The Ref Stop

ManU v Liverpool - handball VAR decision

F

FinalWhistle

Armchair Referee
Sesko definitely handballed it today and I'm surprised that the VAR couldn't figure it out.

This is why.

The slowmo from the left of Sesko showed the ball coming up and towards him. We can't actully see if his hand touched the ball as the ball obscures the contact point which is why everyone is so unsure about it and don't think it's clear and obvious. However, what we do see, is the ball change direction in midair at the point where Sesko's hand meets it, something that basic physics tells us can't happen without contact. VAR should understand that and therefore have ruled handball. The TV then showed a realtime shot of the moment and from that particular angle the ball's swerve was obvious there too.
 
The Ref Stop
With the angles available it's neither clear nor obvious, and the ball would have gone in anyway. The VAR can't infer evidence of contact from ball movement only, they have to be sure.

It was a correct outcome for VAR not to overturn, the only thing they did were wrong was watch the replays in slow motion more than once, because it's not a clear and obvious error by any definition of those words.

Had it not been given as a goal, then VAR would have had to consider a penalty and DOGSO for the foul on Sesko in the build up to the goal.

I'm more perplexed by the overall quality of Darren England's performance, I thought he missed a lot of obvious fouls - including the deliberate two-handed push in the back on Sesko that sent him flying into the advertising boards (which IMO should have been a yellow card as well as a foul) - and then penalised other tackles where there was nothing in it. I thought he had a pretty awful (inconsistent) game to be honest.
 
The ball swerved / changed direction in midair, an inflexion point that can't happen unless it hits something, as I've explained. That's how you know it hit his hand.

That push in the back of Sesko, yeah, that was strange. Not even a free kick at the very least.
 
FinalWhistle said:
The ball swerved / changed direction in midair, an inflexion point that can't happen unless it hits something, as I've explained. That's how you know it hit his hand.

That push in the back of Sesko, yeah, that was strange. Not even a free kick at the very least.
Click to expand...
The spin of the ball may have changed ever so slightly, but I'd disagree with a swerve/direction change.

But it's impossible to actually see if the fingernails or fingertips touch the ball.

As I said before, you'd have been looking at a red card and penalty for the foul on Sesko a few seconds earlier - in terms of "what football expects" I think we'd rather have no intervention, a goal from open play and all 22 players still on the pitch where possible - rather than two separate VAR calls, a penalty, a red card, and a bad taste in everyone's mouths.

Slot's overreaction in his press conference was utterly pathetic.
 
Ok, I recorded the match, have just played it back and can still see it on several of the replays. The ball bounces off Sesko, then the ball changes direction and actually accelerates a little at the point of contact with his hand which would otherwise be happening in midair with no physical contact and therefore impossible. It's subtle and the touch is indeed slight, but not too subtle to see if one looks carefully. Dunno why this is so hard for people to spot. We should all be in agreement here. If members are able to replay it, I suggest you do and look at it carefully.

I can understand why the on-field ref is unlikely to see it, but not with the multiple camera angles slowmos available.
 
The ball changes it's trajectory and Sesko's fingers move. Not sure what else you need? It's a horrendous mistake by VAR.

If you watch the after match 'analysis' they are all joking about it. Even Keane was in on the jokes!
 
Thankyou, Ryan. I've not watched the aftermath yet, but it looks like I'll enjoy it! Sesko must have been laughing all the way to the bank. He truly knows he touched it as he'd feel it.
 
I actually don't see an obvious move.
Its similar to someone arguing about Hibs goal (not sure if it was given or not, just a FB group). In that game, because of the angle I'm more inclined to think he did play with his hand, but not this one. There is obvious doubt which is what you have to consider.

Remember, for VAR to overrule on something like this they have to be 100% sure. You and I have, effectively, had hours to watch it, debate it. Do you want that in the stadium during the match?
 
Ryanj91 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2050981253524898272
Click to expand...
Im sorry, you cant be 100% on that.
The argument in the post "you can see his hand move". His hand was moving already. Its not flinched. No fingers have move out of place.
Its not 100%.
I know Liverpool fans won't like it.
But you need to be 100% certain to overrule that and those sitting in VAR clearly were not 100% sold on it.
 
