A&H

Handball

The Referee Store
I'm guessing that from his angle the R only saw the contact with the tucked arm, which would warrant a no call.

And I'm guessing the VAR decided that it was not sufficiently clear and obvious to warrant VAR involvement.

(And both of those may have also been influenced by what seems to be an overall disagreement in the UK with the new standards. I'm not saying either the R or VAR was ignoring them, but that there could be an internal reluctance different from in many other parts of the world.)

But I agree that is a HB under the current laws and interpretations.
 
I said hand ball at the time and was amazed VAR didn't give it. Can understand why Mike Dean didn't see it real time, but baffling that VAR didn't recommend a penalty.
 
I am guessing the R and VAR applied the 'usually' and the 'not usually' and got confused with the bit about 'except' when 'not usually' and didn't apply that part.

Or maybe they applied the 'ulness' section of the 'usually' part, who knows.

Hell l'm confused now. But usually I am not.
 
Last edited:
Reading the Laws of the Game this is usually handball and I would have expected VAR to give it.

Personally I now think IFAB should issue clarifications as to what is and isn't handball (including distance from kick to arm, proximity to attacking goal etc).

All this is doing is portraying handball as whatever the referee thinks rather than based upon the circumstances.
 
afronaut81 said:
Reading the Laws of the Game this is usually handball and I would have expected VAR to give it.

Personally I now think IFAB should issue clarifications as to what is and isn't handball (including distance from kick to arm, proximity to attacking goal etc).

All this is doing is portraying handball as whatever the referee thinks rather than based upon the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Agree. In other words nothing the player does can make it a clear deliberate handball (or not). Which means VAR should never review for deliberate handball because no decision can ever be a clear and obvious error.

DFK physical found are also subjective decisions but we have proper definitions (even though they have grey areas). None of this 'usually / usually not' stuff.
 
one said:
DFK physical found are also subjective decisions but we have proper definitions (even though they have grey areas). None of this 'usually / usually not' stuff.
Click to expand...

Hmm. How clearly defined the fouls are is a matter of debate, I suppose. But it might suggest a path that, while far from perfect, would align handling with the other offenses--make it an offense to carelessly handle the ball. If you think about it, that's what we have really been doing over the past number of years, with making oneself bigger, taking a risk, arm above the shoulder, etc. This would be aligning handling with the change that was made in the first great re-write when we stopped pretending that fouls were "intentional" and put into the laws what was really being called anyway--offenses that were careless, reckless, or involved excessive force. A lot of the guidance that exists would make a lot more sense.

(I'm a traditionalist and would prefer that handling really was deliberate--but with the path we're on, wouldn't it be better to admit what that path is, rather than to muck it up with all this noise?)
 
socal lurker said:
Hmm. How clearly defined the fouls are is a matter of debate, I suppose. But it might suggest a path that, while far from perfect, would align handling with the other offenses--make it an offense to carelessly handle the ball. If you think about it, that's what we have really been doing over the past number of years, with making oneself bigger, taking a risk, arm above the shoulder, etc. This would be aligning handling with the change that was made in the first great re-write when we stopped pretending that fouls were "intentional" and put into the laws what was really being called anyway--offenses that were careless, reckless, or involved excessive force. A lot of the guidance that exists would make a lot more sense.

(I'm a traditionalist and would prefer that handling really was deliberate--but with the path we're on, wouldn't it be better to admit what that path is, rather than to muck it up with all this noise?)
Click to expand...
I think we have a Law that's the product of an unresolved dispute between the IFAB board members. But there is a direction of travel :(
 
Last edited:
socal lurker said:
Hmm. How clearly defined the fouls are is a matter of debate, I suppose. But it might suggest a path that, while far from perfect, would align handling with the other offenses--make it an offense to carelessly handle the ball. If you think about it, that's what we have really been doing over the past number of years, with making oneself bigger, taking a risk, arm above the shoulder, etc. This would be aligning handling with the change that was made in the first great re-write when we stopped pretending that fouls were "intentional" and put into the laws what was really being called anyway--offenses that were careless, reckless, or involved excessive force. A lot of the guidance that exists would make a lot more sense.

(I'm a traditionalist and would prefer that handling really was deliberate--but with the path we're on, wouldn't it be better to admit what that path is, rather than to muck it up with all this noise?)
Click to expand...
I think that's an outstanding suggestion :cool:
 
socal lurker said:
Hmm. How clearly defined the fouls are is a matter of debate, I suppose. But it might suggest a path that, while far from perfect, would align handling with the other offenses--make it an offense to carelessly handle the ball. If you think about it, that's what we have really been doing over the past number of years, with making oneself bigger, taking a risk, arm above the shoulder, etc. This would be aligning handling with the change that was made in the first great re-write when we stopped pretending that fouls were "intentional" and put into the laws what was really being called anyway--offenses that were careless, reckless, or involved excessive force. A lot of the guidance that exists would make a lot more sense.

(I'm a traditionalist and would prefer that handling really was deliberate--but with the path we're on, wouldn't it be better to admit what that path is, rather than to muck it up with all this noise?)
Click to expand...
Great idea. I wonder if some 'one' had thought of it before ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top