VAR - All is forgiven we love you

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Pavl3n, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. Mar 7, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    But there's nothing in the rules that even mentions someone turning their back. All it says is precisely what I've quoted above:

    But people are still saying in this thread that he had his hand in an unnatural position, therefore it was a handball, when the law states the complete opposite. Equally, it doesn't say anything about having your back to goal.

    What it does say is that handballs have to be deliberate, and then outlines the criteria for determining whether or not a handball is deliberate. None of which the defender was guilty of.

    It's only this recent amendment, which isn't even written in the laws of the game, that would make that even remotely a handball. I say that initiative is ridiculous because it now leaves players open to committing handball offences that are in no way consistent with the spirit of the law.

    There is no way last night that Kimpembe deliberately handled the ball, as defined by the laws of the game, so therefore by awarding a penalty it just goes completely against the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is intended to ensure that handballs are given when defenders deliberately handle the ball, or fail to get their hands and arms out of the way of a moving ball within a reasonable reaction time, and to ensure that handball is not given when this does not apply, when the ball instead strikes someone on the arm.

    That is exactly what happened last night, someone whacked the ball at Kimpembe from a few yards away, he had no reaction time, but if you break down his movements he was retracting his arm. There is no question of it being a deliberate handball, or of him having the slightest chance of getting out of the way, which is the spirit and intention of the law as written. Yet he's conceded a penalty.

    And I can guarantee that in the future there will be similar incidents in which a penalty is not given because the VAR review will deem that the defender doesn't have an 'unnatural silhouette' (whatever that means). Whereas if they'd simply stuck to the laws as written then it would never have been a penalty because, as I said, it clearly wasn't deliberate.

    Indeed, virtually no-one present, even half of the United players around the ball, thought it was even remotely a penalty at the time!
  2. Mar 7, 2019

    Rajma Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,614
    Location:
    Vilnius
    Look at our defenders Smalling and Lindelof always keeping their hands in check when blocking the shots, it’s possible if you don’t want to run the risk.
  3. Mar 7, 2019

    Pagh Wraith Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,174
    Which is fine and sensible. But there's nothing natural about it. Or do you jump and spin with your arms glued to your back?

    Using unnatural position as an argument is okay when the defender actively puts his arms in a position where he would gain an advantage, such as above his head. Kimpembe's arms were where any human's arms would be when doing the movement he did.
  4. Mar 7, 2019

    rollingstoned1 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    871
    I did and it looked fine. People are just trying to reach by saying it was a stonewall penalty when it was patently not. Handball decisions are by nature subjective and open to interpretation, I don't think he could possibly have 'cheated' on that occasion. It's giving him too much credit to even insinuate that he could react that quickly and use his hand when if that was at all possible he would have got a regular block in and have avoided this whole issue in the first place. The unnatural hand movement thing is to stop defenders from doing something like what Terry was doing in that photo above. Unless absolutely blatant such decisions should IMO go in the favor of the defending team even though there is no such written rule to this effect. Rashford conceded a ridiculous penalty this season where there was nothing he could have done to have gotten his hands away, i'm forgetting which game it was.
  5. Mar 7, 2019

    Rajma Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,614
    Location:
    Vilnius
    You better do otherwise you’re illegally blocking the path of the ball towards the goal with your hands unless you have them as close to your body as possible. That’s just a simply choice and every choice same as with sliding tackles runs the risk of you miscalculating it if you decide to do it.
  6. Mar 7, 2019

    Ramshock CAF Pilib De Brún Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    38,164
    Location:
    Swimming against a tide of idiots and spoofers
    VAR will feck us over eventually
  7. Mar 7, 2019

    Pagh Wraith Full Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,174
    I'm not saying it was or wasn't a penalty. It might well be although I have some major doubts seeing the actual rules being posted on the previous page. I just don't think you can use 'unnatural position' to justify it.

