| Absolutely ridiculous decision. 21:53 - Mar 6 with 10093 views | Superblue95 |
I don’t particularly like PSG and I actually don’t mind United at all but what a f*cking joke that is to give that penalty |  |
| |  |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:06 - Mar 7 with 1018 views | Radlett_blue |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:01 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
There is also some guidance around positioning of the arm, which is being further tightened up next year. I'm not commenting on whether or not it was a penalty, I'm saying where the shot is going isn't a relevant consideration. |
While the fact the shot was destined for Row Z is indeed irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned, I think it's still relevant as if a player blocks a shot with his arm when standing on the goal line, most referees would rightly be far more likely to consider the action "deliberate".
The big problem with VAR is that it's being used to rule on contentious decisions requiring interpretation, rather than matters of fact & clear & obvious errors.
Using VAR for very marginal offside decisions is also going to be highly contentious & IMO not good for the game. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:08 - Mar 7 with 1009 views | TractorCam |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:06 - Mar 7 by Radlett_blue |
While the fact the shot was destined for Row Z is indeed irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned, I think it's still relevant as if a player blocks a shot with his arm when standing on the goal line, most referees would rightly be far more likely to consider the action "deliberate".
The big problem with VAR is that it's being used to rule on contentious decisions requiring interpretation, rather than matters of fact & clear & obvious errors.
Using VAR for very marginal offside decisions is also going to be highly contentious & IMO not good for the game. |
Spot on, which is why it's a farce. This is not a blatant obvious penalty, hence why he viewed it about 10 times. Evidence enough that he can't be 100% certain. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:10 - Mar 7 with 1002 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:06 - Mar 7 by Radlett_blue |
While the fact the shot was destined for Row Z is indeed irrelevant as far as the Laws are concerned, I think it's still relevant as if a player blocks a shot with his arm when standing on the goal line, most referees would rightly be far more likely to consider the action "deliberate".
The big problem with VAR is that it's being used to rule on contentious decisions requiring interpretation, rather than matters of fact & clear & obvious errors.
Using VAR for very marginal offside decisions is also going to be highly contentious & IMO not good for the game. |
VAR ruined the World Cup and is now ruining the rest of football.
Should be abolished altogether, but unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and it's here to stay.
Goal-line technology on the other hand has been excellent - the players and officials have seen the technology on tv and how accurate it is, and it's quick and easy for the referee to implement.
Edit: I should add with very little complaint from the players to the ref as they know how accurate it is. [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 12:25]
|  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:15 - Mar 7 with 988 views | TractorCam |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:10 - Mar 7 by ITFC_Forever |
VAR ruined the World Cup and is now ruining the rest of football.
Should be abolished altogether, but unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and it's here to stay.
Goal-line technology on the other hand has been excellent - the players and officials have seen the technology on tv and how accurate it is, and it's quick and easy for the referee to implement.
Edit: I should add with very little complaint from the players to the ref as they know how accurate it is. [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 12:25]
|
Spot on! Goal line technology is incredible purely because it's so fast and doesn't interfere with play, i'd have a completely different view if he had to go and watch it on replays for minutes on end. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:20 - Mar 7 with 979 views | Herbivore |
Laws are laws, there is guidance on how they are interpreted. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with whether a shot is going in. If you think that is and should be a relevant consideration you're wrong. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:21 - Mar 7 with 979 views | Swansea_Blue |
I can see why it was given. It's a deliberate attempt to block the shot using his arm to make himself bigger. VAR did its job imo. |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:28 - Mar 7 with 964 views | BiGDonnie |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:21 - Mar 7 by Swansea_Blue |
I can see why it was given. It's a deliberate attempt to block the shot using his arm to make himself bigger. VAR did its job imo. |
Yep! |  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:38 - Mar 7 with 938 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:28 - Mar 7 by BiGDonnie |
Yep! |
And instances of this exact type were specifically highlighted by UEFA's chief ref bod, Roberto Rosetti, earlier this year:
"If the defender is making the body bigger in order to block the ball it is not fair.
