A&H

PAR NEW

The Referee Store
DazN said:
The player is allowed to have his arms out if that is part of his natural movement. If he extended them out wide then that would make it ‘unnatural’.

Ironically having his arms behind his back is a much more ‘unnatural’ position than where he had them.
Click to expand...
Oh don't get me wrong - I agree fully with this but players are now putting their arms behind their backs to give no chance of being done for hand ball as the law is so screwed up! In the Mac Allister situation he had his arms down by his side and it was still decided that he put his arm out to control it even though the ball was dropping to the ground.
The law I think just needs to be clearer and all this nonsense will be put to bed (much like the daft offside law).
 
Kinsleyr said:
The law I think just needs to be clearer and all this nonsense will be put to bed (much like the daft offside law).
Click to expand...
good luck with that. IFAB tried to and just made things much worse. Unless we go to all contact with the arm is an offense, any definition is going to have a significant subjective element that will never be precise.
 
Runner-Ref said:
You mean the idea I mentioned the other week and you said it wouldn't work? ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the utter chaos of the last few weeks would be enough to change anyone's mind. Confederations, countries and referees clearly can't find a consensus of what is clear and obvious and when VAR should be getting involved, and I'm seeing no evidence that they will ever be able to. They can't even provide consistency in the same game.

So take it out of their hands and let the teams decide when they think a clear and obvious error has been made. No need for VAR officials, the referee can go and look at it himself, all they would need is the video operator in the VAR control room to play the feed. The issue will be there will still be injustices as referees might drop a clanger after a team has used both reviews, but there are injustices now due to continual mistakes by VAR. At least the teams wouldn't be able to blame anyone other than themselves as they wasted their VAR calls.
 
socal lurker said:
You have completely lost me. We’re crossing one another somehow.

I still don’t think the old deflection language has anything to do with anything.

Under the current Law, it‘s handling if deliberate or biggering.

Under the short-lived, confusing language, it was handling if deliberate or biggering (and the deflection language didn’t apply to those).

So nothing changed on that front.

I‘m not arguing it was a good call now or would have been a good call then. My only point is that the “deflection exception” didn’t apply to things that were deliberate or biggering, and th those are the only two th8ngs that are offenses now.
Click to expand...
I didn't word it very well. Under the old law the arm was too close to the body to have been deemed to have been in an unnatural position, and as it bounced off his chest there would be no handball. But since the new law came in they seem to, especially in Europe, penalise any hitting on the arm, even when it is in a natural position for the footballing action being performed.
 
RustyRef said:
I didn't word it very well. Under the old law the arm was too close to the body to have been deemed to have been in an unnatural position, and as it bounced off his chest there would be no handball. But since the new law came in they seem to, especially in Europe, penalise any hitting on the arm, even when it is in a natural position for the footballing action being performed.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. But the problem isn’t in the law or the deflection provision—it‘s the peculiar decisions that get made about natural position. IFAB tried to make it more clear that natural position had to consider what the player was doing rather than some arbitrary position, but that seems to be ignored in application in many places.
 
My simple world, elite referees are being to clever for their own good in their interpretation of the hand ball law. Get back to basics, was the handball deliberate? Did the player deliberately make themselves bigger? If no to both questions play on. Proximity, deflections of player or opponent’s body or players in aerial tussles again make this decision even easier. We don’t get any controversy for hand balls not given, just the ones being given under the current guidance/interpretation.
 
Seen some suggestions this was reviewed as a missed incident as the ref didn't have a view of it.
Means the clear and obvious criteria doesn't need to be met. You'd think that would give the ref some scope to turn down the review.
 
bester said:
Seen some suggestions this was reviewed as a missed incident as the ref didn't have a view of it.
Means the clear and obvious criteria doesn't need to be met. You'd think that would give the ref some scope to turn down the review.
Click to expand...
It has to be a clear and obvious error to recommend a review. They can take into account what view the referee had. but it still needs to be C&O.
 
RustyRef said:
It has to be a clear and obvious error to recommend a review. They can take into account what view the referee had. but it still needs to be C&O.
Click to expand...
It is either C&O or a serious missed incident that permits review. IIRC “Serious missed incident“ is ‘t defined within the protocol. I thought it was more aimed at VC/SFP, but I’m not sure about that.
 
I did think that maybe the referee should automatically look at the monitor for all penalty claims, but that wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome in this one as it was ultimately his (wrong?) decision.
 
Was the issue that Marciniak wasn't given the view from the goalside, only the wide view from stand side which did look like the defenders arm was out before the ball was kicked giving him justification for a PK....he made himself bigger, which incidentally Mccoist actually said in commentary though he didn't seem to understand he was describing why it should be a PK. It was from the goalside angle that it's clear it was a natural movement and elbow close to his body - Marciniak didn't appear to be given that view by VAR.
 
DazN said:
I did think that maybe the referee should automatically look at the monitor for all penalty claims, but that wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome in this one as it was ultimately his (wrong?) decision.
Click to expand...
But surely according to UEFA rules it was the correct decision. We can't keep chopping and changing the rules when it suits us.
 
Mac said:
Was the issue that Marciniak wasn't given the view from the goalside, only the wide view from stand side which did look like the defenders arm was out before the ball was kicked giving him justification for a PK....he made himself bigger, which incidentally Mccoist actually said in commentary though he didn't seem to understand he was describing why it should be a PK. It was from the goalside angle that it's clear it was a natural movement and elbow close to his body - Marciniak didn't appear to be given that view by VAR.
Click to expand...
Possibly.
It's always been touted that potentially one of VAR's flaws is the ability of whichever TV broadcaster is providing the pictures for the VAR team to influence what is or isn't seen by them, based on any bias or agenda they might have. How true that is, I wouldn't really know but it's certainly caused controversy at the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final where the TMO was only able to show an angle that suggested a try hadn't been scored when a different camera angle appeared to show that it almost certainly had but which the TMO and consequently the on field referee weren't given sight of ...
 
Kinsleyr said:
But surely according to UEFA rules it was the correct decision. We can't keep chopping and changing the rules when it suits us.
Click to expand...

Only if it's deemed he made himself 'unnaturally bigger' which most people seem to agree he didn't.

Nobody is chopping and changing rules. The rule just has too much ambiguity.
 
DazN said:
I did think that maybe the referee should automatically look at the monitor for all penalty claims, but that wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome in this one as it was ultimately his (wrong?) decision.
Click to expand...
!!! Just how much more wasted time do you want in the game?
Kes said:
Possibly.
It's always been touted that potentially one of VAR's flaws is the ability of whichever TV broadcaster is providing the pictures for the VAR team to influence what is or isn't seen by them, based on any bias or agenda they might have.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure all the feeds go into the VAR room live. So a TV company would have to be awfully prescient to know what feeds not to have in advance of the game to try to influence the VAR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top