montpelier
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 10,637
Sorry Hugh I was gonna agree about the Jones foul but messed up the posting and quoting.It isn't though because their primary concern is supporting whatever the ref has given.
Sorry Hugh I was gonna agree about the Jones foul but messed up the posting and quoting.It isn't though because their primary concern is supporting whatever the ref has given.
VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.
The interpretation is the VAR unless I'm missing something.VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.
No doubts about that.If Liverpool had conceded that goal it would have been disallowed, without any doubt.
And I'd be fine (ish) if VAR said "were not overruling unless it's obvious", which is what I thought VAR was going to be for.The Alli goal was deemed to have been correctly given upon review. Despite what you might think the rules are, the Alli goal was correct as per how the refs are told to interpret it. Which is important as refs base their decisions on the guidelines they are given. Bearing in mind that VAR have to be certain it was a handball to disallow the goal, that's more than enough reason not to disallow.
You say that as though it’s separate. A human being involved is part of VAR.VAR is not the problem; it's the human ref making the interpretation who is.
And you agree with that?!The issue is that VAR aren't directly ruling on the two incidents, they're ruling based on the ref's initial interpretation of the two incidents.
So if the ref didn't see the push on Lovren at all it becomes more of a "clear and obvious error" than him seeing the Jones incident but interpreting it as shoulder to shoulder. Both could be fouls but one is more likely to be overturned as the ref has made a factual error (i.e. not seeing a push that took place) rather than an error of interpretation.
Which is why they should review such decisions again themselves.
Maybe but this is a VAR thread not a "who deserves what" thread?What foul? I watch league 2 football most weekends. It was shoulder to shoulder - not even close to a foul. You should be chuffed with a draw after being totally outplayed. You honestly think you deserved a win?
Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?The Alli goal was deemed to have been correctly given upon review. Despite what you might think the rules are, the Alli goal was correct as per how the refs are told to interpret it. Which is important as refs base their decisions on the guidelines they are given. Bearing in mind that VAR have to be certain it was a handball to disallow the goal, that's more than enough reason not to disallow.
Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.Where are you seeing a handball?
It's difficult to know what to say to people like that. Can we send them back to Arm School? Maybe we're wrong. Maybe anything higher than your elbow is your shoulder. I'll ask the blokes down at the gym.Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.
Oh no, I think it's stupid. The protocols around VAR in the PL are a mess. I was just explaining why you can have two situations judged by entirely different standards.And you agree with that?!
I must say, I wasn't expecting the ''it hasn't hit him on the arm'' defence of VAR .It's difficult to know what to say to people like that. Can we send them back to Arm School? Maybe we're wrong. Maybe anything higher than your elbow is your shoulder. I'll ask the blokes down at the gym.
Yeah, exactly like we were saying earlier, isn't it.Oh no, I think it's stupid. The protocols around VAR in the PL are a mess. I was just explaining why you can have two situations judged by entirely different standards.
I wasn't trying to be any sort of oracle on anything.Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?
It doesn’t make them right either no matter how much you try to shut down debate that they weren’t.I wasn't trying to be any sort of oracle on anything.
They are supposed to disallow a handball that leads to a goal. That's what they would have done if they thought it was a handball. Clearly they didn't, an interpretation that is in line with previous decisions that were deemed correct when reviewed again by the referee's body from whom they take direction. You're free to disagree with their interpretation as much as you like, it doesn't make them wrong.
How am I shutting down debate? I'm just arguing like everyone else, you're free to blame VAR all you like. Yeesh.It doesn’t make them right either no matter how much you try to shut down debate that they weren’t.
The ball hit his chest. I think you are confusing the badges. His hands are clearly out of the way.Do you see that badge on the sleeve of his shirt? Do you see the ball right beside it? That’s where you see the handball.
Mainly the ref's original decision I think.So handball is only handball sometimes depending on guidelines. Ok, now we’re clear on that
Guaranteed. I'm shocked there doesn't seem to be any sort of debate about it, and the commentators barely gave it a mention.If Liverpool had conceded that goal it would have been disallowed, without any doubt.
Handball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.So handball is only handball sometimes depending on guidelines. Ok, now we’re clear on that
It didn't hit his hand or his arm though?Deemed by who though? They’re supposed to disallow any handball that leads directly to a goal. You may like to talk like you’re the oracle on all things VAR but you’ve already been proven wrong with your matter of fact posts before. It is clear as day that it hit his arm. Why don’t they have to be certain it’s offside to disallow a goal?
Sure.Handball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.
The Sheff Utd guy didn't handle it!
So it didn’t hit the top of his arm? I thought it clearly didHandball can only be handball if....it hits a hand/arm.
The Sheff Utd guy didn't handle it!
I think I understand where you're coming from. You're talking about VAR as the officiating system (including refs) and I'm making a distinction between the human ref and the video feed.You say that as though it’s separate. A human being involved is part of VAR.
I take issue with the "unnaturally bigger" interpretation. What can you deem accidental/natural vs clear intent disguised as part of a natural motion?Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.
The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player.
Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm.
If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.
IFAB says that having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a "natural" position and a player is "taking a risk" by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding.
It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger.
So in the VAR replay, we all agree the ball ricochets off McBurnie's thigh onto his shoulder then the shot deflects off Maguire & De Gea into the net.Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.
It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player.
So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.
You aren’t. You’re just telling people they’re wrong. But we’ll leave it at that.How am I shutting down debate? I'm just arguing like everyone else, you're free to blame VAR all you like. Yeesh.
It hit his arm. The hands are not the only part of of the body that can lead to handball. The badge is on the sleeve.The ball hit his chest. I think you are confusing the badges. His hands are clearly out of the way.
I would say it did. As is shown by the picture of the ball right beside the badge on the players sleeve.It didn't hit his hand or his arm though?
Doesn't matter. Rules state deflections off the arm from any part of their body isn't considered handball.I would say it did. As is shown by the picture of the ball right beside the badge on the players sleeve.
The more I see the first goal the more I'm certain it was a foul on Jones. I wasn't massively bothered at the time as I was angry with how we'd played and we deserved the punishment, Jones also had plenty of opportunity to deal with it but pissed about instead so I was more mad at him. Watching the replays with a cooler head though and there's no question its a foul, hugely excessive force - which btw shef u were guilty of on a few occasions for me, they were off their feet in nearly every tackle but the ref let it go.I thought it was a foul on Jones (too much force) but didn't think it was a handball.