Search results

See Liverpool's goal at Palace for what constitutes handball (or doesn't)

Even with that definition, you're left thinking "but he did have time to coordinate his body movement" but decided instead just to stretch out a leg. My usual beef - the laws get longer and longer but not that much clearer.

Getting that one wrong isn't a good start.

Just change the law to what I suggested years ago. Once the game is stopped and the restart is to be a dropped ball to the GK, just give the ball to the GK. At the restart, GK has 8 seconds to release the ball. Having the referee drop the ball to the GK (or another player anywhere else) is...

Where do the FA get the referees?

There was a clear and obvious error. Presumably he reasoned that it was not a C&O error that gave rise to DOGSO.

Is there a PGMOL omerta on this?

Rusty, every time you say they followed the protocol, it reinforces the case that there's something wrong with the protocol!

I hinted above about how to minimise VAR mistakes when the VAR is judge and jury. If the referee is told he's missed a KMI, rather than let the VAR compound his error, he should emulate Cromwell and ask, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

We've moved on from that blunder to how the VAR protocol isn't fit for purpose. Even if you just put it down to an error by the VAR, what could be done to stop such howlers in the future? You don't know that either ref or AR saw the handball at all - so we don't know if it was a clear and...

Play on from what? Every touch of the ball, every close contact, could be a "decision". You can't make a decision if you missed the event that needed a decision. It's almost a philosophical question - as in "The referee must always make a decision" and "The original decision given by the referee...

OK. Presumably the VAR intervenes because it's a missed incident. It's not "after the referee has made a (first/original) decision". But if the VAR doesn't think it's DOGSO, is it technically a "missed incident"? But most SFPs are left to the referee to do an onfield review.

A lot of conjecture there about wide Haaland's touch might take the ball. And if the GK isn't sticking his hand out to try and commit a handling offence, Haaland doesn't need to try and nick it away from the "unnatural position" hand. (What if the GK had been stranded upfield and that had been...

VAR just did that, in this incident.

See above. The intention for the VAR is to correct a clear and obvious mistake. It's not for VAR to make a clear and obvious mistake on behalf of the onfield team.

I thought Big Cat was saying this is how it should work. I think he's saying that calling SA for an onfield review would not be "re-refereeing" because SA had not made a decision. He hadn't made a decision because he didn't see that any decision needed to be made. Instead the VAR is the one...

I was reluctant to use the word cheat but that's what it was. Henderson comes out of his area and goes back inside the PA before reaching out to handle the ball. Perhaps he'll do the Maradona thing and say it was the hand of God. Unless the officials tell us what they think they saw, I'm...

Neither still shows either of those conjectures. The protocol is obviously wrong if the bar is exponentially higher. And if the VAR doesn't know what is meant by "overall movement is towards the offender's goal" it's obvious this was an obvious mistake.

Oh, I think he did. As he's running after where the ball has been punched to, he looks back - as in "Have you really missed that?"