A&H

Man U v PSG

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
Off course they do. And 99.7% of VAR decisions in the world cup were accurate :)

Its not about if the decision was right or wrong. It is subjective so it cant be proven right or wrong. It is about if it should have gone to review.
 
I'd love to kick a football at some of these officials at 80 odd mph
Besides, they just make it up to suit their own agenda. The protocol is a waste of the 64 pages its written on because they routinely ignore it, whilst constantly forcing it down our throats that they got it right (99. whatever % they deem we'll swallow)
 
Last edited:
arbitre said:
Uefa backs VAR decision that gave Man Utd penalty against PSG
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47495707
Click to expand...

It follows the logical argument that @McTavish was presenting. I think it makes sense.

I feel like the argument only goes round in circles as people are zoning in on 'deliberate handball', and not considering the deliberate action that results in a handball. The former is too narrow, the latter is more holistic (or too wide, if you want to argue that way.)

Still looking forward to the revised rules anyway though.
 
Yampy said:
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. Who doesn't agree with that?
The block was a deliberate act of a player. Agree or not?
During that block the ball made contact with the hand or arm. Once again true?

Looks like it matches the basic definition of handling the ball to me.

The next three bullet points are considerations.
For me, it is not ball towards hand nor is it unexpected ball.

Like it or not, there's a reasoning behind the decision which leads you to handball.
Click to expand...
I understand where you’re coming from, but this feels like we would have to give a penalty/free kick every time the ball hits a players arm when they are attempting to block a shot or cross because they are deliberately trying to do that
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
QuaverRef said:
I understand where you’re coming from, but this feels like we would have to give a penalty/free kick every time the ball hits a players arm when they are attempting to block a shot or cross because they are deliberately trying to do that
Click to expand...
The majority appear to consider that the "deliberate act" is related to the act of handling the ball. That's a reasonable assumption as it comes in the definition of "Handling the ball". But what if the real meaning of a "deliberate act" is much wider than that? E.g. a block, a sliding tackle, a headed challenge (some examples, could be more). This broader scope of "deliberate act" could provide some explanation for a fair number of these handball decisions after VAR.
Can't say I agree with it but trying to put forward a reasoned explanation albeit a minority one.
 
Grasshopper said:
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.
Click to expand...
focus-grasshopper-5aef7b.jpg
You've got to deliberately push your arm to the ball for it to be a deliberate action... The arm position is wholly natural...
 
Grasshopper said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is a natural position when something is coming at you at 80mph?
 
Ben448844 said:
What is a natural position when something is coming at you at 80mph?
Click to expand...

Pop to your local cricket club. Get in the nets without a bat and set the bowling machine at 80 mph. If you manage to keep your arms by your side the you're genuinely a remarkably brave person.
 
Last edited:
Yampy said:
The majority appear to consider that the "deliberate act" is related to the act of handling the ball. That's a reasonable assumption as it comes in the definition of "Handling the ball". But what if the real meaning of a "deliberate act" is much wider than that? E.g. a block, a sliding tackle, a headed challenge (some examples, could be more). This broader scope of "deliberate act" could provide some explanation for a fair number of these handball decisions after VAR.
Can't say I agree with it but trying to put forward a reasoned explanation albeit a minority one.
Click to expand...
You know, I think these players have only themselves to blame. No one made them play football, so perhaps the act of choosing to step onto a football pitch and engage in a game of football can be considered a deliberate act, such taht any hand-to-ball contact after that has to be handball?
 
RobOda said:
It follows the logical argument that @McTavish was presenting. I think it makes sense.

I feel like the argument only goes round in circles as people are zoning in on 'deliberate handball', and not considering the deliberate action that results in a handball. The former is too narrow, the latter is more holistic (or too wide, if you want to argue that way.)

Still looking forward to the revised rules anyway though.
Click to expand...
A drum I have beaten on many an occasion on here. It is not the intent of the player i.e. their meaning to handball but a deliberate act that results in the ball being handled - that is how it is worded.
I still don't think this meets the criteria as I feel for the attempt at blocking his arms were as natural as they could be. But what do I know, the powers that be are telling us another story
 
Yampy said:
The majority appear to consider that the "deliberate act" is related to the act of handling the ball. That's a reasonable assumption as it comes in the definition of "Handling the ball". But what if the real meaning of a "deliberate act" is much wider than that? E.g. a block, a sliding tackle, a headed challenge (some examples, could be more). This broader scope of "deliberate act" could provide some explanation for a fair number of these handball decisions after VAR.
Can't say I agree with it but trying to put forward a reasoned explanation albeit a minority one.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding/interpretation too Again, albeit a minority.
 
I don't know why they can't test in a test environment i. e. Get 22 men or women to play a few games of footy in secret and see what works. Wording is great until you ask people to interpret it. When testing against interpretations can be done in the correct environment.
 
JamesL said:
I don't know why they can't test in a test environment i. e. Get 22 men or women to play a few games of footy in secret and see what works. Wording is great until you ask people to interpret it. When testing against interpretations can be done in the correct environment.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is all about wording though. I think there is a fundamental disagreement throughout the game as to what should result in a handling call. This play is a great example--a lot of people think it should not be a call because he did not intend that the ball hit his arm and a lot of people think it should be a handling call because he deliberately flung his body to block a shot and didn't keep his arm out of the way.

And VAR makes the whole controvert worse: without VAR, everyone can complain about what angle the ref saw etc., but with VAR everyone gets to see what happened from a variety of angles and speeds, which intensifies the criticism because we know what the R saw when he went to the monitor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top