A&H

Man U v PSG

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
I wouldn't give it. But i wont have too much of a problem if the referee gave it on his own (or on advice of AR, 4th using comms). My gripe is with VAR getting involved and the once-sided/biased process after that.

Personally, I'd still jettison VAR altogether, but . . .

VAR seems to be used very differently with respect to handling than with other fouls. While contact fouls seem to be being judged with a gray zone between clearly and obviously a foul and clearly and obviously not a foul, when it comes to handling, it seems to be re-refereeing each incident. There are, of course, two parts of handling: hand/arm contact and "deliberate."

The first is black and white, and using VAR absolutely on that makes a lot of sense--we all have plays in our games (at least I do) where I'm not certain if there was arm contact, but I am certain that if there was it was deliberate. VAR is perfect for those plays and since the ball either did or didn't touch the arm, it really isn't different from OSP or over a line distinctions that can be clearly made.

How to apply it to the deliberate element is more tricky. How do we define the gray zone between clearly handling and clearly not handling? WE don't seem to have--instead, VAR seems to be used to make the determination without regard to any possible gray zone--very much unlike a pushing or tripping foul in the PA or SFP/VC.

On this play, we have no idea what VAR was actually used for (at least, I have seen nothing clarifying this)--did Skomina not know if the ball hit the back or the arm? Was Skomina not sure if it was deliberate? Was he unsure of both?
 
I think the one opinion we can discount is the PSG manager, who said it should not be a pk because it was not on target

Also anything that means Neymar does not get to cheat his way to success is fine by me.
Neymar has said it hit his back, I mean that argument falls down straight away. And Tuchels comments gave me a laugh too
 
I am in the no handball camp but the reaction of the player was that of a guilty one.
 
Jamais une peine dans la mémoire de l'homme. 1.14 Billion in transfers!!!
 
Last edited:
On this play, we have no idea what VAR was actually used for (at least, I have seen nothing clarifying this)--did Skomina not know if the ball hit the back or the arm? Was Skomina not sure if it was deliberate? Was he unsure of both?
Based on the fact that Skomina appeared to look at two replays (one "fast" and the other slow/frame-by-frame) I'd suggest that he didn't see the handling at all initially.

I expect that, based on prior conversations we've heard from VARs along the way around the world, that it went something like this:

VAR: "What did you see the ball hit?"
Skomina: "It hit the back/leg/etc/but-not-arm"
VAR: "I've got a possible review for you then."
 
I am in the no handball camp but the reaction of the player was that of a guilty one.

While I'm in the PK camp, I don't think the player's reaction tells us much of anything--players know that if the ball hits the arm they might get called for handling. They may not understand the nuance, but they certainly know it isn't a good thing if the ball hit their arm.
 
While I'm in the PK camp, I don't think the player's reaction tells us much of anything--players know that if the ball hits the arm they might get called for handling. They may not understand the nuance, but they certainly know it isn't a good thing if the ball hit their arm.
I mean when he was holding his head in his hands in an "I've been caught" kind of way.
 
VAR seems to be used very differently with respect to handling than with other fouls.
It is not supposed to. That is the problem.

Based on the fact that Skomina appeared to look at two replays (one "fast" and the other slow/frame-by-frame) I'd suggest that he didn't see the handling at all initially.
You may have had a more accurate feed but I am sure we all had the same. I was paying specific attention to what replay is he going to look at. And I just looked a full match replay for. When he approached the screen it was on a freeze frame. He looked at that for some seconds with the frames going back and forth to show contact. Then it went to full speed for the lead up to the incident but when it got close to the handball it changed to slow motion. Then he had to deal with some team officials. Went back to the screen, looked at two more slow motions and made up his mind. The was no full speed or as you say "fast" replay of the incident. I said this before. The process was completely wrong.
 
Handball for me player chose to attempt a block leading with his arms out he knew what he was doing and his reaction is there to see.
 
Don't agree with the reaction comment. There was no reaction after the actual contact. The head in hands reaction was after a penalty was given 3 minutes later which is completely understandable when putting a billion dollar team out of the UCL is going to be blamed on something you did (even if you think it wasn't deliberate and it was unfair).
 
Don't agree with the reaction comment. There was no reaction after the actual contact. The head in hands reaction was after a penalty was given 3 minutes later which is completely understandable when putting a billion dollar team out of the UCL is going to be blamed on something you did (even if you think it wasn't deliberate and it was unfair).


Totally agree.
 
For me the big difference here is the jump - if the players stays on the ground and turns his back, probably would not give it.
In this instance he has turned, jumped and stuck his arm out!

I should point out that my interpretation of DHB here is not always appreciated, as I began my refereeing in England, and still tend to use my 'old fashioned' handballs as the yardstick, or should that be metre rule!!!!!!

Im not sure he stuck his arm out, his arm for me was in a natural position.

If you try and jump with your arms by your back you will go arse over tit.
 
5387480.jpg
The only movement i can remember that involves jumping with your arms by your side is Pogo Dancing which became a punk rock thing in the 70s/80s
 
You can easilly argue that the incident in question was handball and not handball. The referee isn't right and he isn't wrong.

That to me suggests that the wording is incorrect, there's simply too many words. Why not remove all the waffle and just have "deliberately handles the ball". Yes the decision still remains subjective (like all decisons) but there's not this inane amount of nonsense written to justify it and for people to obsess over. All IFAB ever seen to do is add to the confusion by adding more wording (silhouette etc). Remove it all.
 
If a defender turns his/her back on a shot they are by definition not in a natural position. By jumping and making their body bigger they are also in an unnatural position. So for me it's a stonewall penalty. We have to remember that VAR is intolerant to subjective views and will enforce the laws.
 
You can easilly argue that the incident in question was handball and not handball. The referee isn't right and he isn't wrong.

That to me suggests that the wording is incorrect, there's simply too many words. Why not remove all the waffle and just have "deliberately handles the ball". Yes the decision still remains subjective (like all decisons) but there's not this inane amount of nonsense written to justify it and for people to obsess over. All IFAB ever seen to do is add to the confusion by adding more wording (silhouette etc). Remove it all.
I must stop agreeing with you!
IFAB are about to add even more words to their scribes of diarrhoea :poop:
Fundamentally, this thread is exposing the fact that something is seriously wrong. Some of us to the left, the right and the middle. I blame Brexit
 
You can easilly argue that the incident in question was handball and not handball. The referee isn't right and he isn't wrong.

That to me suggests that the wording is incorrect, there's simply too many words. Why not remove all the waffle and just have "deliberately handles the ball". Yes the decision still remains subjective (like all decisons) but there's not this inane amount of nonsense written to justify it and for people to obsess over. All IFAB ever seen to do is add to the confusion by adding more wording (silhouette etc). Remove it all.
All the law says is "deliberately handles the ball". If you're psychic, that's great. If not, the idea of offering some guidance on what is likely to make an action deliberate seems like a sensible idea to me.

It might be terribly written and interprated differently in different locations as a result, but that doesn't mean the concept of trying to introduce consistency in the interpretation of deliberate is a bad idea. It just needs to be done better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top