RefSix

Jurgen vs Roy

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
So, two Cahill incidents.

28th min: holding VVD as he gets a header on goal from a corner. The holding stopped him burying it. No VAR. Obvious PK. Arguable RC.

36th min: Cahill arm above the shoulder, no natural, handball. VAR. Gives nothing. Obvious PK (arguable YC SPA but no card needed)

What is the point of VAR?
 

ladbroke8745

Well-Known Member
Level 6 Referee
I was thinking the exact same.

In the world cup a couple years back there were plenty of penalties for holding in the same way. Cahill literally had both his hands around VVD.
Then the handball.... his arms raised, in an unnatural position and blocked the ball.. clear as daylight.
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
I was thinking the exact same.

In the world cup a couple years back there were plenty of penalties for holding in the same way. Cahill literally had both his hands around VVD.
Then the handball.... his arms raised, in an unnatural position and blocked the ball.. clear as daylight.
If (big if obvs) you called the VVD foul, what colour card, if any for you, and why?
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
36th min: Cahill arm above the shoulder, no natural, handball. VAR. Gives nothing. Obvious PK (arguable YC SPA but no card needed)
In every other country other than England (and possibly devolved nations :)) that would 100% be given, but we seem to be a lot more tolerant on handling here than elsewhere.
 

ladbroke8745

Well-Known Member
Level 6 Referee
If (big if obvs) you called the VVD foul, what colour card, if any for you, and why?
I think it's a yellow for me. It's a foul, but I don't think he is DOGSO. I don't think VVD is guaranteed getting the ball and scoring from it but he is definitely impeded getting to it by the hug .
 

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
In every other country other than England (and possibly devolved nations :)) that would 100% be given, but we seem to be a lot more tolerant on handling here than elsewhere.
But by the 2019-20 laws it’s a clear offence. How can it not be given at this level?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Never been deliberate handball, it was already there!!!
Yes, but the laws have changed now and there are some non deliberate handball which are punishable.
For example, if the hand or arm make the body unnaturally bigger. The deliberateness of it means nothing. Its a handball offence.
So I think this case it is right to question whether it is handball, under the new laws.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Yes, but the laws have changed now and there are some non deliberate handball which are punishable.
For example, if the hand or arm make the body unnaturally bigger. The deliberateness of it means nothing. Its a handball offence.
So I think this case it is right to question whether it is handball, under the new laws.
Usually
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
So the ambiguity in that is there for debate.
The answer, never been a deliberate handball, whilst true is not really the answer as to why this isn't handball, because it usually is.
Actually, the word 'usually' has been omitted from the 20/21 book

The debate based on the new wording is;
Was it a handball because the player made his body unnaturally bigger, or;
Was it not an offence because the player touched the ball with his hand, directly from the head/body (including the foot) of another player who is close?
The second argument is more compelling to me and is correctly interpreted by one nation only
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Screenshot_20200625_100052_com.twitter.android.png

Heres the still image.

Law says:
It is usually an offence if
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player
deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm
directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is
close.

I would say that this meets all three of the criteria laid out in law.
1)arm is making the body bigger
2) it appears to be just (and I am talking fractionally) above the shoulder level, the part that makes contact
3)it is played by another player who is close, which law says is still an offence.

I can't really see any reason for arguing against a handball offence here, myself. Obviously the PL/PGMOL are applying their own interpretation which does appear to be at odds with wha the law says, but I am not privy to that advice so I would follow law and say this has to be handball, really.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
Actually, the word 'usually' has been omitted from the 20/21 book

The debate based on the new wording is;
Was it a handball because the player made his body unnaturally bigger, or;
Was it not an offence because the player touched the ball with his hand, directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
The second argument is more compelling to me and is correctly interpreted in one nation only
Apologies, I am still using 19/20 laws, as the PL are still ticks all the boxes.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
OK, so good that the 20/21 laws allow the referee to wave this away

Then there's the C&O business to account for
Not really. I would say the 20/21 laws make this even more handball. As per above, just removing the word usually, which means it's defo handball.
Arm makes body unnaturally bigger.
The point of contact is above And beyond shoulder level.
It is played from an opponent who is close.
I dont see a get out clause here.
 
Top