Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
Get voting 
Wolves vs NFFC
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
Arm is in a natural position, but it then becomes very unnatural as he desperately swings it away in an attempt not to handle it. Reluctantly, I voted yes
I can live with VAR turning a blind eye, although I'm surprised VAR didn't take the bait
It is Wolves however and VAR batters them every where they go
I can live with VAR turning a blind eye, although I'm surprised VAR didn't take the bait
It is Wolves however and VAR batters them every where they go
Last edited:
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
I think this is where Iām at with it. If he had just kept his arm where it was, I donāt think thereās any debate. But his panicked arm movement means thereās a very good shout for a pen.
I donāt think the arm is making the body that much unnaturally bigger at the point of contact (Iām aware that makes no grammatical sense but I couldnāt think of another way to word it without JamesL having a pop at me 
)
Additionally, as has said, the only reason for the contact with the arm is because he actively pulls it behind him to try and avoid contact, which I think should be a mitigating circumstance, as it becomes more justifiable for the action heās taking.
Iāve voted no, but it isnāt a strong no, but I would say a hard no to a VAR intervention here given that the on field decision was no.
Edit: Iāve just watched it again, and even if he doesnāt move his arm at all from its original position (which isnāt making his body unnaturally bigger and is also entirely justifiable by the football action being undertaken), then the ball would still strike his arm.
I think people are misjudging the amount that the arm is away from the body as it moves backwards behind the body.
Iām now a hard no. This isnāt a handball offence for me.
)Additionally, as has said, the only reason for the contact with the arm is because he actively pulls it behind him to try and avoid contact, which I think should be a mitigating circumstance, as it becomes more justifiable for the action heās taking.
Iāve voted no, but it isnāt a strong no, but I would say a hard no to a VAR intervention here given that the on field decision was no.
Edit: Iāve just watched it again, and even if he doesnāt move his arm at all from its original position (which isnāt making his body unnaturally bigger and is also entirely justifiable by the football action being undertaken), then the ball would still strike his arm.
I think people are misjudging the amount that the arm is away from the body as it moves backwards behind the body.
Iām now a hard no. This isnāt a handball offence for me.
I donāt think the arm is making the body that much unnaturally bigger at the point of contact (Iām aware that makes no grammatical sense but I couldnāt think of another way to word it without JamesL having a pop at me
Additionally, as has said, the only reason for the contact with the arm is because he actively pulls it behind him to try and avoid contact, which I think should be a mitigating circumstance, as it becomes more justifiable for the action heās taking.
Iāve voted no, but it isnāt a strong no, but I would say a hard no to a VAR intervention here given that the on field decision was no.
Edit: Iāve just watched it again, and even if he doesnāt move his arm at all from its original position (which isnāt making his body unnaturally bigger and is also entirely justifiable by the football action being undertaken), then the ball would still strike his arm.
I think people are misjudging the amount that the arm is away from the body as it moves backwards behind the body.
Iām now a hard no. This isnāt a handball offence for me.
The upper arm is extended out away, almost at a right angle, from the body. This makes his body unnaturally bigger and for me I find it difficult to justify that, or see it as a consequence of the movement in this situation. He is moving one way and then clearly moves his body/arm into the path of the ball. This for me is almost a textbook non-deliberate handball offence and I'd be interested to hear the VAR rationale/Howard Webbs explanation as to why it was deemed no intervention.
I donāt agree with where you say the arm is. I think itās a bit of an illusion. I think itās almost at right angle as you say, but going backwards. (Unless his arm is only 30cm long). Therefore, this extension doesnāt make his body any bigger. If the arm is down by his side, it still hits it, so how has he caused the āhandballā by making his body bigger?
When the ball hits his hand, his arm is to his side and out behind him. I donāt see a meaningful difference to it being to his side and up with the rest of the body (at least for a ball coming from in front of him), so I donāt think heās made himself unnaturally bigger, so no āunnatural positionā handball.
I also donāt think this is a deliberate handball. Yes, his hand moves towards the ball, but in an attempt to avoid touching the ball with his hand, therefore no handball a la Cucurella at the Euros.
I also donāt think this is a deliberate handball. Yes, his hand moves towards the ball, but in an attempt to avoid touching the ball with his hand, therefore no handball a la Cucurella at the Euros.
I think the law as written does not support this view. It's not where it has made it unnaturally bigger, it is when so where the ball strikes is not a consideration. 2 considerations: does the ball hit the hand/arm, is the position of the hand or arm making the body unnaturally bigger with no caveats. I think it meets both here.
It's not "a la cucurella" the situations are very different. Cucurella arm was extended and as bringing it down to his side. This the arm was by his side and then was extended.
But surely the law is intended to mean that body silhouette should not be 'unnaturally bigger' causing it to make contact with the ball. The silhouette is going to be taken from, as @Johnson says, the direction the ball is coming from. His arm movement doesn't make himself any bigger at all from the direction the ball is coming from (in my opinion). Additionally, the fact that this is a clear movement to try and move the arm away from handball should be a mitigating factor (again, in my opinion).
The commentators on tv in real time (who get to listen to the VAR) said that the reason this wasn't recommended for review was a lack of reaction time for the player. On the face of it, I disagree with this, as he has time to react to where the ball comes from, but I think what was intended by this was that given the amount of reaction time he has, he does what he can to move his arm out of the way.
one
RefChat Addict
From the referee's angle in realtime the gap won't look as bad. I am ok with it. VAR may see this as handball but given the position of the arm is only slightly on the unnatural side, it is not clearly and obviously wrong.
For the poll, I'd like a "referee's call" option given we are adjudicating after the fact. But if I can re-referee this game with the benefit of replays from different angles, I'd only just give the handball. Because he could have taken more care to avoid the ball with a bit more anticipation players at this level are expected to have.
For the poll, I'd like a "referee's call" option given we are adjudicating after the fact. But if I can re-referee this game with the benefit of replays from different angles, I'd only just give the handball. Because he could have taken more care to avoid the ball with a bit more anticipation players at this level are expected to have.
Agree, I can't see any justifiable reason for his arm being that extended. Hopefully will be covered on Mic'd up.