It’s not a save, it’s a tackle.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion | Forest go into meltdown
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
It should have been ruled out they made a mistake
I’m fairly certain that time they got wrapped up in the rule change that meant passing after an accidental handball meant the goal was given. Forgetting to apply the actual handball rule before that.
See I don't agree. With decent officials in other countries it runs "largely" smoothly.
It's the shite officials here that's the problem. Two World cups in a row with no English league refs.
Maybe it was the right call, but thats not what should be discussed. VAR has to be consistent. You can not allow West hams second and third goals to stand and then in another game disallow Rashys. Its absurd and should be talked about a lot. Changes need to happen.
Yeah, i also remember that they said that back then. The point was that it is accidental. Nothing with unnatural position (which it was).
So they changed it after that?
I know it's in line with the guidelines for the season but it's an absolute nonsense to penalise an attacker for something a defender would be allowed to get away with . Completely against the spirit of the game imo
There is zero time allocated to any of the words you copied from Google's definition. Therefore, the officials will give their own interpretation.
People say it does but I’ve seen some shocking ones given. Recent example bing the ref who gave Sociedad a penalty against United recently.
It didn't count because the away team was the one scoring.
If the foul on Eriksen was at the Emirates, Martinelli's goal would've also stood.
If the foul on Eriksen was at the Emirates, Martinelli's goal would've also stood.
No. The rule was changed at the start of that season to say it was only disallowed if the player handling the ball scores. If there was an accidental handball and then they lay it off for somebody else it’s allowed. The fact it’s a handball if your ball is in an unnatural position wasn’t changed. They just forgot that part.
The officials should be made to do an interview after the games to explain the major talking points.
Yep, it’s worded immediately for a reason. That definition is pretty cut and dry. Not for a handball 30 yards out that goes in the net 7 seconds later after rounding the keeper
Ah, so back then they forgot the rules? Oh, bloody hell
Can be no other explanation for it.
The more you think about it the more ridiculous it is. Of course this will be sweeped under the carpet because it was United and it didn’t change the result.
I thought it was a red, as well. Whether a player gets injured shouldn't be the determining factor, but apparently it is.
Yeah it's fecking idiotic. No sane, fair-minded person thinks that goal should be disallowed. And nobody would've complained if it wasn't.
Without any intervening time or space? As in for something to happen immediately there should be no time between the events in question.
'Straight away' 'without delay' could be other definitions. There is no 'time' allocated because there quite literally is no time inbetween for something to happen immediately.
The rule is basically made for you can’t score a goal with your hand. That’s how it was explained and it’s why the rule changed to if you pass the ball after it then it’s a goal.
It’s weird to see it argued any differently, if you’re giving handballs 30 yards out then scrap the rule and just say any handball in the build up because that’s basically how it was judged today.
Has there been any longer periods of time for goals to be disallowed like that? It’s such an outlier it’s unreal. There must be many examples of similar timed decisions if it is understandable
I have no horse in this fight, but the ref really handed West Ham the win.
Such a dodgy penalty and then the Scamacca goal - what the cack was that? You know it's not a goal when the player himself looks sheepish as fck and does the most timid of celebrations fully expecting to be chalked off.
And then goes full Italian when the goal is given.
English referees are really special, what do they smoke up at the FA?
Such a dodgy penalty and then the Scamacca goal - what the cack was that? You know it's not a goal when the player himself looks sheepish as fck and does the most timid of celebrations fully expecting to be chalked off.
And then goes full Italian when the goal is given.
English referees are really special, what do they smoke up at the FA?
Define immediate? That's not immediate to me.
As always, they'll have to clarify their terrible wording in a 'clarification' next week, at which point goals like that will stand, as they should.
Like Lindelof's 'handball' a few seasons ago.
Like Lindelof's 'handball' a few seasons ago.
Fulham were completely robbed. The pen wasn't the other two were clearly handball.
Unbelievable that Rashford had his goal disallowed but the two West Ham goals stood 
Rashfords goal was disallowed because it was one phase. Antonio’s goal today was allowed because he scored in the 2nd phase of the play . (Confirmed on MOTD tonight )
Another new rule I’ve just found out about
Another new rule I’ve just found out about
The explanations given by the VAR officials to MOTD were ridiculous. “No clear evidence of the ball hitting Scamacca’s hand” and Antonio scored from a “second phase of play” after it hit his hand. The stupidest fecking thing about the Antonio handball was that he controlled the ball with his hand. It was a blatant deliberate handball. A free out, whether or not he scores.Unbelievable that Rashford had his goal disallowed but the two West Ham goals stood
Not just rounding the keeper. Playing the ball off the keeper. Yet when Antonio bounced the ball off opposition players that created a “second phase” which made his prior handball irrelevant.
I’m not making this up. That is exactly the reason they gave to MOTD.
It's a load of utter bollocks.
But his was handball where ever it was on the pitch he moved both arms towards the ball. There is no way that was accidental.
Yes I think this made it second phase for Rashford's goal but as I said above I think that Antonio's arm movement was deliberate.
Pathetic from VAR today.
Also, pathetic display from Michael Oliver in the Arse - Liverpool game.
The Gabriel handball was 50/50 but how on earth was that a pen on Jesus? (I moaned about this in another thread too).
Also, pathetic display from Michael Oliver in the Arse - Liverpool game.
The Gabriel handball was 50/50 but how on earth was that a pen on Jesus? (I moaned about this in another thread too).
An absurd explanation re Antonio, it wasn't exactly ages before the goal. If he was offside instead of handballing it, there'd have been no problem going that far back to disallow it, why would handball have some unique rule?
It’s ok it was at Liverpools expense
It’s just utter incompetence.
True but I wanted that game to be a draw.
That we can agree on its a tool and I think we both agree on the officials being a bit shit too.
I googled "immediately" and clicked on the news section. This led me to the article Ukraine, NATO Negotiations Should Begin Immediately: Lithuania in Newsweek. Now, NATO negotiations aren't simple, there are 30 member countries and Ukraine is in a state of war, and even if it was simple you still have to set up a meeting and coordinate. It is completely impossible to get something like this going quite literally with no time inbetween now and the start of negotiations, yet the article exists. 'Immediately' here can mean days, maybe even weeks.
According to the National Library of Medicine, immediate hypersensitivity reactions are called immediate because they happen within 24 hours. If you instead want to do some science experiments for kids, 'immediately' here means seconds or faster.
This is a longwinded way of saying that of course there's interpretation involved.
Bloody VAR