    What I will say is, and I hadn't considered that in the whole VAR discussion, that referees are certainly put under pressure to 'make a decision' when they are called to the screen at the touchline. I don't think the penalty would ever have been giving in real-time without VAR and looking at the incident in freeze frames may actually be detrimental.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
  8. Mar 7, 2019

    Rajma Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,614
    Location:
    Vilnius
    Of course it wouldn’t have been given as ref simply didn’t see it! Hence the support from the VAR team, justice have been served.
  9. Mar 7, 2019

    Ducklegs Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    8,362
    Whether you or anyone else thinks its ridiculous, those are the terms that we played the game under, and the same would have applied to us if it had gone the other way.

    Penalties have been given, in the premier league, for exactly the same thing for at least the last decade and that the hand being in a "unnatural position" as a reason to award a penalty has applied in the premier league, since at least 2013.
  10. Mar 7, 2019

    Ducklegs Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    8,362
    And that is what VAR is there to clear up, to take away the "subjective" and "interpretation" away from an offence which is quite clear.

    Did the player interact with the ball, with his arm, in a way that he would have reasonably been expected to avoid doing in the normal run of play.

    In this case yes he could have easily avoided the ball hitting his arm, by not pussying out and throwing himself in an uncontrolled fashion in front of the ball with his back turned.

    There quite a clear disconnect between how this incident is being viewed abroad and how it is viewed here, virtually every single commentator and pundit overseas is calling this a clear and correct penalty, no debate.
  11. Mar 7, 2019

    Nickthepip New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2015
    Messages:
    146
    Would've given Southampton two pens on Saturday.
  12. Mar 7, 2019

    montpelier Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,140
    If we say

    1 - unnatural silhouette (I'll reluctantly allow that) - especially if it's different from ''he is waving his arms about'' (which he wasn't)

    2 - ball hits arm (yes, it does)

    3 - distance is = ''he knows the ball is coming'' - he definitely chooses to get in the way - I don't mind that.

    I can see how in the purely technical sense with the you mad wrong people preferring the rules like that (supposedly consistent, :lol:) then you're saying definite/stonewall penalty.

    Back in the real world though, it still looks like nonsense to me. And not really fair - hence if it was down our end, :( :(.

    However, I was about to say if it was an on-target shot, I could possibly be persuaded differently. So that has me thinking, well what's the difference? Off-target shots don't need blocking. Let's have the rule black & white.

    But I still don't like it.
  13. Mar 7, 2019

    horsechoker Sailor vee, this is a right off.

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2015
    Messages:
    10,104
    Location:
    The stable
    Was penalty
  14. Mar 7, 2019

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,560
    Location:
    And Solskjær has won it!
    Mate when it comes down to intent it's always open to interpretation.

    He jumped and turned his right arm towards the path of the ball.

    The Ref last night seems to have interpreted it as if he did.

    Well he could have made more of an effort to keep it tucked in, instead of sticking it out and blocking the ball.

    It was out far enough from his body to block the ball, he made himself bigger in doing so. If his elbow was touching his side then i doubt the Ref gives it but it wasn't.

    Thats how you interpreted it but it doesn't necessarily make it a fact.

    No doubt the Ref considered that criteria last night when making his decision and he interpreted it as a penalty.

    As i said it was harsh and if it hadn't been given i wouldn't have complained but he jumped turned and stuck his arm out and blocked a shot. With VAR thats asking for trouble.
  15. Mar 7, 2019

    Anustart89 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    7,409
    But by your logic, you literally cannot make a handball infringement if your back is turned towards the ball, right? Surely you realise that that cannot be the spirit of the law?

    There are two ways to interpret the 'deliberate' part, and I think the interpretation has swayed a bit in recent years from the first example to the second.

    One is that you have to deliberately handle the ball to give away a foul, but honestly, apart from goal-line incidents (Uruguay v Ghana for example) and players stopping counter-attacks I've never seen any player deliberately try to handle the ball. Why would anyone go out with the intention of handling the ball, especially in the penalty box?

