bester
RefChat Addict
Same thing Kavanagh said when it hit Craig Dawson well below the "arm pit line" a couple of weeks ago.According to Sky, VAR's explanation was there was no clear evidence of handball
Everton vs City
- Thread starter James P
- Start date
- Status
That's because there was an offside after the incident which stopped play for the lengthy VAR check/toilet break/computer restart.
Can’t find anything on that, can you share a source please?
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Refreshing to see a referee take a zero tolerance approach to keepers taking the proverbial with regard to defensive free kicks in and around the penalty area. Far too often fouls near the goal line end up being taken near or beyond the edge of penalty area, but Tierney wasn't having any of it from Ederson.
bester
RefChat Addict
He gets his information from the PGMO.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
new in the LOTG the last couple of yearsSince when was that a thing...
Thanks, I’ve seen Dale’s content before, he’s very good.
Not directed at you, a question for everyone. What happens if the shirt sleeves are extended a few inches? Is that against the rules somewhere?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It isn’t defined by the shirt sleeve. It’s the bottom of the armpit—which is hard to spot when the arm is away from the body.
Is that the actual rule? The link that I posted earlier highlighted the shirt sleeve as the green area, hence why I thought it was based on the shirt (or avg half sleeve length)
Thanks. I started corrected.
We've got way with one there then as it just seemed a clear handball.
Richarlison might have been offside in the move before the incident (neither Sky nor MotD looked at it though I'm told NBC did in the USA). I'm not sure under the VAR protocol (new phase after the GK save?) that it would have been brought back (if it was judged to be handball). I thought the Dawson one last week was more clearly on the arm (red zone) so expected (hoped!) the onfield decision would not be overturned.
As for "the VAR team didn't think there was conclusive evidence that the ball hit Rodri more in the red area of the arm than the green" where does that come from? If that's a correct interpetation, it sounds reasonable - but is that the rule rather than: It's handball if the ball hits any part of the red area of the arm?
Nearest I can find is from the Premier League: "match officials must have clear evidence that the ball has struck the player's arm below the bottom of the armpit and in the red zone".
Last edited:
It's hard to define the bottom of the armpit which is why the badge that is on the same spot of every Premier League shirt has been the main point for the VAR to use when it comes to offside and handball. The problem in this case it appears the entire ball is below the badge on the arm.
Not the sleeve bit. The bit where the ball has to hit more of the handball area than the non-handball....
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
"the VAR team didn't think there was conclusive evidence that the ball hit Rodri more in the red area of the arm than the green."
Well if that's the case then it's absolute nonsense. It clearly did hit more in the red area than the green.
Here's a still image of the moment of contact. That is without a doubt, more in the red than the green zone. I'd say it's about 95% in the red area which is absolutely and definitively more than what is in the green area.
Well if that's the case then it's absolute nonsense. It clearly did hit more in the red area than the green.
Here's a still image of the moment of contact. That is without a doubt, more in the red than the green zone. I'd say it's about 95% in the red area which is absolutely and definitively more than what is in the green area.
one
RefChat Addict
Unless someone has a deformed body, the armpit is not in line with half way down the bicep.
Looking at the image from @Peter Grove , the armpit can clearly be identifed and all of the contact of the ball on the arm is below the line of the armpit. If this is not handball we all might as well pack up and go home. They will get a lot more respect admitting to a mistake rather that defending an undefendable.
But that argument is irrelevant, isn't it. If any part of the ball touches any part of the red zone its handball. Since when did it need 50.01% or more of the ball touching the red zone to be handball.
Also can't believe that VAR doesnt have the camera angle from the other side, which would probably have the conclusivity they were looking for.
You should have gone home last year...
VAR = high bar for overturning onfield handball decisions!
- Status