The Ref Stop

MOT vs CEL

socal lurker said:
not a biggering offense.
Click to expand...
300full-officer-crabtree.jpg
 
The Ref Stop
I was so mad at this decision that I stopped myself from coming on here last night.

Hearts are chasing their first title in 66 years!
I am 40 years old and I WASN'T EVEN BORN the last time a non OF team won the SPL.
And two referees decided this "handball" was enough to scratch all of that.
I am appalled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
LothianRef said:
I think this has highlighted an interesting contradiction in the wording of the handball law - although who is surprised by that 😜
It states that it’s a handball offence if a player handles the ball when their hand has made their body unnaturally bigger. However it then goes on to define “unnaturally bigger” as “not justifiable by their movement for that situation”.
In this instance, it’s unclear whether or not it hits the hand of the Motherwell player. Even if it does, his hand is positioned right in front of his head so it’s not made his body any bigger. Yet there’s also a reasonable argument that jumping with your hand in front of your head is not a natural way to jump.
Long and short of it, I’ve no idea and VAR should’ve stayed well clear.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the body include the head?

Try jumping upwards and not move your arms. Raising your arms is natural.
 
I can accept the Ars/WHU decision (reluctantly) but this was pretty awful all round. Definitely for C&O and I don’t know how you give a penalty for it on the footage/direction and pace if travel of the ball.

VAR has ruined football and made officials’ jobs even more impossible/thankless.
 
After Review........ yawn 🥱🥱🥱, 'maximum interference, no added value' 🥱🥱🥱
Final decision 🥱🥱🥱, 'nobody will be talking about the football... again 🥱🥱🥱
I was watching this game as it happens. This one just felt very wrong
Put yourself in a low IQ football supporter's mindset and you reach, 'conspiracy'. That's a very real and problematic issue with VAR involved
 
“the essential flow and emotions of football”, something IFAB wanted to safeguard, have been ripped to pieces by VAR. That is proven by every major game.

this is my major issue with VAR and those advocating for it - my second reaction on celebrating a goal is to check the ref, check the lino, wait for the 'checking VAR' announcement...

VAR as an idea in football could work...VAR as it's implemented at the moment is and always has been a disaster
 
The Gump said:
Great article in The Athletic that perfectly sums up where we've got to with VAR. The only solution is to get rid of it but, like the author, we all know that's not going to happen.

"VAR is broken. The furore at Motherwell, Tottenham and West Ham proved it"
Click to expand...
A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable.

It would be better to only use VAR for:
  • Goal/no goal
  • Violent conduct
  • Biting or spitting
  • Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective decisions for VC, biting/spitting and DOGSO-Red
  • Mistaken identity
This would strike a better balance by removing VAR involvement in most penalty/no penalty subjective decisions, DOGSO outside the penalty area and SFP (unless/until there is a significant rewrite of Law 12 to make SFP less subjective).

In the recent incidents it would mean:
  • Neither Leeds or Tottenham would be awarded a penalty, Jarred Gillett would be solely accountable for such decisions
  • West Ham's goal would be disallowed but there would be no question about a penalty instead, unless Chris Kavanagh decided 'if it's not a goal then it's a penalty' before going to the screen
  • The non-offence in this game would not even have been reviewable
 
CaptainsPlease said:
A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable.

It would be better to only use VAR for:
  • Goal/no goal
  • Violent conduct
  • Biting or spitting
  • Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective decisions for VC, biting/spitting and DOGSO-Red
  • Mistaken identity
This would strike a better balance by removing VAR involvement in most penalty/no penalty subjective decisions, DOGSO outside the penalty area and SFP (unless/until there is a significant rewrite of Law 12 to make SFP less subjective).

In the recent incidents it would mean:
  • Neither Leeds or Tottenham would be awarded a penalty, Jarred Gillett would be solely accountable for such decisions
  • West Ham's goal would be disallowed but there would be no question about a penalty instead, unless Chris Kavanagh decided 'if it's not a goal then it's a penalty' before going to the screen
  • The non-offence in this game would not even have been reviewable
Click to expand...
I think that would be a step in the right direction but the list doesn’t seem to include ‘the arm of god’ scenario like Maradona unless you are including that in goal/no goal (but I think you may mean GLT), which would then mean bringing in something for deliberate ‘clear’ deliberate handball or ‘deliberate clear penal offences’.
 
DavidObs said:
I think that would be a step in the right direction but the list doesn’t seem to include ‘the arm of god’ scenario like Maradona unless you are including that in goal/no goal (but I think you may mean GLT), which would then mean bringing in something for deliberate ‘clear’ deliberate handball or ‘deliberate clear penal offences’.
Click to expand...
To clarify I do mean any goal/no goal decision. Hence why West Ham's would still be disallowed. The most egregious incidents that led to calls for video review were for goals being wrongly awarded or not awarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top