LIV vs CHE

[Peter Grove]

I used to have a little blurb about what constituted deliberate handling, in my opinion. One part of it was, "deliberately prolonging an initially accidental contact." And for me that's exactly what James did.

After the ball had come off his thigh onto his hand in a way he could not have predicted, he then made a clear movement, intended to prevent the ball going past him. As far as I'm concerned that's a handling offence and would always have been, no matter what version of the laws you were using.

 

[bloovee]

Threads are going to be long if we report what fans say on social media. It's taken nearly a decade to forget about "daylighf" on offside.

 

[bloovee]

I used to have a little blurb about what constituted deliberate handling, in my opinion. One part of it was, "deliberately prolonging an initially accidental contact." And for me that's exactly what James did.

After the ball had come off his thigh onto his hand in a way he could not have predicted, he then made a clear movement, intended to prevent the ball going past him. As far as I'm concerned that's a handling offence and would always have been, no matter what version of the laws you were using.

Ah, but if the ball was no longer going into the goal after the accidental handling, was any subsequent deliberate handling DOGSO? That's impossible to judge from a still... certainly from that still.

3 PL games in and we are already into "last week's VAR" territory.

 

[GraemeS]

Are you this obnoxious when you ref or just behind a keyboard?

On the first instance ball/arm contact is made there the play makes no movement toward the ball with his arm.

"As anyone who has played at any level knows." is the kind of anti-referee nonsense that directly leads to increased distrust and anger towards grassroots referees. If you're coming on a referee forum and spouting that nonsense, you should count yourself lucky that someone being a bit obnoxious is the worst reaction you've got.

 

[Ross]

When you’ve quite finished chaps. Consider this a polite warning

 

[Big Cat]

I think a key consideration is the removal of the following text from this year's book

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

So last year, it wasn't a PK for me. This year however, I can cope with the DOGSO-HB. Unfortunately, whilst I don't think James was guilty of a HB offence, I do think the game expected the decision VAR recommended
The Officials didn't have the guts to deem it a non-offence, but I don't really blame them for that

AT's antics looking at the still image during the OFR just shows what a total charade that process is. As predicted by Moi many times over
The VAR has made the call, not AT

 

[socal lurker]

I think a key consideration is the removal of the following text from this year's book

Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

So last year, it wasn't a PK for me. This year however, I can cope with the DOGSO-HB. Unfortunately, whilst I don't think James was guilty of a HB offence, I do think the game expected the decision VAR recommended
The Officials didn't have the guts to deem it a non-offence, but I don't really blame them for that

AT's antics looking at the still image during the OFR just shows what a total charade that process is. As predicted by Moi many times over
The VAR has made the call, not AT

The green meant that the bullet did not apply to deliberate handling or biggering. Nothing should have changed on evaluating this play from last year to this (except, perhaps, if the referee felt the clarification on what biggering means that excludes justifiable body position for what the player was doing would apply).

I think it is remarkably offensive to say the officials "didn't have the guts" to deem it a non-offense. Just because well trained professional referees in the top tier league don't agree with your opinion doesn't make that disagreement anything about "guts." Many looking at the video believe it was deliberate handling. (I've only been able to see a still, so I don't have an opinion.)

And without knowing what the conversation was between R and VAR, you also have no basis for your conclusion that just the VAR called it. As has been mentioned in multiple posts above, there are things that could have been in that discussion that would have mean all he needed to see was the actual contact to change his view on why he didn't call the PK in real time.

 

[Big Cat]

The green meant that the bullet did not apply to deliberate handling or biggering. Nothing should have changed on evaluating this play from last year to this (except, perhaps, if the referee felt the clarification on what biggering means that excludes justifiable body position for what the player was doing would apply).

Yeh yeh, I get that

didn't have the guts

It's just chit chat. I did say I didn't blame them for that, cos I reckon I'd have reached the same decision for the same reasons. We're all human and will all buckle towards the expected decision in such circumstances even if the decision is wrong. Nothing personal intended towards the Ref team. Just Forum 'loose talk'

And without knowing what the conversation was between R and VAR, you also have no basis for your conclusion that just the VAR called it. As has been mentioned in multiple posts above, there are things that could have been in that discussion that would have mean all he needed to see was the actual contact to change his view on why he didn't call the PK in real time

My conclusion is based on the fact that AT glanced at a still image. He didn't 'review' the incident properly at all. To my mind, that means his mind was made up before he got anywhere near the screen

 

[one]

And without knowing what the conversation was between R and VAR, you also have no basis for your conclusion that just the VAR called it. As has been mentioned in multiple posts above, there are things that could have been in that discussion that would have mean all he needed to see was the actual contact to change his view on why he didn't call the PK in real time.

Be that so, a big part of decision making in refereeing is selling the decision. And the way AT made his was a bad way for such critical decision. I don't know if you remember a viral video of the conversation between Gillett and VAR in an A-League game. He said he should review it on screen to sell the decision to players.