“It is different if the defender is challenging or playing the ball and it rebounds. But if he is looking to block a cross or a shot on goal and the player is trying to spread his body then it is a handball.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stricter-handball-rules-in-champions-league-w | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:46 - Mar 7 with 930 views | Radlett_blue |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:20 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
Laws are laws, there is guidance on how they are interpreted. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with whether a shot is going in. If you think that is and should be a relevant consideration you're wrong. |
So if you were a referee you would be as equally inclined to give a penalty if a shot struck a defender's arm just inside the box or when he was standing on the goal line? | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. (n/t) on 12:49 - Mar 7 with 924 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:20 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
Laws are laws, there is guidance on how they are interpreted. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with whether a shot is going in. If you think that is and should be a relevant consideration you're wrong. |
“Laws are laws”. Indeed - but they don’t state anything about arms being in an unnatural position, which you’ve cited as an example
Clearly there is additional guidance and flexibility to go outside of these - with where the ball is travelling clearly being a factor, as demonstrated by countless ball-to-hand cases that have occurred around the goal in the past
If Kimpembe had made that block on the goalline last night, he would no doubt have been sent off. Had it occurred on the sideline, it would never even have been considered [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 12:53]
|  |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. (n/t) on 13:03 - Mar 7 with 906 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. (n/t) on 12:49 - Mar 7 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
“Laws are laws”. Indeed - but they don’t state anything about arms being in an unnatural position, which you’ve cited as an example
Clearly there is additional guidance and flexibility to go outside of these - with where the ball is travelling clearly being a factor, as demonstrated by countless ball-to-hand cases that have occurred around the goal in the past
If Kimpembe had made that block on the goalline last night, he would no doubt have been sent off. Had it occurred on the sideline, it would never even have been considered [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 12:53]
|
None of the guidance says anything about where the ball is on the pitch and where it's travelling. I'm not sure why you're still arguing otherwise. It's either handball or it's not. The guidance is around determining whether it's 'deliberate', which has nothing to do with whether the ball is going in or not. I'm just repeating myself now and it's clearly not sinking in so let's leave it there. [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 13:13]
| |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 13:04 - Mar 7 with 902 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 12:46 - Mar 7 by Radlett_blue |
So if you were a referee you would be as equally inclined to give a penalty if a shot struck a defender's arm just inside the box or when he was standing on the goal line? |
Yes because, and this will blow your mind, whether an infringement has occurred or not is entirely unrelated to where the infringement has occurred. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 13:12 - Mar 7 with 893 views | Radlett_blue |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 13:04 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
Yes because, and this will blow your mind, whether an infringement has occurred or not is entirely unrelated to where the infringement has occurred. |
No, you are missing my point. A referee has to try to make a judgement of a defender's intent if the ball strikes his arm. A defender has a much greater vested interest in preventing a certain goal than blocking a way ward shot so any sane referee would take that into consideration.
If you've watched much football, you will also be aware that referees apply the laws relating to fouls differently in the penalty areas. The same usually goes for potential handball situations as well. | |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 13:14 - Mar 7 with 891 views | Herbivore |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. on 13:12 - Mar 7 by Radlett_blue |
No, you are missing my point. A referee has to try to make a judgement of a defender's intent if the ball strikes his arm. A defender has a much greater vested interest in preventing a certain goal than blocking a way ward shot so any sane referee would take that into consideration.
If you've watched much football, you will also be aware that referees apply the laws relating to fouls differently in the penalty areas. The same usually goes for potential handball situations as well. |
The position of the arm is far more important in determining intent than where the player is on the pitch. That's why referees are given guidance to that effect. But you're arguing something slightly different anyway, people on this thread have said that because the ball was going into the stand it shouldn't have been a penalty. That makes no difference to the decision. [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 13:15]
| |
| |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. (n/t) on 13:42 - Mar 7 with 862 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Absolutely ridiculous decision. (n/t) on 13:03 - Mar 7 by Herbivore |
None of the guidance says anything about where the ball is on the pitch and where it's travelling. I'm not sure why you're still arguing otherwise. It's either handball or it's not. The guidance is around determining whether it's 'deliberate', which has nothing to do with whether the ball is going in or not. I'm just repeating myself now and it's clearly not sinking in so let's leave it there. [Post edited 7 Mar 2019 13:13]
|
The problem is you’re basically arguing a completely different point to the one that me and Radlett_Blue are making
The rules don’t say anything about position on the field, but then the rules also say that only deliberate handball will be punished - with the guidance being to consider the movement of the arm to the ball and distance to the opponent. Based on those rules handballs would be incredibly rare - basically only a Berra v Norwich-type situation
As it is referees given handball frequently - so clearly go outside of the written laws, and simply watching football regularly shows that infringements are treated differently depending on where and how they occur | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
