MOT vs CEL

[ladbroke8745]

I think its an awful explanation and actually I think the VAR make it worse.
He is adamant it hit the hand. He looked a few times and decided very quickly it hit the hand.
Im not convinced at any of the angles he was looking at. There is no clear evidence of it touching the hand.
They did not even look at Trusty and his involvement in potentially pushing his hand there.
Once they made their mind up it touched it, very quickly, they ruled out any other potential reasoning.
There was enough doubt to say it hit the hand.
The ref asks if it definitely hit the arm and they say, with absolute certain, that it did. The camera quality is very poor to be 100%.
Surely the ref can reply with "i am not sure it 100% hits it, show me the angle you say its clearly, 100% hits the hand".
Hes gone to the screen, they've shown him a very short clip of a throw in, and no evidence to suggest it actually hit the hand.

 

[DavidObs]

I think its an awful explanation and actually I think the VAR make it worse.
He is adamant it hit the hand. He looked a few times and decided very quickly it hit the hand.
Im not convinced at any of the angles he was looking at. There is no clear evidence of it touching the hand.
They did not even look at Trusty and his involvement in potentially pushing his hand there.
Once they made their mind up it touched it, very quickly, they ruled out any other potential reasoning.
There was enough doubt to say it hit the hand.
The ref asks if it definitely hit the arm and they say, with absolute certain, that it did. The camera quality is very poor to be 100%.
Surely the ref can reply with "i am not sure it 100% hits it, show me the angle you say its clearly, 100% hits the hand".
Hes gone to the screen, they've shown him a very short clip of a throw in, and no evidence to suggest it actually hit the hand.

I agree with some but not all of what you say. I agree with the question the Referee could have asked about show me a clip that it’s clearly 100% hits the hand. For me personally, I think it’s hit the hand but because it’s in front of his forehead the ball has travelled at speed. However, for me, there is doubt about whether the handball was deliberate eg “….the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation”. I also agree that he looked at the monitor very quickly before making his decision, though can we really complain about the speed - he saw what he wanted to see, whether it be consciously or unconsciously.

 

[LothianRef]

Surely the ref can reply with "i am not sure it 100% hits it, show me the angle you say its clearly, 100% hits the hand".
Hes gone to the screen, they've shown him a very short clip of a throw in, and no evidence to suggest it actually hit the hand.

That’s exactly what Steven McLean does in the next clip when he was asked to review a potential penalty for Hearts, coincidentally in exactly the same position at Fir Park. He felt the footage of the contact on the Hearts attacker was inconclusive, so stuck to his initial decision of play on. Which Collum felt was incorrect, as he felt he should’ve given a penalty.
I felt it was a very poor show overall to be honest - a lot of the justifications and decisions didn’t make sense to me.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

I don't think the key phrase 'unnaturally bigger', the actual requirement for a non-deliberate handball, is referenced at all by Collum or any of the officials actually involved in the incident!