    The other is that you're making a deliberate movement where the ball then ends up going towards your deliberately placed arm. This is the way that it tends to be interpreted and where the 'unnatural position' thing comes in, because you've actively put your arm in a position where it blocks the shot.

    Now in last night's game, Kimpembe does some weird kind of spin jump in order to block the shot and his arm ends up wide of his body and blocks the shot. If you don't think a player is responsible for his extremities when he actively turns away from the thing that the game revolves around, then what's to stop players from doing 180° star jumps and saying "Well that's just my jumping technique and how could I deliberately handle the ball if I couldn't see it"?

    The handball rule is obviously not perfect, but IMO you can't just turn away from the ball and not expect it to be a handball if your hand flails behind your back, wide of your body, and blocks a shot. That cannot be in the spirit of the game.

    And to all the people saying we would've been livid if that'd gone against us, yes you're right. If Smalling had attempted to block a shot with his back towards the ball I would've been livid with him for being such an idiot.
  16. Mar 7, 2019

    BobbyManc Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,029
    Location:
    The Wall
    Supports:
    Man City
    I'm increasingly becoming opposed to VAR, at least not as it is typically being implemented at present. It needs to be used sparingly and for obvious errors. Most games should be getting played without it being needed. The incident yesterday was debatable and hence should have stayed with the referee's original decision. I can understand why it was given once the ref was asked to check, but I get the impression the refs behind VAR are desperate to get involved and make decisions when really they should be taking a laissez-faire approach.
  17. Mar 7, 2019

    Zlatan 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,203
    I agree with this.
    Over turning Henry like handballs and catching Suarez bites. Leave the football alone.
  18. Mar 7, 2019

    montpelier Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,140
    And another aspect, if you analyse to the extent Wub has (and take a longer amount of time presumably) - I'm back at No Penalty yet again.

    But nothing wrong as such, with this next interpretation either.

    Just taking the amount of time that establishes the ball hits his arm as he jumps. Stonewall penno.

    I still think we were very lucky. I still think none of it helps the defending team & isn't quite in this ''spirit of the game'' somehow.

    I can't wait to see what the UK Officials can manage to do with all this? I'd be getting the ball up the opposition end as rapidly as possible I think.
  19. Mar 7, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    But the laws of the game state the complete opposite. Everyone that has said "his arm is in an unnatural position..." in relation to the Premier League since 2013 is just wrong. It doesn't come into the equation, in fact the laws explicitly state this.

    Apparently, someone has recently decided that they should bring in this 'unnatural silhouette' initiative, which, as I have argued, is stupid as it contradicts the laws of the game, and means that penalties can now be given which go against the spirit of the laws.
  20. Mar 7, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    It doesn't mean that because it depends on the distance between the ball striker and the ball hitting the arm. If someone turns their back, and the ball hits them, and they would have had a second to see it and take evasive action, then it's reasonable to give a penalty. It's not reasonable to give a penalty when someone tw*ts the ball in your direction from a few yards away, and it takes less than 0.2 seconds to reach you. That should never, ever, ever result in a penalty. Otherwise, players can start kicking the ball at opponents' arms, hitting them, and then hoping that the VAR assistant plays it back frame-by-frame and decides that their arms are in an 'unnatural silhouette', which happens all the time because players need to use their arms in order to balance.

    I mean, how ridiculous does it look when players go around with their arms behind their back because they're concerned about being hit with the ball? It's absurd. As another poster has mentioned, it is this that is, in fact, an unnatural arm position! Not an 'unnatural silhouette', whatever that means. But the way the rule has now seemingly been changed (although this is merely a directive, and not actually included in the laws of the game on the FIFA website!) means that players must now be careful about how they balance themselves in the area when defending, as if the ball hits their arm and it can be slowed back to a frame-by-frame replay, and this shows that their arm was in an 'unnatural silhouette' then it's a penalty, even if someone has whacked the ball at them from a matter of a couple of feet.

