The Ref Stop

ManU v Liverpool - handball VAR decision

I'm a bit confused that some people think the ball can just spin in a different direction mid air. It clearly touches the fingers and changed the trajectory of the ball towards the goal.

There's this weird obsession in football that we don't like small margins like tight offsides for example. For me regardless it was a slight touch with the fingers, it should of been disallowed and Attwell for some reason cant see quite clearly the trajectory of the ball changing which is the big give away its a handball.
 
The Ref Stop
I can't be bothered with VAR anymore There is no doubt that overall the erroneous outcomes have decreased but there is no way it outweighs the frustration it causes the fans and other stakeholders.

There is a problem with how (at least) one of the principles of VAR is implemented. Accuracy of the decision is more important than speed of it. This seems to be a by-product of wanting to reduce frustration which means they are going to get more decisions wrong. It is fit for purpose?

Back to the topic at hand. For me it is clear with conclusive evidence that there was a hand touch by Sesko. If you look at the magnified slow-mo of the incident, his middle and ring fingers get flipped upwards by the ball. This has to be conclusive evidence but I don't think VAR looked at it in attempt to conclude quickly (or was it available to him).

streamable.com

Watch m2-res_1080p | Streamable

Watch "m2-res_1080p" on Streamable.
streamable.com

Before
1777864158142.png

After
1777864234449.png
 
The finger movement as they brush the ball is the conclusive evidence. The change in ball trajectory further supports. This is one of the rare occasions when I think VAR would have benefited from taking a bit more time and examining more angles. Some of the earlier posts in this thread discuss this not being a clear and obvious error, but it is a factual decision so if you conclude from the evidence that there was contact then it has to be a clear and obvious error no matter how minor or unimpactful the contact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
I’m still not 100% convinced, but I also think the law needs to be revisited. It wasn’t brought in for things like this, rather for incidents where players blatantly scored with their arms. One I can remember is a defender blasted a clearance which hit at attacker on the arm that was by his side and flew into the goal. It wouldn’t have gone in had it not hit the arm, so I could understand the demand for change.

But contact with the hand or arm like the Sesko one is non impactful, the goal would be scored whether it brushed his fingers or not. If it needs to be examined this forensically VAR are going to need something like cricket’s snickometer. I’d rather the referee is given the option to decide if the accidental handling was impactful or not.
 
RustyRef said:
the goal would be scored whether it brushed his fingers or not
Click to expand...
I can dispute this though I know I don't have a strong argument. I believe the ball did not have enough forward momentum to enter goal before hitting the finger tips of Sesko. It's motion was upward. I would classify the touch more than just a brush. The force from the fingertips caused it to move forward, not a lot of forward force but enough to cause an impactful difference. Looking at simple biomechanics tells you the story. In the before and after pictures I posted there are some clues, the comparison of distance between the palm and the ball, the angle of the first section of the finger (proximal phalanx) and the back of the hand, and the angle between the back of the hand and the arm all compress. They all indicate sufficient force to push the ball forward.

Was the law written for cases that can only be detected after micro analysis, probably not, but as written now in a black and white way, this goal should have been disallowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top