I’d accept and agree with that decision - as it was missing and it hits his hand and goes in, intentional or not.It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:
Yeah, we have found ourselves on the wrong end of some of these calls. For what it's worth, one of the amendments they made to the handball rule makes it certain that Haaland's goal stands not only according to the spirit, but also according to the letter of the law. I also feel that one of the reasons why decisions that seem pretty straightforward currently get overlong examinations is Klopp and Arteta's outbursts. Especially in the London derby, it felt like they were trying to prove a point about being thorough enough after the previous debacle at the same stadium.I’d accept and agree with that decision - as it was missing and it hits his hand and goes in, intentional or not.
What I don’t like is if hits your arm sometime during play, and you go on and score it’s disallowed - but if you pass it onto someone else, it’s allowed.
Haalands one would have been crazy if it was disallowed. He gained absolutely no advantage and I’m glad they used common sense in that case
Agreed. They need to be extra careful when making decisions against them, especially with the media coverage that follows. Likewise with United, and decision for United that is wrong/controversial get blown up; if it’s against United no one seems to care. It makes them scared of giving anything for usYeah, we have found ourselves on the wrong end of some of these calls. For what it's worth, one of the amendments they made to the handball rule makes it certain that Haaland's goal stands not only according to the spirit, but also according to the letter of the law. I also feel that one of the reasons why decisions that seem pretty straightforward currently get overlong examinations is Klopp and Arteta's outbursts. Especially in the London derby, it felt like they were trying to prove a point about being thorough enough after the previous debacle at the same stadium.
Don't think it's a weird take (and this isn't football tribalism, I don't think you'll find an Arsenal supporter in the world who wouldn't want Havertz to get a three game suspension just to get him out of the XI!).Weird take, imo.
Havertz's tackle on Longstaff, like Nketiah on Vicario, not resulting in a nasty injury is coincidence. Havertz runs at high speed and lunges in with a straight leg, the height he jumps with and the distance he slides after missing Longstaff should tell you everything about the forces involved and the potential for injury. Mental attempt. Longstaff gets lucky, Havertz is less than a flaccid penis' length from planting his studs on his ankle, and when he does miss it's pure coincidence that Havertz trailing foot doesn't hit Longstaff standing foot higher up or that he gets caught between the trailing leg and the foot Havertz jumps in with.
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
First time I’ve heard of that and completely disagree with their logic. He didn’t score a goal with his hand. He scored with his head. The fact it accidentally brushed off his hand makes no difference, seeing as it didn’t change the direction or otherwise make it any harder for the keeper to save. If that’s really the root cause for accidental handball ending up as a punishable offence then everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:
Yeah, agree with all that. I’d just add that even if it did make it harder to save then, frankly, so what. It’s unfortunate for the defending team but, as long as it’s clear that it was accidental, that’s just the effect of having a rule which covers deliberate handball only.First time I’ve heard of that and completely disagree with their logic. He didn’t score a goal with his hand. He scored with his head. The fact it accidentally brushed off his hand makes no difference, seeing as it didn’t change the direction or otherwise make it any harder for the keeper to save. If that’s really the root cause for accidental handball ending up as a punishable offence then everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
On a side note, I don’t blame the officials for the call they made in real time. It must have been very difficult to be certain he didn’t deliberately reach for the ball with his hand at the same time as his head to make absolutely sure he got something on the ball. It’s only looking at replays you can see that didn’t happen.
Havertz used excessive force and was reckless.Re.: Havertz leg breaker.
First of all, it was nothing of the kind. Lead foot looked awful in real time but in reality, Havertz only clipped a grounded foot with his trail (also along the ground) foot.
But secondly, if you want to tell me it was a reckless to intentional bad foul that only wasn't worse because Havertz's bad tackling is about as accurate as his shooting, and no one should get away with a very raised, straight leg, studs up, just because it missed, I'm on board with that.
Seriously, real time, I thought Havertz was off. Turns out, he's no better at kicking players than balls. Sometimes you ride the luck of your own incompetence.
Clearly, a matter of opinion.It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.
Oh well, on reflection you’re probably right. My bad.It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It was probably spot on. But 4 minutes is far too long. Yet i don't think they could have been as accurate without that much time. We've seen multiple instances this season of things clearly not being checked properly, or the pace of the ongoing game meaning that something that likely would be called, is ignored.Spot on from the VAR on the goal. Pity they missed both red cards as Webb alluded to their.
The point I was trying to make is that there was no clear and obvious error made by the referee to warrant a VAR check.IFAB strongly disagrees with you there.
Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
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
Any touch whatsoever between the ball and Haalands arm, no matter how accidental or minimal, will continue to be an offence and result in the goal being disallowed.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is a objective call. No clear and obvious error on handball by the goal scorer. Its either yes or no.The point I was trying to make is that there was no clear and obvious error made by the referee to warrant a VAR check.
Yeah I've no idea why people were so adamant it was a foul. The shot they were using as evidence was close in and didn't show the whole incident.Nothing wrong with that. The angle from in front of the goal at 2:07 shows what a pathetic dive it was from Gabriel. No way was that a foul.
Hmmm strange that isn't it?The decisions always seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through the logic behind them. It's almost like hearing the rationale for a decision from the ref/VAR at the time rather than weeks later might be a good idea....
I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.Yeah I've no idea why people were so adamant it was a foul. The shot they were using as evidence was close in and didn't show the whole incident.