    This, in my view, completely goes against the spirit of the rule, which is that handballs should be deliberate, or, at least, it should be possible for the player involved to reasonably evade the ball.

    Not only that, but this new directive hasn't even been written into the laws of the game! Imagine if other sports did that. Right, we're going to use the tramlines this year for singles, and you can have three serves, it hasn't been written into the laws of tennis, but we've told the umpires, so we'll just go from there. F*cking ridiculous, if you ask me.

    Credit to United for going through, but I cannot accept that was a deliberate handball, or that Kimpembe could reasonably have got out of the way, so I cannot view it as a just penalty.
  21. Mar 7, 2019

    abdo99 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    9,556
    and they said it could ruin the spectacle. :lol:
  22. Mar 7, 2019

    Anustart89 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    7,409
    In general, I agree with the gist of the points you make, but the sticking point for me is that he deliberately chose to jump and turn his back to the ball, which made it a coin toss as to what happened afterwards. No, he had no chance of taking evasive action, because he wasn't even looking at the ball as his arm came flailing around him in the spin-jump movement.

    I believe that you're responsible for the position of your extremities (similarly to if you're trying to kick the ball and someone nips in from behind and you end up kicking him like van Dijk on Lamela) and when you give up total control of the situation by turning away from the action then you've put yourself in danger. If he hadn't turned his back to the ball then he could've judged the trajectory of the ball and avoided to handle it, just like we see players doing week in, week out.

    It looks a bit silly when players defend with their arms behind their backs, but I've seen our defenders do that effectively tons of times. At no point have I seen a defender fail to defend a cross purely because their hands were behind their backs. That's what defenders need to do to protect themselves from giving away silly penalties, just like they have to be careful in using their arms when jumping (which would be more natural) because they might catch someone with an elbow. Like I said, you're responsible for your extremities even if it's a normal jumping motion, so sometimes you simply have to adjust your jumping technique if you have an opponent behind you in case you want to avoid elbowing them in the face.
  23. Mar 7, 2019

    SirAF Ageist

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    28,001
    Yes, I love it and I’ve thought that even before United profited from it.
  24. Mar 8, 2019

    andyox New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2018
    Messages:
    131
    Supports:
    Manchester City
    I remember being very much open to VAR after the decisions we were on the end of vs. Liverpool in the quarter-finals last year :)

    Now that I see it in use though (at the WC, in the domestic cup comps, and in the CL) I hate it. I think one of my issues has probably been my own inaccurate expectations of what VAR could achieve -- I thought VAR would magically resolve all decisions. The more I think about it, I think I was wrongly influenced by seeing VAR type technology used in cricket, but its use is fundamentally different in football due to the nature of the game. In cricket, "VAR" uses a computer program simulation to say yes that is definitely LBW or not, or snicko to say yes that definitely caught the edge. In football, VAR is being used for much, much more subjective decisions and that's where it's losing me.

    VAR can't solve subjectivity or interpretation for a lot of decisions because a lot the rules of football are open to subjectivity and interpretation. Even when we have slo-mo videos and the rules of the game related to handball copy and pasted in this thread, there's still no definitive agreement on whether the Kimpembe handball was a penalty or not (same for Otamendi vs. Schalke). In that situation, I can't see how it's possibly fair for VAR to overrule the original decision.

    I agree on only using VAR for only obvious errors, although how we could ever define an "obvious error" is challenging! Ultimately I hate VAR being used 4-5 times a game and breaking up play. I'd say "obvious errors" really should be a very rare occurrence, so most games should probably play out with zero VAR reviews/overrules.
  25. Mar 8, 2019

    Zlatan 7 Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,203
    You keep posting about rules to support your argument but it always will come back to this bolded part which it seems we have different views on, even if we can agree on the rules.