My conclusion is based on the fact that AT glanced at a still image. He didn't 'review' the incident properly at all. To my mind, that means his mind was made up before he got anywhere near the screen

Or just a rushed decision and wrong process but in my view right outcome.

 

[AlexF]

My conclusion is based on the fact that AT glanced at a still image. He didn't 'review' the incident properly at all. To my mind, that means his mind was made up before he got anywhere near the screen

The video on the screen spun through it twice before stopping on the still shot.

That tells me that AT saw the arm motion but wasn't sure if there was contact with the arm/hand to actually make it an offence.

The still shot showing contact? Now he's got the last piece of the puzzle and it can all be wrapped up in a bow.

 

[Big Cat]

Or just a rushed decision and wrong process but in my view right outcome

Yeh, probably the right outcome. Process was 'moody' at best
I know the comms are monitored and reviewed etc.
But the way the OFR thing amounts to a pointless formality, I'd be calling for more transparency WRT the comms although I'm not up for the chat being released to the press/public unless it's deemed fairly polished by the powers that be

 

[RefIADad]

Yeh, probably the right outcome. Process was 'moody' at best
I know the comms are monitored and reviewed etc.
But the way the OFR thing amounts to a pointless formality, I'd be calling for more transparency WRT the comms although I'm not up for the chat being released to the press/public unless it's deemed fairly polished by the powers that be

Here are two possible contexts that could make a BIG difference in what VAR would show Taylor in a situation like this.

1) Taylor rules "no handling" on the field. VAR says, "I believe we have a clear and obvious handling." Taylor: "I saw James move his arm, but I didn't see the ball actually contact his hand or arm." In this case, the only thing that VAR would need to show Taylor is the still showing the contact.

2) Same as 1) at the start, but now Taylor says, "I don't believe it's handling because James' arm did not move." VAR would then show Taylor the video so AT could see the movement.

Now if it were me at the monitor, I'd probably want to see both the still and the video to make sure I agree I have a clear and obvious error. But that very well may not be the training that Premier League referees are receiving. Without hearing the communication, we don't know exactly what Taylor said and what VAR needed to provide to show the C&O error.

 

[one]

Here are two possible contexts that could make a BIG difference in what VAR would show Taylor in a situation like this.

1) Taylor rules "no handling" on the field. VAR says, "I believe we have a clear and obvious handling." Taylor: "I saw James move his arm, but I didn't see the ball actually contact his hand or arm." In this case, the only thing that VAR would need to show Taylor is the still showing the contact.

2) Same as 1) at the start, but now Taylor says, "I don't believe it's handling because James' arm did not move." VAR would then show Taylor the video so AT could see the movement.

Now if it were me at the monitor, I'd probably want to see both the still and the video to make sure I agree I have a clear and obvious error. But that very well may not be the training that Premier League referees are receiving. Without hearing the communication, we don't know exactly what Taylor said and what VAR needed to provide to show the C&O error.

Talking about two contexts, I give you another two contexts.
1. The process that you go through to come up with 'the right decision'.
2. The process that players and spectators see you go through to come up 'a decision'.

I think you see where I am going with this. As a referee you sometimes do things not because it helps you make the right decision, but because players seeing you doing it help your match control. There are many examples of this. I don't see why 15 seconds of extra replay viewing couldn't be another.

 

[RefIADad]

Talking about two contexts, I give you another two contexts.
1. The process that you go through to come up with 'the right decision'.
2. The process that players and spectators see you go through to come up 'a decision'.

I think you see where I am going with this. As a referee you sometimes do things not because it helps you make the right decision, but because players seeing you doing it help your match control. There are many examples of this. I don't see why 15 seconds of extra replay viewing couldn't be another.

The last part of my comment addresses what you are talking about. For a call of that magnitude, I'd want to have the full context no matter what. Yes, it may take another 30-60 seconds, but I would want to make sure it ticks all of the boxes for handling knowing that if it's handling, it's a sendoff and a penalty. I realize you're talking about the optics of "selling" a call, which doesn't bother me as much. I really don't care what fans say or think about how I get to a call. But for this one, I'd take the extra time to make sure I'm seeing the full context.

 

[JamesL]

The easiest way to sell this call is to hear AT say the words "clear movement of hand towards ball which prevents the ball entering the goal"

 

[JamesL]

There's like five threads on reddit about it at the moment and every time I read them I remember why there's almost no point trying to explain the laws to fans at the best of times.

Apparently the same for referees too
Allegedly any handling of the ball that stops a goal is a PK and Red card......

 

[RustyRef]

When you’ve quite finished chaps. Consider this a polite warning

Glad you got there first Ross, I'm playing catch up and having read previous posts I wasn't going to make such a polite request.

Honestly, it is embarrassing that fellow referees can be so bitter, sarcastic and antagonistic towards each other.