PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Cheers Rusty, thought there HAD to be SOME explanation!They played the VAR audio on MoTD and Jared Gillett said something like "green zone", so I can only assume they thought it hit the arm above the armpit level.
Cheers Rusty, thought there HAD to be SOME explanation!They played the VAR audio on MoTD and Jared Gillett said something like "green zone", so I can only assume they thought it hit the arm above the armpit level.
That explains nothing.Cheers Rusty, thought there HAD to be SOME explanation!
That explains nothing.
Non handball???!!!!
Anyone see it?
Shot from 20 yards away (at least) Plymouth player puts both hands above head, ball hits both hands/arms - no handball, even AFTER VAR review?
Not my teams, no fan interest and not posted to have a pop at officials, but really for my own peace of mind/interpretation of the handball law - that WAS a mistake by both on field officials AND at Stockley Park - yes?
I'm sorry - what is the explanation? On what bit of the body did the ball hit the man?Explanation for the decision. We are all referees, surely we all accept that there is an 'explanation' for every decision - especially when its the same one, made by two VERY experienced top level referees. Not saying we have to always agree, but before coming on here I had no clue as to why it could be possibly not be given as a handball.
The explanation is as per Blovee's post - you don't have to agree, but that is the reason for the decision.I'm sorry - what is the explanation? On what bit of the body did the ball hit the man?
Only if I can throw in ‘the forum collectively is undecided on VAR.’Can I nominate "The new handball law has caused confusion" as the RefChat understatement of the season!
Not my explanation. Rusty has offered " they thought it hit the arm above the armpit level" and "it wasn't an offence because it had hit him high on the arm".The explanation is as per Blovee's post - you don't have to agree, but that is the reason for the decision.
It may be madness, but that is the current state of the Law--the arm isn't the arm until it gets past where it is level with the arm pit.and if the ball hit him on the six inches of arm in the "green zone" it would not be a penalty. Utter madness.
But again, who the hell has armpits that end at the elbow?It may be madness, but that is the current state of the Law--the arm isn't the arm until it gets past where it is level with the arm pit.
(Anyone else pondering Dickens?)
Please. Let's not mock anyone's body!But again, who the hell has armpits that end at the elbow?
If by "low armpit" you mean the green zone is bigger than what it should be in the diagram I agree. This problem is exacerbated by the EPL making the green zone even bigger in game situations.The new handball law has caused confusion, I think because the law says the line is the bottom of the armpit but the diagram used to explain this appears to show a person with a very low armpit.
Why did the VAR audio for this get played, out of interest? Was it a technical glitch or some form of trial?
I wish they would release more of these audio--they are very informative as to how the process really works. (In the US, they do release a fair amount as part of the weekly review of VR.)Why did the VAR audio for this get played, out of interest? Was it a technical glitch or some form of trial?