You can tell the way the ball changed direction after it passed the fingers, the ball was barely spinning so wasn't spin that caused the change in Trajectory.

Apparently that zoom isn't available to VAR.

With the ball chip technology would be able to detect the ball had been touched. Shame it's not available in the EPL.
 
No, you cant.
The ball was already going in that direction. It has its own momentum and spin.
There is enough doubt that VAR should not intervene. There is that word again... DOUBT.
I'm not saying he didnt handle it. But then im not saying he did.
I am saying there is doubt and if you have doubt you can not therefore be 100%.
So those on VAR today clearly had that incy wincy little bit of DOUBT to not give it.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Well done at missing the rest of the post.
You're too tunnel visioned on this. No point debating.
Click to expand...
Ok, you're starting to get into personal attack territory here. Indeed, no point in debating with you.

Sometimes, it takes just one thing to prove a point and a midair inflection point is one of them since it can't happen without contact. It literally makes everything else irrelevent, but if you can't see that, I can't help you.
 
FinalWhistle said:
Ok, you're starting to get into personal attack territory here. Indeed, no point in debating with you.

Sometimes, it takes just one thing to prove a point and a midair inflection point is one of them since it can't happen without contact. It literally makes everything else irrelevent, but if you can't see that, I can't help you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, personal attack?
All I said was that you ignored the rest of the post (to cherry pick your response) ignoring the rest of post which included the word DOUBT a few times. Its an amazing word you should look up.
If you are a referee (your caption suggests not as you say you're an armchair referee) then you should know if you have doubt you dont make the call. The officials today had doubt that it touched his hand, enough for them to say no touch and award the goal.
When I referred to tunnel vision, your picking the part that you only find for your argument without considering other arguments. Again... doubt.
I also added that I am not saying it didnt hit his hand, or that it did. Meaning I too have DOUBT. This is something else you removed from the quote and didnt want to consider.
I can see arguments for both sides of the coin. My background isnt in applied physics. I never did science in Uni. I do have eyes though and I can not be 100% certain it touched his hand. Therefore doubt comes in and im not disallowing a goal based on a probability that it may have touched his hand. Is that better to understand where I am coming from now?

It COULD have touched his hand. But at the same time it COULD NOT have touched his hand. There is no actual physical evidence to 100% say which way.

If they'd given the goal, what are the chances we'd have a different discussion here with others saying that he guessed it? Probably very high.

Thats why I say there is doubt. You dont want them to guess their decision.
They dont have multiple angles like Sky do, something that has also been brought up in this forum before numerous times. They dont have endless amounts of time to make a decision. Most people say if its taken too long its not obvious - so again, give the goal.
This isn't Maradona territory. This is fine details. The faintest, if any, of touches.

Can I assume you support Liverpool to keep going on like this?
 
FinalWhistle said:
It wasn't. There was an inflection point where Sesko's hand touched it. Impossible for it to happen midair without contact. It's right there on the video.
Click to expand...
What tiny contact there may have been did NOT make a material difference in the trajectory of the ball. It wasn't clear or obvious so VAR should stay out of it. It's not like Henry's handball in the WC Play-Off, or Madonna, or Suarez. If there was the tiniest touch it didn't make a material difference to the outcome.

And I've said repeatedly, VAR can't judge based on that, you can't definitively see the contact, you just see a slight change of ball spin, which you can't 100% can say wasn't caused by something other than his fingertip. You're assuming that's the only possible cause of the change in spin. It's the 99.99% likely cause, but it's not the _only_ possible cause and it's definitely not clear and obvious.
 
@ladbroke8745 @dadofref sorry, my toothache has flared up again now, so I can't really concentrate on detailed replies right now. Hopefully tomorrow.

I'll just reply to this:

ladbroke8745 said:
Can I assume you support Liverpool to keep going on like this?
Click to expand...
I can see why you might think so, but I'm actually a ManU supporter. We have to be objective when discussing reffing decisions, so I'll equally make the argument / decision against my own team if that's what the evidence indicates, as in this situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top