GER DEN
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
I can't wait for next season when this technology finally gets introduced and we get the proper toenail offsides back in play. The outcry it will produce it would not surprise me if the PL buckle under the pressure and introduce a margin for error which favours the attacker.
It will make people crave for the lines to return which did have a margin for error built in but people saying automated technology is really needed without realising that a stud could be classed as offside under this tech!
I really do think like in cricket, we maybe need Linesman's call where yes the tech might say it's offside but if it's less than 10mm(let's say) and the linesman does not flag then it should favour the attacker.
It will make people crave for the lines to return which did have a margin for error built in but people saying automated technology is really needed without realising that a stud could be classed as offside under this tech!
I really do think like in cricket, we maybe need Linesman's call where yes the tech might say it's offside but if it's less than 10mm(let's say) and the linesman does not flag then it should favour the attacker.
For those saying that the handball offence (which resulted in a penalty) is the correct decision, please can you educate me on how we determine when “their hand/arm is a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation”?
You could surely argue that the position of his hand IS a consequence of, or justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation and thus argue NO offence.
Therefore, what should our algorithmic thought process be as referees in this situation? Do we we mentally have to ask ourselves “Is Player A’s body unnaturally bigger? If yes, do we then ask “Is the position of his hand a consequence of, or justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation? If yes, no offence committed. If no, offence committed???
Thanks!
You could surely argue that the position of his hand IS a consequence of, or justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation and thus argue NO offence.
Therefore, what should our algorithmic thought process be as referees in this situation? Do we we mentally have to ask ourselves “Is Player A’s body unnaturally bigger? If yes, do we then ask “Is the position of his hand a consequence of, or justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation? If yes, no offence committed. If no, offence committed???
Thanks!
The current margin of error in the PL is ten times that (10cm) and we still get complaints for "toenail" offsides.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Look up UEFA’s handball training videos. There are basically no natural positions. The UEFA line is any arm away from the body is going to be an offence. That fans are not used to this because, for example, they watch the premier league where handball is refereed differently, just tells how daft the written law is.
I wouldn't go as far as saying UEFA says no natural positions. They are just very strict when it comes to a professional defender facing a shot or a cross. So while the ball came from a short distance it wasn't unexpected. The defender knew where the cross was going because they were trying to block it and in those cases they are responsible for keeping their arms near their body.
I think if you start to treat a position like this as natural that professional players would "accidentally" get their arm in the way of a lot more shots and crosses.
I've come to the conclusion that if the arm is away from the body and the player isn't doing a football action i.e. playing the ball then this is being considered an unnatural position and the movement for that situation is irrelevant.
I think UEFA see this type of handball as creating a barrier.
I agree it is harsh, I was almost convinced MO might even decline to change the decision. I dont think that gets given in the PL. But, UEFA, as @santa sangria says expect handball here.
On the offside - It appears to be a complex(ISH) decision.
I'm assuming the offence is when the ball is headed he is interfering with opponent, obvious action that clearly impacts an opponent rather than when the ball was last played/touched by a team mate as he appeared to be onside at that point. And there was no SAOT picture that I saw either to verify that.
Think it's where I would find difficult as VAR, to not be focussed on the last play of the ball and not the APP before that.
I'm assuming the offence is when the ball is headed he is interfering with opponent, obvious action that clearly impacts an opponent rather than when the ball was last played/touched by a team mate as he appeared to be onside at that point. And there was no SAOT picture that I saw either to verify that.
Think it's where I would find difficult as VAR, to not be focussed on the last play of the ball and not the APP before that.
I don't think that a 'natural position' exists in the laws what it comes to penalty decisions and it would probably be helpful to remove the reference.
When it touches the hand/arm there is a risk of handball being given. It's even written like that in the laws.
The fact that players keep their arms behind their back shows that they know this and mitigate for it.
If they choose not to do the above, then they are accepting the risk and therefore the consequences.
We talk of thresholds for penalty area decision and perhaps handball is one we go the other way. In the general fop we have largesse and more discretion, but in the penalty area your behaviour needs to be closer to the player pictured.
When it touches the hand/arm there is a risk of handball being given. It's even written like that in the laws.
The fact that players keep their arms behind their back shows that they know this and mitigate for it.
If they choose not to do the above, then they are accepting the risk and therefore the consequences.
We talk of thresholds for penalty area decision and perhaps handball is one we go the other way. In the general fop we have largesse and more discretion, but in the penalty area your behaviour needs to be closer to the player pictured.
Last edited:
FirsFox40
RefChat Addict
I think (/hope) the penny is finally starting to drop with commentators and presenters that match officials are doing what they’re told, rather than just making it up on the spot.
Having Christina in the studio is such a benefit. Tells you what Referees are told to penalise and why, factually quotes Law, and quite rightly points out that it’s IFAB who call the shots and we dance to their tune.
Compare and contrast to Mike Dean who truly puts the Turd in Soccer Saturday.
(Edit: I’ve got that exact Toronto shirt in that photo above. What a glorious year that was)
Having Christina in the studio is such a benefit. Tells you what Referees are told to penalise and why, factually quotes Law, and quite rightly points out that it’s IFAB who call the shots and we dance to their tune.
Compare and contrast to Mike Dean who truly puts the Turd in Soccer Saturday.
(Edit: I’ve got that exact Toronto shirt in that photo above. What a glorious year that was)
And the player thus must move away from what are natural body positions for that specific situation, and move to a position that is wholly unnatural. Bipedal humans move with the use of their arms. EUFA perhaps should attempt playing football with their arms taped behind their backs.
There are times when I'm embarrassed to be a Referee
If they want that given as HB, they must change the Law. This needs removing and they need to stop issuing regional guidance in direct contradiction to what's written in the book
A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation
That players hand and arm was a perfect example of of being a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation
They are idiots for being responsible for contradiction. Nobody in the UK (aside from some misguided Referees) wants this given as HB
If they want that given as HB, they must change the Law. This needs removing and they need to stop issuing regional guidance in direct contradiction to what's written in the book
A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation
That players hand and arm was a perfect example of of being a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation
They are idiots for being responsible for contradiction. Nobody in the UK (aside from some misguided Referees) wants this given as HB
Last edited:
I don't want it given as handball, but under the current law I do think it is supportable. If Anderson was doing a running motion I would agree it would be totally wrong, but he wasn't and his arm really didn't need to be out like that.
Completely agree that the law needs to be changed though, but I'm not really sure what to. Had this debate with mates on WhatsApp last night, they all said that the referee should have used common sense. But, as I pointed out, they, and all football fans and participants, are always banging on about wanting consistency. Common sense and consistency are pretty much polar opposites within football. I'd like to see it put very much back to in the opinion of the referee, i.e. take the wording out and just say that the referee has to judge whether the player intentionally handled the ball or not. But I fully accept that would lead to inconsistent decisions.
itootr would be better than what we have now.
I don't blame MO whatsoever. I suppose he was just doing what he's told. I bet he didn't want to give it
And the offside was offside. No issue with that
Its nonsense. Spot the player with his arms in the unnatural position.
Its the player with his arms behind his back. This is not a normal movement. We do not play football with our arms behind our body. Football should not look like that.
Last edited: