A&H

Handball - VAR

R

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Two incidents this weekend.
1) Newcastle player heads ball onto outstretched arm of Spurs player. Not a. Natural position and makes body bigger.
Penalty Not given.

2) West Ham player crosses ball with defender sliding to close down ball. Motion is natural, but consequently makes body bigger.
Penalty given.

There have been plenty more this season.

I am now at the point of having no idea what is handball which leads to a penalty and what is not due to the vast variation at Premier league level. Each week the rules appear to be interpretated by referees differently.

Going by the LotG, Newcastle should have had a penalty and West Ham should have had a corner.

As a fan, you'd expect both to be given.

Can anyone breakdown why 1 wasn't given and 2 was? 😂
 
The Referee Store
Totally agree. So many decisions I see given in PL would never be given at Grassroots, every single touch is given as foul, even when is obvious player has just collapsed for FK. It makes it so hard to ref every weekend at GR.
 
For the one tonight his arm wasn't just outstretched, it was above head height. Look at the immediate reaction of the defender (Zemura), he immediately knew he had just given a penalty away even though there had been no whistle.
 
"motion is natural" - so what?

His arm is up in the air! It's not justifiable. Is he flipping a burger? No! It's making his body unnaturally bigger. Yes. He has taken a risk. Yes. And has been oenalised. It's all there in the book. It might be rubbish, but it's an easy pen with these laws.

"...touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."
 
santa sangria said:
"motion is natural" - so what?

His arm is up in the air! It's not justifiable. Is he flipping a burger? No! It's making his body unnaturally bigger. Yes. He has taken a risk. Yes. And has been oenalised. It's all there in the book. It might be rubbish, but it's an easy pen with these laws.

"...touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."
Click to expand...
This is the point... The rules are too open to interpretation.

" A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. "

How else do you run and slide without your arms not being down by your slide? You can't, it's impossible.

By the rules, his actions/motion/block would be fine unless we were born without joints and were sticks.
 
Ryanj91 said:
This is the point... The rules are too open to interpretation.

" A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. "

How else do you run and slide without your arms not being down by your slide? You can't, it's impossible.

By the rules, his actions/motion/block would be fine unless we were born without joints and were sticks.
Click to expand...

Appreciate that your arms come out when you dive, but not above your head. As I said, just look at the immediate reaction of the player, even before any decision is made. He 100% knows he has given a penalty away.
 
RustyRef said:
Appreciate that your arms come out when you dive, but not above your head. As I said, just look at the immediate reaction of the player, even before any decision is made. He 100% knows he has given a penalty away.
Click to expand...
The hand that got hit wasn't above his head though, that was the other one.
I understand what you mean, but I'm not entirely sure what a defender can do if sliding in to block a shot will result in a penalty if it hits your arm. Defender will always be at a Disadvantage.

OK, so why wasn't the Newcastle one given? That was more of a clear penalty than tonight's in my opinion
 
santa sangria said:
"motion is natural" - so what?

His arm is up in the air! It's not justifiable. Is he flipping a burger? No! It's making his body unnaturally bigger. Yes. He has taken a risk. Yes. And has been oenalised. It's all there in the book. It might be rubbish, but it's an easy pen with these laws.

"...touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised."
Click to expand...
Arms in the air isn’t a criteria for handball. Unnaturally bigger is and it didn’t look to me like he was thinking of placing his arms in an unnatural position when he slid in at that pace. His arms where natural to him.
 
Ryanj91 said:
Two incidents this weekend.
1) Newcastle player heads ball onto outstretched arm of Spurs player. Not a. Natural position and makes body bigger.
Penalty Not given.

2) West Ham player crosses ball with defender sliding to close down ball. Motion is natural, but consequently makes body bigger.
Penalty given.

There have been plenty more this season.

I am now at the point of having no idea what is handball which leads to a penalty and what is not due to the vast variation at Premier league level. Each week the rules appear to be interpretated by referees differently.

Going by the LotG, Newcastle should have had a penalty and West Ham should have had a corner.

As a fan, you'd expect both to be given.

Can anyone breakdown why 1 wasn't given and 2 was? 😂
Click to expand...
I would have given the arm motion description you have for 2 to 1 and no pen for me. But in terms of what I should expect in EPL... Flip a coin.

I think the law is fine how it is, I thought it will take a couple of years to get consistent on it when it came out but now it hink it will take much longer given the inconsistency in interpretation we see from top level refereess like in EPL.
 
RustyRef said:
For the one tonight his arm wasn't just outstretched, it was above head height. Look at the immediate reaction of the defender (Zemura), he immediately knew he had just given a penalty away even though there had been no whistle.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

IFAB can rewrite the handball law from now until eternity and you will never have all decisions being black and white - but there are certain situations in which players know they have to be particularly careful where they have their arms - sliding with the sole intention of blocking a cross is one of them. Zemura knows by having his arms flailing around like that he has taken a big risk. Hence his instinctive reaction.
 
Ally McCoist on radio this morning saying No way it should have been a penalty. I know he’s not gospel but just showing another opinion that shows the law to be all over the place.. who defines what’s natural is my issue.
 
The Law was much better 6 years ago when I started out
It used to be fundamentally accidental/unexpected ball or deliberate/careless
Now it's based on the term 'natural position' which has nowt to do with 'natural position'
There are too many PK's being given for Acts of God and VAR clearly and obviously can't resist the associated forensics in slomo and stills
Laws made and interpreted by a group of suits, old boys and ex-refs
Not the R's fault
 
Ally Mccoist's opinion is irrelevant, he doesn't understand, nor probably even read the LOTG. The PK has a virtually identical example in the IFAB clarification document classed as a PK.
 
Simon Jordan summed it up quite well today, and just said managers and players need to stop bleating as whatever the handball law is people will be annoyed with it. If a previous law was in place last night that meant that Zemura's handling wasn't an offence then West Ham would have been moaning that it was a clear handball. And if that had happened at the other end I am sure AFC Bournemouth would have been demanding a penalty.

There's also gross hypocrisy on the accidental handling. When the law was changed to say that if accidental handling led to a goal, and it led to a spate of goals being disallowed due to the ball brushing off someone's arm in the build up, players, managers, pundits, the media, etc, were all bemoaning how ridiculous and unfair it was. Now the law has been changed so that it has to immediate lead to a goal, and the same people are bleating that it is unfair and that accidental handling that isn't immediately before a goal should be penalised.

Surprised there hasn't been talk about Lerma's tackle, a real shocker this and very lucky not to injure Scamacca, clear red for me.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top