A&H

Van Dijk handball and VAR

B

bloovee

RefChat Addict
The match thread for Liverpool v Wolves closed, but is this right?

I thought there was doubt over whether VVD handled the ball before the Liverpool goal, but it now seems the argument is that he did, but it was "too far back" to disallow the goal. Is that really right? That you can handle the ball and create a goal-scoring opportunity but it doesn't matter because it was a long way from goal?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1211342707983040514

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...news/liverpool-van-dijk-handball-var-17489074
 
The Referee Store
It's yet another problem were the law is vague. What does creating a goal mean, after all Lallana got the assist for this goal rather than van Dyke so surely Lallana created it. Can two people create a goal? It needs the wording tidying up, but that can be said of several parts of law.
 
es1 said:
I can't believe this doesn't qualify as handba under the new criteria/laws
Click to expand...

In normal play it wouldn't be handball as it defected off his body onto his arm. The question is whether he created a goal or not, and more importantly whether the ball actually hit his arm at all, I've seen different angles and just can't tell.
 
RustyRef said:
In normal play it wouldn't be handball as it defected off his body onto his arm. The question is whether he created a goal or not, and more importantly whether the ball actually hit his arm at all, I've seen different angles and just can't tell.
Click to expand...

Had this out on another forum, I was adamant it hits his arm in first time normal viewing, but having watched different angles I'm starting to think it may not have, but it's impossible to CLEARLY tell.
 
I don't know if it even hit his arm. Sky suggested VAR had said it was inconclusive.

I don't think it would be regarded as handball anyway. Lallana got the assist so surely he was the one who created the opportunity to score the goal? I agree that it's not fully clear wording but certainly if someone interpreted that it hadn't created the opportunity you couldn't really say it was wrong.
 
The issue is not whether he did handle it - it's the report that the referee said it was handled but it doesn't qualify as creating a goalscoring opportunity because it was a long way away. So the ball bouncing off an attacker's body and then brushing an arm on its way to the scorer means a goal is disallowed, but it's OK to have arms in an unnatural position, gain possession by handling, and then launch the ball forward to create a goal.
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
The issue is not whether he did handle it - it's the report that the referee said it was handled but it doesn't qualify as creating a goalscoring opportunity because it was a long way away. So the ball bouncing off an attacker's body and then brushing an arm on its way to the scorer means a goal is disallowed, but it's OK to have arms in an unnatural position, gain possession by handling, and then launch the ball forward to create a goal.
Click to expand...

But he didn't create the goal, Lallana did. This is where it is a very grey area.
 
Didn't someone email ifab on this one, about the defender handles in own box then plays a 75 yarder upto his mate who smashes it in the goal and they said no handball?
 
bloovee said:
The issue is not whether he did handle it - it's the report that the referee said it was handled but it doesn't qualify as creating a goalscoring opportunity because it was a long way away.
Click to expand...
We don't have the referee's actual words, just the aggrieved team's take on what they think he was saying. I suspect most referees would say something fairly anodyne in these situations, which will then be taken by the listener to mean what they would prefer it to mean.

Even if he did say, "too far back" it doesn't necessarily mean too far away. It could also mean (and in Law it would make more sense for it to mean) that it happened too far back in terms of the move to be seen as directly creating a goal scoring opportunity.
 
Last edited:
I think we are over analysing this. That new clause was clearly not created for situations like this. When the handling happened (if it did), he was in his own half and all 11 opponents in front of him in the other half. If this goal was disallowed by VAR for that handling, every single pundit would be crucifying VAR. The same way when an armpit offside is crucified. We can't have it both ways.

Screenshot_20200101-153402~2.jpg
 
I think this also shows the pitfalls with referees explaining decisions.

Obviously we don't what, if anything, Anthony Taylor said to Wolves about this, but I doubt he just went "it was too far back" and walked off.

But now an unnamed source has gone to the papers and it's causing all sorts of controversy when no one in their right mind would think of ruling out that goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top