    He did deliberately handball it (he jumped into a shape to spread himself knowing it could hit his arm)
    He could have reasonably evaded the ball (by not jumping and turning his back into it with his arms spread)
  26. Mar 8, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    I think you make some fair points, but I think what people sometimes miss is that it all happens so quickly. If incidents on the pitch are slowed down to this frame-by-frame level then it can make everything look like a conscious decision, whereas the reality is that it all happens so quickly that defenders are often just making instinctive movements, particularly when they're close to the ball and opposition attackers.

    In the incident with Kimpembe, in my estimation there is no way that he intended to deliberately handle the ball, he just saw a shot coming in and turned his back, with his arms out to his side in a natural balancing motion, as will be seen on the field of play millions of times, and not just in the penalty area. Furthermore, his team gained absolutely no advantage from the ball hitting his arm, as it led to the penalty, whereas otherwise it would just have been a highly speculative effort at goal, which probably would have gone nowhere near, and at best would have been a corner had the VAR official not flagged it up, due to his 'unnatural silhouette'!

    The fact that he had his back turned is irrelevant, as he couldn't have reasonably got out of the way anyway. The only issue is that his arm is very slightly protruding, although as I've shown he actually retracted it and was trying to retract it fully. But this is just part of the natural movements of moving around!

    In my view, games should be decided by the skill of the players, not the VAR official slowing down some footage to a frame-by-frame rate to view whether or not someone's arm happened to be protruding slightly when someone kicked the ball at him from close range. If there is a clear, deliberate handball then it should be a penalty, but an incident like this, where there was a half-hearted appeal for a penalty which half of the United players didn't even join in with, the referee didn't take it seriously, PSG players weren't unduly concerned, the crowd didn't appeal, and the commentators never even considered that it could be a penalty, should not result in a game-changing penalty because someone in a video booth has slowed down some footage to frame-by-frame playback.
  27. Mar 8, 2019

    Anustart89 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    7,409
    Of course everything looks worse when it's slowed down, but that's not my point. My point is that Kimpembe gave up control of the situation when he spun around and didn't look at the ball, similarly to how a player who jumps off the ground with both feet loses control - ie he's still responsible for his limbs but he's lost control of the situation.

    I agree that Kimpembe didn't deliberately handle the ball (like I said previously, which player has ever handled the ball intentionally in his own penalty box?), but he made a deliberate movement which ended up with him out of control and handling the ball. That for me is the more appropriate interpretation nowadays because if only 100% deliberate handballs are fouls then we would see players being rewarded for the skill of making it look natural and not deliberate when handling the ball. I'd rather see us reward the skill of the shooter than the skill of the one trying to circumvent the rules by 'non-deliberately' handling the ball.

    I think the argument in bold is a poor one. What advantage is there for a team giving away a penalty for shirt pulling on a corner? Where is the advantage for the defending team the a player is tripped as he's moving away from goal inside the box? Are you arguing that fouls inside the box should only be penalties if they're denying goalscoring opportunities right in front of goal? We've agreed upon the fact that an infringement of the rules inside the box equals a penalty. That means that defenders have to take more care when tripping/elbowing/handling the ball because the punishment is more severe, and I think that Kimpembe's lack of care for the consequences of his flailing arms is what makes this a penalty for me. If he's facing the ball and is trying to lean away from the ball or pull his arm behind his back and it strikes his hand, then I don't think it's a penalty, but he's just basically spun around with no idea of where his arms go.

    Surely it can't be within the spirit of the game to turn away from the ball, can it? And if a player puts his arms up to protect his face and the ball ends up hitting him in the hand or arm, do you not think that is a deliberate movement that ends up with the player handling the ball? Sure, his intention might not have been to handle it, but if you're allowed to make deliberate movements that end up with you handling the ball then you can fake a pointing motion with your arm outstretched and then when the ball hits it you just say 'it was a pointing motion to my teammate' and be absolved of handball. Is that reasonable?

