Man U v PSG
- Thread starter Jorik0907
- Start date
- Status
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Personally, I'd still jettison VAR altogether, but . . .
VAR seems to be used very differently with respect to handling than with other fouls. While contact fouls seem to be being judged with a gray zone between clearly and obviously a foul and clearly and obviously not a foul, when it comes to handling, it seems to be re-refereeing each incident. There are, of course, two parts of handling: hand/arm contact and "deliberate."
The first is black and white, and using VAR absolutely on that makes a lot of sense--we all have plays in our games (at least I do) where I'm not certain if there was arm contact, but I am certain that if there was it was deliberate. VAR is perfect for those plays and since the ball either did or didn't touch the arm, it really isn't different from OSP or over a line distinctions that can be clearly made.
How to apply it to the deliberate element is more tricky. How do we define the gray zone between clearly handling and clearly not handling? WE don't seem to have--instead, VAR seems to be used to make the determination without regard to any possible gray zone--very much unlike a pushing or tripping foul in the PA or SFP/VC.
On this play, we have no idea what VAR was actually used for (at least, I have seen nothing clarifying this)--did Skomina not know if the ball hit the back or the arm? Was Skomina not sure if it was deliberate? Was he unsure of both?
Neymar has said it hit his back, I mean that argument falls down straight away. And Tuchels comments gave me a laugh too
Jamais une peine dans la mémoire de l'homme. 1.14 Billion in transfers!!!
Last edited:
Based on the fact that Skomina appeared to look at two replays (one "fast" and the other slow/frame-by-frame) I'd suggest that he didn't see the handling at all initially.
I expect that, based on prior conversations we've heard from VARs along the way around the world, that it went something like this:
VAR: "What did you see the ball hit?"
Skomina: "It hit the back/leg/etc/but-not-arm"
VAR: "I've got a possible review for you then."
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
While I'm in the PK camp, I don't think the player's reaction tells us much of anything--players know that if the ball hits the arm they might get called for handling. They may not understand the nuance, but they certainly know it isn't a good thing if the ball hit their arm.
I mean when he was holding his head in his hands in an "I've been caught" kind of way.
Imagine the furore if this had gone the other way...
one
RefChat Addict
It is not supposed to. That is the problem.
You may have had a more accurate feed but I am sure we all had the same. I was paying specific attention to what replay is he going to look at. And I just looked a full match replay for. When he approached the screen it was on a freeze frame. He looked at that for some seconds with the frames going back and forth to show contact. Then it went to full speed for the lead up to the incident but when it got close to the handball it changed to slow motion. Then he had to deal with some team officials. Went back to the screen, looked at two more slow motions and made up his mind. The was no full speed or as you say "fast" replay of the incident. I said this before. The process was completely wrong.
one
RefChat Addict
Don't agree with the reaction comment. There was no reaction after the actual contact. The head in hands reaction was after a penalty was given 3 minutes later which is completely understandable when putting a billion dollar team out of the UCL is going to be blamed on something you did (even if you think it wasn't deliberate and it was unfair).
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Im not sure he stuck his arm out, his arm for me was in a natural position.
If you try and jump with your arms by your back you will go arse over tit.
The only movement i can remember that involves jumping with your arms by your side is Pogo Dancing which became a punk rock thing in the 70s/80s
You can easilly argue that the incident in question was handball and not handball. The referee isn't right and he isn't wrong.
That to me suggests that the wording is incorrect, there's simply too many words. Why not remove all the waffle and just have "deliberately handles the ball". Yes the decision still remains subjective (like all decisons) but there's not this inane amount of nonsense written to justify it and for people to obsess over. All IFAB ever seen to do is add to the confusion by adding more wording (silhouette etc). Remove it all.
That to me suggests that the wording is incorrect, there's simply too many words. Why not remove all the waffle and just have "deliberately handles the ball". Yes the decision still remains subjective (like all decisons) but there's not this inane amount of nonsense written to justify it and for people to obsess over. All IFAB ever seen to do is add to the confusion by adding more wording (silhouette etc). Remove it all.
I'll raise you Riverdance.
If a defender turns his/her back on a shot they are by definition not in a natural position. By jumping and making their body bigger they are also in an unnatural position. So for me it's a stonewall penalty. We have to remember that VAR is intolerant to subjective views and will enforce the laws.
I must stop agreeing with you!
IFAB are about to add even more words to their scribes of diarrhoea
Fundamentally, this thread is exposing the fact that something is seriously wrong. Some of us to the left, the right and the middle. I blame Brexit
All the law says is "deliberately handles the ball". If you're psychic, that's great. If not, the idea of offering some guidance on what is likely to make an action deliberate seems like a sensible idea to me.
It might be terribly written and interprated differently in different locations as a result, but that doesn't mean the concept of trying to introduce consistency in the interpretation of deliberate is a bad idea. It just needs to be done better.
- Status