - not your point but someone else's - a review for SFP would only be given if 100% of referees would call it SFP, then what percentage of referees are needed to say this wasn't a C&O error because they could say that the position of the arms was justifiable by the situation?

(The speeding analogy would work fine if we couldn't readily think of cases where handball wasn't given. Apparently handball, unlike speeding, is OK in a congested area.)

I can't be bothered to carry this on. Loads of people have explained the VAR protocol, but you keep flopping all over the place.

Enjoy your Summer.