    It might not be how the law is written, but under current interpretations I think that's the more reasonable way to look at it, otherwise we'd only have two instances of actual handball in football, ie someone stopping a counter-attack by handling the ball and someone saving the ball on the goal line.
  28. Mar 8, 2019

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,560
    Location:
    And Solskjær has won it!
    I think thats debatable though isn't it?

    If he jumped up straight and didn't turn with his arms tucked in then theres a very good chance the ball flies past his left arm. It only hit him because he turned and flung his right arm out.

    Towards the end of his turning motion yes he did try to pull his arm in. But only after he had blocked the ball which is the problem and makes his effort to retract his arm fairly irrelevant.
  29. Mar 8, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    If it wasn't in the spirit of the game to not turn your back then it would at least be written in the laws. In fact, even this new initiative about the 'unnatural silhouette' isn't written in the laws!

    Personally, I don't think this is relevant, as if Kimpembe had been facing the ball he still wouldn't have been able to get out of the way. He could have been facing the player directly, and the ball would still have definitely hit him. Unless, he literally deliberately got out of the way and let the attacker have a free shot at goal, but surely that's not a reasonable expectation.

    In the spirit of the law as it was written, this is not a deliberate handball, it was ball-to-hand not hand-to-ball, and therefore it's not a penalty. It's only because of this IFAB directive (who I'd never even heard of a few days ago) that it's been given that way. Now I've read that they're meeting again at the end of the season, to once again tweak the handball law even further:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...andball-rules-for-201920-season-a4078356.html

    So what is a handball today may not be a handball this time next year, or even in August!

    But it won't make any difference as long as there is this element of interpretation in the rules, as different officials will interpret it differently. That very incident could be sent to another VAR official, and they could decide that his arm position was sufficiently natural enough, and there will be no penalty as the on-field referee didn't even consider it. As I mentioned earlier, Mark Halsey described it as a terrible decision, whereas the referee in the BT studio endorsed the decision.

    There will always be some element of interpretation, but that should be minimised, and the laws made as concrete as possible. The way the law was written, whereby what constituted a deliberate handball was quite clear, was better than the current situation. These new changes will just lead to confusion, controversy, and soft penalties being rewarded by VAR officials, when the player on the field had no intention of handling the ball, and was just hit and couldn't get out of the way. Which shouldn't, in the spirit of the game, be a handball or penalty, and if it was outside the area no-one would even bother appealing!

    As it stands, with these silly tweaks, it's a reasonable decision to give a handball and penalty, but (a) in my estimation, the change in the rules is wrong and stupid, (b) there is going to be far more inconsistency if this continues, as an incident such as the Kimpembe one can be interpreted completely differently by different officials, which was far less likely to happen with the way that the law is (still!) written.

    What can defenders do to guarantee not conceding handballs and penalties in this climate? The only thing I can suggest is to put their hands behind their back, thus adopting a completely unnatural position and handing the advantage to the attacker. Otherwise, the ball can be kicked against your hand or arm, the VAR official can look at it frame-by-frame, decide it's an unnatural silhouette, and you're screwed.
  30. Mar 8, 2019

    Mcking Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,985
    Location:
    Nigeria
  31. Mar 8, 2019

    shahzy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    131
    So then the rule is written wrong is what you're really saying. Maybe they just need to get rid of natural and unnatrual. Arms must be by your side when attempting a block and if they are deemed to be too far away from the centre of mass of your body, then it is liable for a penalty if they are hit.

    Would that clear everything up?
  32. Mar 8, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    I've already gone through this here:

    VAR - All is forgiven we love you

    It's pretty difficult for a human being to even accurately start and stop a stopwatch in the time between the ball leaving the foot and striking Kimpembe, let alone could he have got out of the way. But I estimate the time between the strike and hitting the defender was approximately 0.15 seconds. That is not enough time to get out of the way of something. If you've got a 0.15 seconds reaction time in car, you're hitting whatever it is that you're approaching. It's as simple as that.

