A&H

Bournemouth Vs Man Utd

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Thoughts on the United penalty for "handball"?

Granted I am slightly biased as I moved to Bournemouth 17 years ago and have developed a soft spot for my adopted home town team, especially having worked on the design team for their new training ground, but looks harsh to me, very high on the arm, which is by Smith's side. Commentator said VAR's view was that he leaned into the ball. Really not sure about the handball law anymore, as many more blatant looking handling incidents haven't been given. :confused:
 
The Referee Store
Mooseybaby said:
Thoughts on the United penalty for "handball"?

Granted I am slightly biased as I moved to Bournemouth 17 years ago and have developed a soft spot for my adopted home town team, especially having worked on the design team for their new training ground, but looks harsh to me, very high on the arm, which is by Smith's side. Commentator said VAR's view was that he leaned into the ball. Really not sure about the handball law anymore, as many more blatant looking handling incidents haven't been given. :confused:
Click to expand...
Awful decision... WALOFS... VAR said arm moved towards the ball. What on Earth he can do with an arm squarely in front of his body, I don't know
That's why players plead for HB every time the ball goes anywhere near a hand or arm. No chance he's given that against MU... Imagine Taylor/Oliver giving that to decide one of the big games.... not happening. And that's not fan talk as I'm only bothered about the level of officiating.
Defender should've chopped it off in the dressing room.....
Arm that is
 
Just a bad decision on-field. Can understand VAR not going with C&O, but I’d lean towards overturning. Bournemouth not had much luck this second half.
 
Very bad luck (for Bournemouth) in the last minute. Despite the MU defender's foot clearly being on the PA line, the block was seemingly outside the PA
Whether it perpetuated inside the PA was irrelevant. 'Expected' final decision by VAR but the HB got a red card from me
MU 50 points with a GD of -1 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 🤔 Must just be lucky. They've had some amazing luck TBF cos they're really quite poor
 
More blatant "simulation" has gone unpunished this season.

I sense the overturned Bournemouth penalty is one they will argue the foul continued into the area, whereas United will say it was definitely outside and the attacker fell into the defender after the initial contact.
 
Im sorry but what a joke that the referee did not get called to the screen for that final Bournemouth penalty, it was definitely not conclusive it was outside the area and Tony Harrington should be the one deciding I feel. Which then begs the question was it a clear and obvious error in the first place?
 
Paul_10 said:
Im sorry but what a joke that the referee did not get called to the screen for that final Bournemouth penalty, it was definitely not conclusive it was outside the area and Tony Harrington should be the one deciding I feel. Which then begs the question was it a clear and obvious error in the first place?
Click to expand...
No it's a trip so it's point of contact and factual. The VAR protocol says that this isn't a trip to the monitor.

This is clearly listed in the VAR protocol as something which may be reviewed. And as above is factual so if it's outside no matter by how much it's clearly and obviously wrong to award a penalty
 
Big Cat said:
That only applies to a shirt pull... otherwise first point of contact is the only consideration
Click to expand...
To be strictly accurate, in law it only applies to holding but having said that, I think most referees consider pulling and holding to be two sides of the same coin.
 
Where I was looking was if the initial contact in the back was the only foul or if there was also a trip. Whether or not that would affect the location as an advantage-separate foul is another matter.

In the United were lucky. And Bournemouth paid for not taking their chances earlier.

Sanction? What about DOGSO and should the card have been red?
 
JamesL said:
No it's a trip so it's point of contact and factual. The VAR protocol says that this isn't a trip to the monitor.

This is clearly listed in the VAR protocol as something which may be reviewed. And as above is factual so if it's outside no matter by how much it's clearly and obviously wrong to award a penalty
Click to expand...

I still don't think it was 100% conclusive and there is an argument when the defender made the contact his foot was on the line which I heard is counts as in the box? Also you got the argument, did the contact continue inside the box.


I think when it's that tight, the referee should go over so he can sell the decision better. Of course if it was a proper clear and obvious error(like the one in the Championship) then of course he doesn't need to go over to the screen.
 
Paul_10 said:
I still don't think it was 100% conclusive and there is an argument when the defender made the contact his foot was on the line which I heard is counts as in the box? Also you got the argument, did the contact continue inside the box.


I think when it's that tight, the referee should go over so he can sell the decision better. Of course if it was a proper clear and obvious error(like the one in the Championship) then of course he doesn't need to go over to the screen.
Click to expand...
In this case, I wholeheartedly agree.
I have to laugh, Jared Gillett, when officiating his last Aussie game, was mic'd up and released to the public and said on a decision if he should go and look at it to sell it more.
Could have suggested it yesterday.
On field has made a decision that is extremely borderline in/out. Images are not 100% conclusive. And when Harrington has to explain that to Bournemouth players he is doing it without having had a second look and is completely trusting what Gillett said blindly.
Reminded of the Brentford game last week where Madley went to the screen and sold his decision on not giving a penalty after reviewing it and it was more or less accepted without fuss.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
In this case, I wholeheartedly agree.
I have to laugh, Jared Gillett, when officiating his last Aussie game, was mic'd up and released to the public and said on a decision if he should go and look at it to sell it more.
Could have suggested it yesterday.
On field has made a decision that is extremely borderline in/out. Images are not 100% conclusive. And when Harrington has to explain that to Bournemouth players he is doing it without having had a second look and is completely trusting what Gillett said blindly.
Reminded of the Brentford game last week where Madley went to the screen and sold his decision on not giving a penalty after reviewing it and it was more or less accepted without fuss.
Click to expand...

Yep, there's subjectivity in this decision because there is an argument the contact/foul continued inside the area, it is definately not a black and white decision and I feel uncomfortable someone in a room is making a crucial decision like that and the referee on the field has to take his word for it.

As for Gillett going to the screen, then I applaud he requested the review because the VAR was about to make a decision for the referee when it was a subjective handball(e.g it wasn't the scorer who potentially handled it). Personally I think the VAR in this game should of sent Harrington to review it by saying the initial contact started outside the area(in his opinion) but there's a chance it may of continued inside the area and it's for the referee to decide.
 
That just isn't handball for me, really not sure what Smith is supposed to do differently there. I think Harrington has seen something that didn't actually happen, so I would argue VAR should have recommended a review.

I don't see any debate on the penalty vs free kick though. The contact was outside, and it was a trip not holding, so you would only look at where the contact was that caused him to fall, i.e. the trip, too place and that was very clearly outside the penalty area.
 
Peter Grove said:
To be strictly accurate, in law it only applies to holding but having said that, I think most referees consider pulling and holding to be two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...
Have to, don’t they, as “pulling” isn’t a foul in Law 12? (only, mysteriously, in the exceptions for DOGSO cautions). The only way to pull someone is to hold them.
 
socal lurker said:
Have to, don’t they, as “pulling” isn’t a foul in Law 12? (only, mysteriously, in the exceptions for DOGSO cautions). The only way to pull someone is to hold them.
Click to expand...
And then bizarrely, The FA discipline codes that we use have pulling under unsporting behaviour and not holding. Someone got lost making these things up along the way 😂
 
Not much difference between the one given yesterday and one not given in the Liverpool one just now, other than the palace player raised his arms across his body blocking a shot whilst the Bournemouth one caught him unaware with a huge deflection.
 
Def not a penalty for handball I think we all agree.
As for the Bourn penalty. I seem to be on my own but here goes: NO FOUL.
I genuinely don't know what the defender is supposed to do. He doesn't move left or right. The attacker knocks it past him and runs right into him.
Maybe I'm missing something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top