deusex
RefChat Addict
Ref otherwise had a good game
Getting this wrong in the 98th minute to cost a team a famous win wipes away any good work in the previous 97 mins.
Ref otherwise had a good game
Oh don't get me wrong - I agree fully with this but players are now putting their arms behind their backs to give no chance of being done for hand ball as the law is so screwed up! In the Mac Allister situation he had his arms down by his side and it was still decided that he put his arm out to control it even though the ball was dropping to the ground.The player is allowed to have his arms out if that is part of his natural movement. If he extended them out wide then that would make it ‘unnatural’.
Ironically having his arms behind his back is a much more ‘unnatural’ position than where he had them.
good luck with that. IFAB tried to and just made things much worse. Unless we go to all contact with the arm is an offense, any definition is going to have a significant subjective element that will never be precise.The law I think just needs to be clearer and all this nonsense will be put to bed (much like the daft offside law).
Yeah, but the utter chaos of the last few weeks would be enough to change anyone's mind. Confederations, countries and referees clearly can't find a consensus of what is clear and obvious and when VAR should be getting involved, and I'm seeing no evidence that they will ever be able to. They can't even provide consistency in the same game.You mean the idea I mentioned the other week and you said it wouldn't work?
I didn't word it very well. Under the old law the arm was too close to the body to have been deemed to have been in an unnatural position, and as it bounced off his chest there would be no handball. But since the new law came in they seem to, especially in Europe, penalise any hitting on the arm, even when it is in a natural position for the footballing action being performed.You have completely lost me. We’re crossing one another somehow.
I still don’t think the old deflection language has anything to do with anything.
Under the current Law, it‘s handling if deliberate or biggering.
Under the short-lived, confusing language, it was handling if deliberate or biggering (and the deflection language didn’t apply to those).
So nothing changed on that front.
I‘m not arguing it was a good call now or would have been a good call then. My only point is that the “deflection exception” didn’t apply to things that were deliberate or biggering, and th those are the only two th8ngs that are offenses now.
Gotcha. But the problem isn’t in the law or the deflection provision—it‘s the peculiar decisions that get made about natural position. IFAB tried to make it more clear that natural position had to consider what the player was doing rather than some arbitrary position, but that seems to be ignored in application in many places.I didn't word it very well. Under the old law the arm was too close to the body to have been deemed to have been in an unnatural position, and as it bounced off his chest there would be no handball. But since the new law came in they seem to, especially in Europe, penalise any hitting on the arm, even when it is in a natural position for the footballing action being performed.
It has to be a clear and obvious error to recommend a review. They can take into account what view the referee had. but it still needs to be C&O.Seen some suggestions this was reviewed as a missed incident as the ref didn't have a view of it.
Means the clear and obvious criteria doesn't need to be met. You'd think that would give the ref some scope to turn down the review.
Except it wasn't!It hat it s to be a clear and obvious error to recommend a review. They can take into account what view the referee had. but it still needs to be C&O.
In the opinion of the VAR it was. Wrongly in most of our opinions, but my point was that it can't just be sent for a review because the referee didn't have a view of it.Except it wasn't!
It is either C&O or a serious missed incident that permits review. IIRC “Serious missed incident“ is ‘t defined within the protocol. I thought it was more aimed at VC/SFP, but I’m not sure about that.It has to be a clear and obvious error to recommend a review. They can take into account what view the referee had. but it still needs to be C&O.
But surely according to UEFA rules it was the correct decision. We can't keep chopping and changing the rules when it suits us.I did think that maybe the referee should automatically look at the monitor for all penalty claims, but that wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome in this one as it was ultimately his (wrong?) decision.
Possibly.Was the issue that Marciniak wasn't given the view from the goalside, only the wide view from stand side which did look like the defenders arm was out before the ball was kicked giving him justification for a PK....he made himself bigger, which incidentally Mccoist actually said in commentary though he didn't seem to understand he was describing why it should be a PK. It was from the goalside angle that it's clear it was a natural movement and elbow close to his body - Marciniak didn't appear to be given that view by VAR.
But surely according to UEFA rules it was the correct decision. We can't keep chopping and changing the rules when it suits us.
!!! Just how much more wasted time do you want in the game?I did think that maybe the referee should automatically look at the monitor for all penalty claims, but that wouldn’t necessarily change the outcome in this one as it was ultimately his (wrong?) decision.
I’m pretty sure all the feeds go into the VAR room live. So a TV company would have to be awfully prescient to know what feeds not to have in advance of the game to try to influence the VAR.Possibly.
It's always been touted that potentially one of VAR's flaws is the ability of whichever TV broadcaster is providing the pictures for the VAR team to influence what is or isn't seen by them, based on any bias or agenda they might have.