Melbourne City vs Western Utd penalty & RC
- Thread starter deusex
- Start date
- Status
WiisardNic
Active Member
Is it denying a goal scoring opportunity if had he not handled it, it wasn't going to another attacker? That's why I'd back the original Yellow Card decision.
Easy DOGSO call here.
If that ball isn't handled by the trailing arm (not supporting), that ball is going straight to the teammate who will be one v one with the GK.
There's also a second free attacker a few metres beside him, and the closest defender is trailing by 5-7m.
If that's not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, I don't know what is.
If that ball isn't handled by the trailing arm (not supporting), that ball is going straight to the teammate who will be one v one with the GK.
There's also a second free attacker a few metres beside him, and the closest defender is trailing by 5-7m.
If that's not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, I don't know what is.
This is pretty clearly handball. I presume you don't disagree with the PK, so it must be the card (or colour thereof).
There's pretty clear justification in law for the card: either DOGSO-H for the red or USB-H-SPA for the yellow.
It seems clear that, if not for contact with the arm, the ball goes towards or to another attacker. Do you disagree that this is SPA, or DOGSO, or both?
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That’s also a great VAR play.
2 things strike me: VAR could have told the ref it was red with no need for pitchside.
If the def had had the arm straight in support it would not have been an offence.
2 things strike me: VAR could have told the ref it was red with no need for pitchside.
If the def had had the arm straight in support it would not have been an offence.
No, the VAR definitely could not have done that.
They could have said they see the ball clearly strike the arm in an unnatural position which prevented it from reaching another attacker who would have had a clear shot at goal. But they couldn't say it's a PK and red (or even that it's a PK and yellow, or that it's a PK only, or that it's no foul at all).
"The VAR describes to the referee what can be seen on the TV replay(s) but not the decision to be taken, and the referee then:
makes a final decision based on the referee’s own perception and the information from the VAR, ..."
emphasis added.Right about the arm in support, though this is just an explicit subset of the "natural position" idea - that is, using the arm to cushion a fall or support the body is instinctive and must be considered natural.
Under the current handball law I can certainly see why a penalty was given, even if I think it was harsh. Really not sure on the red card though, there's no aspect of control of the ball and it is debatable whether one of the other attackers would even get the ball as I suspect on of the quickly moving covering defenders would get there first.
In any case, can it really be said that the original decision of caution was clearly and obviously wrong? I don't think so.
In any case, can it really be said that the original decision of caution was clearly and obviously wrong? I don't think so.
Rubbish call, where are his arms supposed to be?? 100% accidental!!
WiisardNic
Active Member
Yes, that's pretty much the way I see it too. I mean.. whether to give a Yellow Card or a Red Card would be debatable and dependent on the referee. But, it's arm's above the shoulder (even if he is having a lay down doing it) and arm striking the ball. So, yeah current handball rules would see it as a penalty to me too.
What a load of utter tosh handball has become.
Arms, in a natural position for that sort of tackle.
Not making himself bigger by choice.
Arms on the floor so above the shoulder is entirely no relevant.
Not hand ball and in the words of my esteemed colleague, "play on".
Arms, in a natural position for that sort of tackle.
Not making himself bigger by choice.
Arms on the floor so above the shoulder is entirely no relevant.
Not hand ball and in the words of my esteemed colleague, "play on".
I'd have viewed this as a supporting arm and therefore no HB
I think this view is based on the spirit of that clarification. If I did award the PK, I'd have enough doubt regarding the overall judgement that I'd struggle to follow it up as a dismissal. I reckon the latter bit would also be supported according to DOGSO criteria, as indicated by @RustyRef
I think this view is based on the spirit of that clarification. If I did award the PK, I'd have enough doubt regarding the overall judgement that I'd struggle to follow it up as a dismissal. I reckon the latter bit would also be supported according to DOGSO criteria, as indicated by @RustyRef
Nb A supporting arm has to be between the body and the ground.
I can see why a pen was given, just not sure if the Laws should be amended to excuse this type of action
I can see why a pen was given, just not sure if the Laws should be amended to excuse this type of action
Doesn't matter, if you arm is above your shoulder it is deemed to be intentional even if there was no intent. I don't agree with the current law, but it is what it is.
You can't say the arm is supporting the body as it clearly isn't given the body is on the floor and there is nothing to support. Plus the law text about supporting the body is clear that it doesn't apply if the arm is extended laterally or vertically away from the body.
If he went in there with his arms by his side then you’d say he wasn’t in control as he was like an American Drone missile! Humans hang their arms for balance.....Quite naturally....
we’re never going to agree if you’re going to ignore basic biology. Clueless lawmakers ruining the beautiful game with poppycock advice
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
- Status