A&H

WHU vs NFO

My view is a deliberate handball to prevent a shot on goal is an obvious red card. It's just as blatant as Henry or Suarez. I think football expects a red card for this offence and I am surprised the law book is not clearer.
 
The Referee Store
Redster said:
My view is the lack of control - having already taken the shot - is what withdraws this from being an 'opportunity'. The attacker can do nothing to improve the chances of the ball going in.

It's either an obvious goal or it's not. Thinking on DOGSO lines is erroneous, in my humble view
Click to expand...
1660577918271.png

Not quite the same is it...
 
It probably needs clarification from IFAB. Without VAR it would be 100% a red card, no referee would be able to say without enough confidence that the keeper would be saving it on just one look, whereas with VAR it was very obvious that the chance of it going in was extremely low.

As I said before, I'm fine with a caution as I think that is what the game expects and is within the spirit of the game. But equally, is it right that an offence is a red card in a game without VAR but a caution with VAR in use? That's where I think the clarification needs to be issued.
 
My interest isn't in the specific scenario. I haven't seen video that isn't geoblocked.

My interest is in the way we're framing it.

It's been suggested that, before downgrading to yellow, we should have confidence that the keeper will save it. Actually, before upgrading to red, it should be obvious that he will not.

If the ball is obviously going in, get rid of him. If not, you can't say that it must be DOGSO instead of DOG. That doesn't make sense. Can't turn back time. The handling doesn't make the shot better.
 
Big Cat said:
Begs the question, 'Why is VAR needed to Referee and correct all KMDs?' Rob Jones is merely acting as signalman for the VAR, yet I ordinarily think he's a good Ref
Anyone who can't see this unintended consequence of VAR is blind. I don't believe RJ would miss these decisions ordinarily
Click to expand...
You're right, I wouldn't miss those decisions ordinarily :D
 
santa sangria said:
My view is a deliberate handball to prevent a shot on goal is an obvious red card. It's just as blatant as Henry or Suarez. I think football expects a red card for this offence and I am surprised the law book is not clearer.
Click to expand...
I disagree. 'Shots on goal' come in all different shapes and sizes. From the absolute screamer that no goalkeeper on earth would save, right through to a scuffed shot dribbling harmlessly to the goalkeeper. The idea that both of these extremes (if deliberately handled, stopping the shot) would automatically result in red cards seems ridiculous to me. Therefore, as soon as we accept the possibility that a shot on goal might not be a red card, then we are simply debating at what level of probability of the goal being scored it tips over to Red. For me, if the GK is unlikely to save it, then it would feel like a Red
 
Last edited:
Russell Jones said:
I disagree. 'Shots on goal' come in all different shapes and sizes. From the absolute screamer that no goalkeeper on earth would save, right through to a scuffed shot dribbling harmlessly to the goalkeeper. The idea that both of these extremes (if deliberately handled, stopping the shot) would automatically result in red cards seems ridiculous to me. Therefore, as soon as we accept the possibility that a shot on goal might not be a red card, then we are simply debating at what level of probability of the goal being scored it tips over to Red. For me, if the GK is unlikely to save it, then it would feel like a Red
Click to expand...
Bit of a red herring argument. A defender is not going to willingly concede a penalty just to stop a shot they don't think poses significant risk of going in.
 
RustyRef said:
As I said before, I'm fine with a caution as I think that is what the game expects and is within the spirit of the game.
Click to expand...
I think the infringing player did way more to tarnish the spirit of the game. In my opinion, it was sheer cheating. Just because his goalkeeper was standing where he was doesn't detract from the fact that he intentionally blocked a goal bound shot with his arm. Red for me.
 
mrx777 said:
I think the infringing player did way more to tarnish the spirit of the game. In my opinion, it was sheer cheating. Just because his goalkeeper was standing where he was doesn't detract from the fact that he intentionally blocked a goal bound shot with his arm. Red for me.
Click to expand...
That isn't what the law says though. All the officials can look at is did he deny on obvious goal scoring opportunity, and with the availability of multiple VAR angles I really don't see how they could come to the conclusion that he had.

Using your approach a defender who tries to pull down a striker who is through on goal should be sent off even if he fails, on the basis that he tried to cheat. But again, law doesn't allow that.
 
mrx777 said:
I think the infringing player did way more to tarnish the spirit of the game. In my opinion, it was sheer cheating. Just because his goalkeeper was standing where he was doesn't detract from the fact that he intentionally blocked a goal bound shot with his arm. Red for me.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the exception being where VAR is in operation and it can be reviewed from a number of angles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top