So even though VAR says the Wolves player makes contact (which is not 100% clear for me… best angle has another player run in front just at the critical moment), which MATCHES what ref said…I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.
The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I really couldn't be arsed listening to all that but what surprised me most wasn't them missing the ball hitting Hwang's right leg, it was them clearly seeing it hit his left leg and saying "oh he didn't try to play it with that one so it doesn't matter". What sort of fecking stupid rule is that? If you get the ball with your trailing leg in a slide tackle before you contact the player is it supposed to be a foul now? The rules are written by halfwits if so, why do they feel the need to make it so complicated for themselves when they can barely enforce the simple rules properly?I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.
The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Spot on, but not how they described it. They mention Maguire stopping their defender reaching the ball. He wasn’t reaching it if Harry wasn’t there, so in their reasoning of the situation, they really should have allowed the goal.Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
Listening to Howard Webb describe this just makes me utterly convinced that he doesn’t have the brains to be in charge.I hate how the officials all refer to each other by nicknames while comunicating, it comes accross a bit childish and unprofessional especially when the officials are well aware their conversation could be broadcast on TV around the world.
The way the VAR refers to Antony Taylor as Tayls on this Wolves one is proper cringe:-
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The level of incompetence is shocking, it really is. Just out of the blue they decide to introduce a different level of interpretation, where in some situations they will ask the referee what he has seen, but not in all situatnions. The only thing it will ever result in is even less consistencyWe feel this is a situation that reaches the threshold for being an clear and obvious error, even though there is contact, even though the ball isn’t played by the defender. And we are asking the VAR going forward with that instruction to have a look at it, see where the consideration sit, and if they don’t like the decision on the field then ask the referee what they saw and if it’s significantly different to what they see on video then recommend a review so that the referee can look at it for himself.
The act of challenging the defender is a what makes it offside, never mind trying to get the ball.Spot on, but not how they described it. They mention Maguire stopping their defender reaching the ball. He wasn’t reaching it if Harry wasn’t there, so in their reasoning of the situation, they really should have allowed the goal.
Agree, the calls have been decent recently generally.Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
They've clearly just done some hasty dubs and sold them as actual recordings from the games. The real tapes were full of effing and blinding, along with comments to make Ron Atkinson blush. But hey, if having their conversations broadcast live leads to more of them getting sacked, I'm all for it.The decisions always seem more reasonable when you hear someone talking through the logic behind them. It's almost like hearing the rationale for a decision from the ref/VAR at the time rather than weeks later might be a good idea....
To me, it isn't really complicated at all. "Clear and obvious" isn't a real thing - it's just the marketing tool that was used to push VAR. It made it seem like it was going to be unintrusive and reserved for matters of fact, rather than what we have now - constant lengthy stoppages over subjective calls.So even though VAR says the Wolves player makes contact (which is not 100% clear for me… best angle has another player run in front just at the critical moment), which MATCHES what ref said…
… Howard Webb said they should have still called the ref as he felt it reached the “clear and obvious” threshold?
So there are subjective decisions AND subjective “clear and obvious” decisions now?
Good job they’re not making it overly complicated?
I think the Newcastle one was a bit more chaotic in terms of the audio - natural because of the situation, but listening to the Fulham decision, I think they handled it really well. Can't really argue with the logic of making the call.Think the Newcastle goal and Maguire offside they got spot on to be honest.
None of that happened though. He's not putting any real weight on him. Watch it again from the wide angle. His hands are touching him but Gabriel throws himself forward and his legs back. It's clear as day.I don’t think the referees involved, and some people in here, understand the concept. It’s not Joelinton standing right behind Gabriel and sticking out his arms. Joelinton is 1.86 and built as a tank, he has mistimed his header and on his way down he has both hands stretched out on the upper part of Gabriels back. It’s basic physics really, where does the weight go? there is no way whatsoever Gabriel stands a chance of getting anything on it as Joelintons weight will always push him downwards. It’s a fairly obvious freekick, no idea why people are speculating if Gabriel goes down too easy or not when the focus should be on what Joelinton is doing and what the consequence always will be.
This is what makes the offside subjective, because neither plays the ball. In some instances someone could claim the defender is reaching it, and if it were the other way around the benefit of the doubt would be given the attacker "no way he reaches that". Thus you'll have two identical situations being judged differently based on any impulse and previous information. If the other team scored a goal, we probably wouldn't even get a VAR review or discussion. The review show would probably be about how they made the correct call because he "didn't impact the defender's ability to play the ball" because Maguire wouldn't reach it anyways.They are now running through Maguire offside at Fulham. He apparently "impacts the defender's ability to play the ball" despite it being an impossibility for defender to reach it.
You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.None of that happened though. He's not putting any real weight on him. Watch it again from the wide angle. His hands are touching him but Gabriel throws himself forward and his legs back. It's clear as day.
What a load of bollocks.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
To me there's a clear jump forward from Gabriel after any potential pushing or leaning by Joelinton has concluded. Gabriel isn't interested in challenging, he's trying to win a free out imo.You can literally see Joelinton hanging over Gabriel. Look where the ball comes in as well. Is Gabriels ability to clear the ball badly affected due to Joelintons arms and the weight? Yes. Is it legal? No. It’s clearly not a push, but the use of his arms prevents Gabriel from challenging.
