I saw about half a dozen replays and couldn't ascertain that the ball really hit his hand.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion | May 15: Premier League clubs to vote on proposal to scrap VAR from next season
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Nah....yellow was right.
Shouldn’t have the Everton goal been looked at too? Foul on Cas…
It wasn’t. Deal with that and move on or don’t contribute to the discussion.
Why wouldn't they show it? If that's the case and they don't show it then they're inviting criticism for absolutely no reason
I think he's saying that VAR is just a series of replays and extra camera angles and it's the interpretation of those replays that is the issue.
Honestly, I no longer have any idea what is and isn't classified as a handball at the moment. I don't think the video assistant officials do either.
This. The rule is the issue, not VAR.You'll have to show me that because no replay has shown it clearly enough to overturn a goal, none that I've seen in any case.
Also ridiculous that if he'd squared it to an unmarked Bruno, it would've stood. Ridiculous rule.
And another also.
We just need a robot to interpret the VAR footage. The VAR booth was crooked today.
Who interprets them?
Read law 12. It was the correct call but hey, you do you
The referee looking at them as far as I know.
It didn't hit the hand. Why they decided to say that, we will never know.
But what’s the rule? Doesn’t the rule only apply directly before a goal?
Did he have to tear off his leg for it to be red? Leg straight, from behind, forceful, leg off the ground showing studs…
What goal are you talking about? Tonight’s or the Boro one?
For Boro:
touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger.
Tonight:
scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
Hard to argue it was immediate when an Everton player tackled him in the interim period.
But hey, you do you.
the everton goal was ok, no foul on casemiro as he got the ball. also thought you could give red for gordon but yellow is no clear fault. the handball for rashy was very harsh, allthough his arm touched the ball - so you can give it. the problem is that there is no common line. i have to say i even dont know if there are same rules for handball in the pl and the cl/el as thery change it every year. imo such unintentional flick to the arm shouldnt be punished
My issue is that I didn't see a replay where it was clear that it hit his arm/hand. If it did, then it's the right call. But the replays I saw weren't conclusive....
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents' goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
Just seen the west ham - fulham game highlights. I'm trying to work out how opposite VAR decisions happen on the same day for such similar situations? Surely whoever is on VAR duty would be, at the very least, aware of key VAR decisions made from the same office just a couple of hours earlier.
I thought we were suffering VAR to prevent crap like this from happening.
I thought we were suffering VAR to prevent crap like this from happening.
Nah it’s both. VAR being there to check every goal has ruined the rush of scoring.
That Arsenal goal at OT for example, was a foul. But it’s a soft one that should be either immediately given or play just goes on. Letting them play on and thinking they’ve scored for ages is just ridiculous.
It took me a few looks but it does hit the right arm, unfortunately.
The scorer handballed it, hence it was disallowed.
So officials had slow-mo video tech before. Got you.
But it’s not immediate, he takes it around the keeper. The officials are simply wrong because there’s another phase of play in between the handball and goal.
I really really hate these new handball laws.
It wasn't that bad, it was robust but a yellow was right.
I mean it was on Bruno, if anyone was gonna try get someone sent off its him!
VAR is always going to be used by officials. They aren’t distinct. It’s an additional tool to make decisions and it’s shit.
That's the interpretation aspect, I guess. Look, they are in charge of the match and so they get to call the time frame. I think it's daft but I don't see the point in fighting against it.
Absolutely, he commits the hand ball, and then he takes on another player. Hardly immediately.
Officials. With Competent officials, var wouldnt be a problem, hence var not being the problem.
A save/block doesn't count as a deliberate play of the ball. Because obviously if it did you'd have situations where a player is miles offside, someone else takes a pot-shot, then the goalkeeper's save plays the offside player on again for a tap in. So I would guess they counted Pickford's touch here as a block/save.
The difference between that and the Antonio goal is that in Antonio's case there was a save, then the defender unquestionably played the ball, then Antonio scored. You can see the goal here from 2.30:
That's my read of how they interpreted it anyway. But hey, I could be wrong. The rules are confusing and full of technicalities.
Damn, so they thought that Boro's player had arm in natural position back then? Bloody hell
Just looked at it. It’s about 7 seconds between then and when he jogs towards the keeper and goes around him.
It’s just not immediate. If that’s the rule then it doesn’t apply.
I’m wondering if VAR thinks he’s taking it around the keeper on the replay, it’s the only explanation
There was a front on camera which showed it hit his hand/arm.
Only just saw the West Ham handball and goal standing.
Absolutely unreal!
They must have deemed that it was only a skim of a hand, and decided that's ok for some bizarre reason.
Absolutely unreal!
They must have deemed that it was only a skim of a hand, and decided that's ok for some bizarre reason.
Except rules have been adjusted off the back of VAR. It micro manages games in a way the rules were never designed for.
VAR isn’t improving the standard of officials and saying it’s not VAR’s fault it’s the officials is fecking stupid. It literally stands for video assistant referee. VAR is a person watching tv. If that person is a problem then VAR is a problem.
It's down to that word interpretation again. There is zero definition of exact time so they have to interpret it. I think it should have stood but I can see why it didn't. They law should be more clear.
There is no interpretation of 'immediatly' it's definition is quite straight forward 'at once, instantly' and/or 'without any intervening time or space'. Rashford does not score immediately after his alleged handball offence meaning that it shouldn't of been ruled out, it's actually quite straight forward when you think about it.
At best it touches his bicep when his arm is down.