A&H

Leicester vs West Ham

A&H International
No. It wasn’t handball but Leicester players will always appeal. No discussion required imo
 
In baseball we have the phrase the "tie goes to the runner". Does the ball hitting on that borderline go to foul or no foul? Simplest answer for VAR is probably just to stick to the on field decision.
 
Why are there on about the shirt line on TV? The offside lines are even plotted to the 'arm pit line' which is further up the arm than the shirt line.

Clear handball for me.
 
QuaverRef said:
No. It wasn’t handball but Leicester players will always appeal. No discussion required imo
Click to expand...
I’m interested why you feel no discussion is required. I feel it’s certainly a debate.

I can’t tell for certain whether or not it comes off his hand. I feel it does but I don’t know for certain. Perhaps that’s why it wasn’t given, not clear and obvious. Or maybe VAR could see it wasn’t handball but nothing was shown on TV to indicate this
 
Is it handling? Based on that goal line camera shot, more likely than not.

Am I calling that if I’m in my expected position? Probably not, because there enough doubt in my mind that I’ll probably give the benefit to the attackers.

Should VAR overturn a call on the field? Absolutely not. This is the classic case of video not being conclusive enough to overturn the call-regardless of what that call might be. In American sports, we would say the call on the field “stands”, but is not “confirmed”.
 
RefIADad said:
Is it handling? Based on that goal line camera shot, more likely than not.

Am I calling that if I’m in my expected position? Probably not, because there enough doubt in my mind that I’ll probably give the benefit to the attackers.

Should VAR overturn a call on the field? Absolutely not. This is the classic case of video not being conclusive enough to overturn the call-regardless of what that call might be. In American sports, we would say the call on the field “stands”, but is not “confirmed”.
Click to expand...

I’m not sold on this at all. With the ability they have to zoom in, I think point of contact is something that IFAB considers an objective call so VAR is expected to get it right. I’m surprised it wasn’t given as handling, as the point of contact appears to be at the edge of the shirt sleeve, which is a a couple of inches below where the arm starts in the weird world of IFAB. And the ball doesn’t touch at a single point, but over space. So even if the middle of contact is at the bottom of the arm pit, the arm was also part of the contact and should be handling. Once again it is a pity that the is zero transparency in EPL to know what those in charge think.
 
my view when you see how high the armpit line is, considerably higher than the shirt, you could justify handball by VAR.
 
I thought VAR would disallow it because it hit part of the arm below the sleeve. I've no idea why one of my two brain cells got involved with such unpredictability. May as well predict the location of an electron based upon knowledge of its velocity or vice versa
 
There is around 3 or 4 inches of contact depending. Rhetorical question, what happens if some of that contact is below and some is above the line?
 
one said:
There is around 3 or 4 inches of contact depending. Rhetorical question, what happens if some of that contact is below and some is above the line?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that’s pretty easy--if any part of the arm is used, it’s handling. No different than if the ball hits arm and chest at the same time.
 
My view is that the law was changed to accommodate for doubt about whether a player has used their shoulder or their arm.
We should not extend doubt to whether the ball has hit above or below their underarm because that is piling doubt on an allowance for doubt - we should interpret it strictly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top