    Average reaction time is 0.25 seconds, but even then that's just the time required to note a visual stimulus and react to some degree. It's not enough time to significantly move out of the way of a speeding object. You can see in this video:



    0.15 seconds is enough time to see something and press a button, although only one of eight highly skilled people managed to do this. It is not enough time to evade an object which has been struck at your body, or at the very least it's not reasonable to assume that the defender can do this.

    UEFA have obviously backed the referee by saying there was sufficient distance for the defender to react, but they're just blindly supporting their official. Realistically, based on actual evidence, there is no way that you can get out of the way in that situation.

    And, arguably, as a footballer you shouldn't get out of the way anyway, because your instinct is to block the ball. The only time there should indeed be a handball and penalty award is if you deliberately move your hand towards the ball, or you have long enough to move it out of the way and do not do so.

    So regardless of what UEFA have said, which is just flannel, the penalty has either wrongly been given on the assumption that the defender could have got out of the way, or given because he had an 'unnatural silhouette' body shape, or both. Note that UEFA did not mention Kimpembe turning his back, which is not in the rules (although as they make the rules up as they go along, alter them without rewriting the laws, and change them every few months, it could change next week).

    In my opinion, this just opens the game up to more and more incidents where players boot the ball at defenders, it hits their arms or hands, and then there are mass appeals for penalties, at which point it will be pretty much arbitrary whether or not they're given.

    In the United-PSG game, there was no sustained appeal for a penalty, and virtually no-one thought it was a penalty in real-time, because it clearly wasn't a deliberate handball. Now the goalposts have shifted, and it doesn't need to be a deliberate handball any more, so now players are going to start appealing for anything again, until they sit down at the end of the season and change the handball rule. Again.

    Between players dragging their legs to try to get contact into the penalty area, and this new VAR-driven handball law, how many games are going to feature contentious penalty incidents? Quite a few, I would suggest. In my view, as few matches as possible should be decided by this.

    And the thing that grates with me is that no-one would have cared two jots whether or not it was a handball if it was outside the area. VAR wouldn't even have looked at it. Same with the way players go down like a sack of potatoes in the area. They rarely do it elsewhere. Slowly but surely, the laws of the game are now accommodating this, and we're going to see more and more players deliberately going for handballs in the area, just as we see more and more players trying to achieve 'contact' in the area, before throwing themselves to the ground (see Neymar). And it will reach the point where defenders will have to consider doing that stupid thing of putting their hands behind their back because they won't be able to say with any certainty if the ball hits their hands or arms that a penalty won't be given.
  33. Mar 8, 2019

    mancan92 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,846
    Location:
    Loughborough university
    Are you blind? He literally looks at the ball and his arm comes out. His left arm is literally in a perfect position to block the ball. He doesnt retract his arm he just completes his spin.
  34. Mar 8, 2019

    TheRedDevil'sAdvocate Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    The rainbow's end
    So simple, yet so many fail to grasp it and try desperately to turn their own subjective opinions about what should or should not be a penalty into universal truths.
  35. Mar 8, 2019

    mancan92 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,846
    Location:
    Loughborough university
    Case closed
  36. Mar 8, 2019

    Mrs Smoker Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    22,430
    Location:
    In garden with Maurice
    Supports:
    Panthère du Ndé
  37. Mar 8, 2019

    Verminator Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    5,826
    Location:
    N3404 The Island of Manchester United
    I'm not into writing walls of text like some of you, so I'll keep this short.

    Watch the defender's head during the incident. When he throws his arm out, he is watching the flight of the ball. He is only looking away for the last 45-60cm of its travel.
    Its deliberate handball, so you can forget all the nuances you're dragging into the debate.

