If you're watching an incident involving Cancelo then you're watching the wrong clip
no deflection, Mane kicks it straight at Akanji's arm. I was surprised VAR recommended a review but I can understand why it was given.
BAY vs MCI
- Thread starter Joshref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
no deflection, Mane kicks it straight at Akanji's arm. I was surprised VAR recommended a review but I can understand why it was given.
And that is relevant how exactly? What involvement did PGMOL have in tonight's game?
Plus it was nearly two years ago, and the law has changed since then, including the handball section.
Interesting take. He starts off with his hands in an unnatural position behind his back and then his arm ends up in a natural position in order to stabilise him as he turns his body. I don't see why he should be punished for starting off with his hands behind his back.
PGMOL were commenting on the 2021/22 changes. Just because wording about proximity was removed it doesn't mean proximity isn't a factor. FIFA said "not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence. In terms of the criterion of the hand/arm making a player’s body 'unnaturally bigger', it was confirmed that referees should continue to use their judgment in determining the validity of the hand/arm’s position in relation to the player’s movement in that specific situation".
PGMOL doing its own thing is an issue, but are you arguing that proximity is no longer a factor? Or a player kicking the ball up toward an opponent's hand isn't a factor?
Last edited:
"A Factor" is just that, part of the decision.
It's entirely possible for a deflection to still lead to a handball, as is it possible for a deflection to be enough to tip the decision over to no handball.
Unless you're suggesting the deflection wasn't spotted and therefore wasn't considered as a factor, highlighting related chunks of law is irrelevant. Either decision is still valid after a deflection.
It's entirely possible for a deflection to still lead to a handball, as is it possible for a deflection to be enough to tip the decision over to no handball.
Unless you're suggesting the deflection wasn't spotted and therefore wasn't considered as a factor, highlighting related chunks of law is irrelevant. Either decision is still valid after a deflection.
That's a deflection from the issue of proximity.
Bur if neither proximity, nor a deflection changing the direction of the ball, nor "ball to hand" rather than "hand to ball" are enough to say this isn't handball due to an arm being in an unnatural position, then the only way not to risk committing an offence is amputation.
Anyway, I wasn't highlighting chunks of the law, I was highlighting what the authorities said when some of the factors that had to be considered were taken out of the law - i.e. removing the words but still leaving them as factors.
this is accurate to how UEFA want handball to be called
I genuinely don't understand what you're arguing here then?
Deflection, proximity - all factors, no one of which is decisive. You can argue that based on factor X and Y you would have reached a different decision, but by pasting in a chunk of law/circular with no explanation, you present that as a full and complete answer. Which by definition, it isn't.
Would you want a Cup Final decided by a penalty for handball when the ball was kicked from close range, deflected up onto a hand so clearly was "ball to hand", and nowhere near goal? Three separate factors all suggesting it's not handball under the law - how many more factors would you need in order to decide that it wasn't handball under the law?
I genuinely don't understand what you're arguing here.
I genuinely don't understand what you're arguing here.
Are the laws different for cup finals then? If handball is the correct decision, I'd want it given in the 90th minute of the world cup final, or in the 1st minute of the Dog & Duck vs The Crown in my local Sunday pub league, and every game in between.
Your original post #23 implies proximity (not deflection, apologies, blame pre-coffee morning brain for that confusion) is the be-all and end-all of the decision. That's a bad-faith argument, because as discussed, it's only ever described as a factor.
We can discuss all day if the proximity in this case is sufficient that no HB is the correct decision, but the blanket implication that you can say "proximity" and the discussion ends there is just wrong.
I see two possibilities - you didn't know that proximity is only one possible consideration of many, or you did know that and have chosen to pretend it's not the case.
And I credit anyone who's taken the time to become an established member of a refereeing forum with enough LOTG knowledge not to make the fairly basic mistake that would put them in the first camp. So it doesn't leave a huge amount of room for anything other than an argument with some kind of ulterior motives.
Oh silly me. You went to the trouble of finding a paragraph from a 2-year-old PGMOL circular and pasted it in response to a discussion about a handball, with no other context or explanation, but intended that to be just part of a larger point. And it's my fault for not immediately understanding that I should just fill in the gaps to make your point coherent.
Obvious when you put it like that
