A&H

Melbourne City vs Western Utd penalty & RC

Status
Not open for further replies.
one said:
How is this in a natural position. He had his hand going for the block even before the ball is squared. On replay, its clear his intent is to block the ball by all means possible.

View attachment 3984

View attachment 3985
Click to expand...

So you're saying he's anticipated the pull back that early?
Bloody hell I wonder if he's got the winning Euromillions numbers.

You've clearly never put a sliding tackle in a game of football.

The fact you think a footballer would make a conscious decision to give away a penalty and get sent off to stop a good chance is rather silly
 
The Referee Store
Seems to me, for better or worse, a clear PK under the current Laws/instructions.

And I would have had no issue with an initial red. But was yellow clearly erroneous? I’m not sold on that. To get to DOGSO, we need the likelihood of gaining control by the teammate. I don’t know that is clear, as we don’t have much ball path to know if it gets to them in a viable way. IMHO, this is not clearly erroneous and the call on the field should stand (red or yellow). But with one caveat: if the R refrained from red because he thought a defender would be able to cover, that would be clearly erroneous and warrant a change in his decision—so this is a case where it would be great to know what the actual discussion and basis for decision was.
 
Last edited:
deusex said:
The fact you think a footballer would make a conscious decision to give away a penalty and get sent off to stop a good chance is rather silly
Click to expand...
Obviously you have never given a pen and sent off a player for DOGSO for a non "challenge for the ball" before. Or seen any games that it has been done in. Do you watch or referee much football?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
Maybe the yellow was for the challenge but on the VAR he saw the handball (which he missed first time)?
 
deusex said:
So you're saying he's anticipated the pull back that early?
Bloody hell I wonder if he's got the winning Euromillions numbers.

You've clearly never put a sliding tackle in a game of football.

The fact you think a footballer would make a conscious decision to give away a penalty and get sent off to stop a good chance is rather silly
Click to expand...
Suarez, 2010, is the easiest example to point to, and there are numerous others available.

The defender doesn't have to know when the pullback is coming, or even that it is. They're committing to the tackle with the legs, but hedging their bet against the chance the attacker either sees them coming or makes that pass at exactly the wrong moment, by leaving the arm out.

There's a reason these offences have become known as "professional fouls" - because professionals know the potential short-term downsides for that match or that month are vastly outweighed by the potential mid-term and long-term gains for their team (and indirectly, for themselves).

It's far from silly to recognize that many players actually do know the laws and do play to and outside them tactical and strategically, particularly when it's literally their job to know that stuff (I know I sure as hell did, and do, and I'm never getting to that level). I would call it naivete to say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
GraemeS said:
I'm with @socal lurker on this one - under current laws, there's no debate and this is clearly a penalty. I'm far from convinced it should be, but referees are paid to judge according to the LOTG, not their own notion of what football should be.
Click to expand...
I don't wish to offend GraemeS but what tosh....how you can think that this ticks any of the handball criteria is beyond me.......
 
Tosh to one side for a moment. Until this season, secret teachings were to award a HB when a player goes to ground (risk taken, made themselves bigger etc). Now they've clarified the supporting arm is OK. As they can't clarify every scenario, the supporting arm thing is now the closest match.
Clear as mud (the sort of which we rarely see, what with the H&S police out in force)
 
Big Cat said:
Tosh to one side for a moment. Until this season, secret teachings were to award a HB when a player goes to ground (risk taken, made themselves bigger etc). Now they've clarified the supporting arm is OK. As they can't clarify every scenario, the supporting arm thing is now the closest match.
Clear as mud (the sort of which we rarely see, what with the H&S police out in force)
Click to expand...
The arm extended laterally is not supporting the body at all - the defender's back and the shoulder of the extended arm are in contact with the ground during part of the slide.
That section of law does not appear to be relevant and does not excuse the contact between ball and hand.
 
HANDLING THE BALL

It is an offence if a player:
  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • scores in the opponents’ goal
    • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
It is usually an offence if a player:
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
 
This is the bit of Law that I read as being broken :
It is usually an offence if a player:
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.


So whilst the kick is from close range the defender's arm has made their arm unnaturally bigger. There is an exemption for a supporting arm but Law specifically defines this as between the body and the ground. That imho makes this handball.

There have been several threads on handball recently so overall I hope that the Law is further refined. In general I like the new phrasing but it does lead to some strange 'handballs' and 'non handballs' that Lawmakers never intended.
 
afronaut81 said:
This is the bit of Law that I read as being broken :
It is usually an offence if a player:
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.


So whilst the kick is from close range the defender's arm has made their arm unnaturally bigger. There is an exemption for a supporting arm but Law specifically defines this as between the body and the ground. That imho makes this handball.

There have been several threads on handball recently so overall I hope that the Law is further refined. In general I like the new phrasing but it does lead to some strange 'handballs' and 'non handballs' that Lawmakers never intended.
Click to expand...
Just no!
 
Mintyref said:
Just no!
Click to expand...

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree here. If it's not handball then I'm mystified why the decision in the video is given.

The only wriggle room is how you define unnaturally bigger. Tbh I'd prefer that the incident wasn't handball but I'm purely trying to interpret what is written
 
afronaut81 said:
We're simply going to have to agree to disagree here. If it's not handball then I'm mystified why the decision in the video is given.

The only wriggle room is how you define unnaturally bigger. Tbh I'd prefer that the incident wasn't handball but I'm purely trying to interpret what is written
Click to expand...
Easy, strip out all the sub law guidance crap, if, ITOOTR is that deliberate handball??? if you think yes then it's a pen and probably bye bye, if you think its accidental HB and not a foul too then its play on!!!! Why complicate a simple action!!!
 
Sheffields Finest said:
Easy, strip out all the sub law guidance crap, if, ITOOTR is that deliberate handball??? if you think yes then it's a pen and probably bye bye, if you think its accidental HB and not a foul too then its play on!!!! Why complicate a simple action!!!
Click to expand...
Because as made clear by this thread, let alone all the others, the opinion of what should and should not be handball depends hugely on who is asked, to the point where the same incident is clear handball PK red to many people and absolutely natural position no foul play on to many others.

The only "simple" way to judge handball is to disallow all contact between ball and arm. But that is ludicrously restrictive in the game and very few accept it. When you can't draw just one clear line, you have to draw several, and by their very nature, some of these lines must be broader.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
It is usually an offence if a player:
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
Click to expand...
My red highlight trumps your black highlight. :)

I have always said IFAB clarification has rather made the criteria more confusing with usually/not usually/except rubbish.
 
one said:
My red highlight trumps your black highlight. :)

I have always said IFAB clarification has rather made the criteria more confusing with usually/not usually/except rubbish.
Click to expand...
Usually isn’t always though @one , position of the arm etc, it’s a consideration!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top