    As for VAR, it resulted in the correct decision, with a massively important outcome.
    How can something so right, be wrong?
  38. Mar 8, 2019

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,560
    Location:
    And Solskjær has won it!
    No offence mate but i didn't have the time to read the entirety all of your posts. Its a forum so posting replies in essay format is not the best way to get a point across.

    All i'm saying is if he tucks his arms in and jumps straight up theres a good chance the ball doesn't hit any part of his body and sails right past him. Of course then we say that its part of his job to block the ball any way he can, which he did. But that brings me back to my original point you can block the ball and thats fine but if you do it in a way where your arms are sticking out making the ball more likely to hit your hands. Then with VAR in play its a risky action as we seen the other night.

    Under the current rules especially with VAR in play what defenders need to do is make every effort to keep their arms tucked in as tightly as possible. And not swing them around making themselves bigger and blocking shots. This penalty has been seen everywhere so you can bet for the rest of the season in the Champions League managers will be drilling it into their players to keep the arms tucked in.
  39. Mar 8, 2019

    wub1234 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2018
    Messages:
    347
    Supports:
    Don't support a team
    That's fine, no offence taken obviously! I was just pointing it out!

    What I think is wrong is...I was just listening to 5Live, "The Friday Football Social" programme, and the presenter Darren Fletcher said the following:

    "UEFA are only saying what we were told. There was a seminar involving Roberto Rosetti, who is essentially the spokesman for VAR, and he went through a series of scenarios with us. And one thing that they did say quite categorically...is that the one they're going to stamp down on a lot in handball situations is making the body bigger in any shape or form, even if it's a natural act."

    So what that means is that you can be struck by the ball, you didn't move your hand or arm towards the ball, you didn't deliberately handle the ball, you are engaging in a natural act of movement, and handball can still be given.

    In my opinion, that is a joke, and it is not in the spirit of the game, particularly as the laws of the game still state the opposite!

    And I can certainly understand what people are saying about the body position, but what you are saying yourself about players needing to keep their arms tucked in is ridiculous, in my view. We're now in the position where players will have to engage in unnatural acts to avoid the risk of conceding a penalty. That cannot be right.

    At least, until the end of the season, when they're going to review the handball rules again, even though if you look on the FA and FIFA websites, the laws haven't even been changed to reflect this new initiative. Under the laws written on the FA and FIFA websites, the Kimpembe incident definitely was not a penalty. Under this new regulation, it was a penalty.

    For me, it's just farcical. But players will soon wise up to this, and, as always, try to gain every advantage that they can from it. Ridiculous handball appeals in the penalty area had been pretty much eradicated from the game, now they're back on the agenda. You might as well kick the ball against someone's arm if you're losing late on in a match, and hope the VAR official slows the footage down frame-by-frame and finds that the defender had their arm protruding slightly, because it if is then it should be given every time.

    Of course, this won't affect the PL, because they don't have VAR. Although they do have VAR in FA Cup matches. Well, some of them.

    I mean, I'm actually in favour of VAR, but if one group of people can f*ck it up it's the existing football authorities.
  40. Mar 9, 2019

    stevoc Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,560
    Location:
    And Solskjær has won it!
    Players have always had to try to keep their arms tucked in as much as possible to an extent. But with VAR even more so, without VAR the Ref wouldn't have seen that handball the other night.

    It was a penalty, it would have been a penalty 10 or 15 years ago too if the Ref spots it. But in the past 99 times out of 100 that would have gone unnoticed because it all happened so fast.

    I don't actually think it's that difficult for players to jump and try to block a shot with their arms tucked, at least with their elbows tucked in by their sides. Players have been doing it at free kicks for decades, if Kimpembe had jumped straight up and not turned or at least made an effort to keep his elbows tucked in then i highly doubt the Ref would have given that pen.

    It was in my opinion all down to the fact he had his arms extended out to make himself bigger and block the shot.

    Out of interest mate are you a PSG fan?