A&H

Nor Aus VAR

R

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Erm?
Defender goes to chest the ball. Hits her arm. Penalty given. Great spot by the ref.

VAR review and the ref changes her mind? Whaaaat?!

I'm not looking forward to this in the Premier League.
 
The Referee Store
Definitely looked like it hit her upper arm, I’m not sure why that was overruled
 
Having finally seen this -- it seems to meet all the criteria in the LotG NOT to be called handball.

So, I'm good with the overturn here.
 
AlexF said:
Having finally seen this -- it seems to meet all the criteria in the LotG NOT to be called handball.

So, I'm good with the overturn here.
Click to expand...
Which part, as this looks to me like a player intentionally moving her arm into the path of the ball?
 
QuaverRef said:
Which part, as this looks to me like a player intentionally moving her arm into the path of the ball?
Click to expand...

socal lurker said:
Care to share your analysis rather than just stating a conclusion?
Click to expand...
The way I'm looking at it, she's put her arms down by her sides, in a natural place, not making the body larger.

Secondly, watching it live, the player moves her body into the path of the ball, and live, it's not clear if hits the side of the chest or the bicep, but hey, referee thought it hit the bicep, so, let's go with that.

Video replay at speed and 3/4 speed, it's unclear if it's hit the chest or arm or both. The first angle (from behind), it looks like it's hitting nothing but arm. The second angle (from in front) it looks like it's hitting the chest, but not clear if it's hitting the arm -- the path of the ball helps give that impression here. The final angle, from the side is, to me, the most conclusive, and it appears to be hitting the shoulder (not the bicep, but up at the joint) -- and it's this one that I can understand why the referee thought it must've hit the arm.

With all that in mind, for me, if it does hit the arm (rather than shoulder), it's hit the chest first, and the arm is in a natural position. Having said all that, I think (based on the last angle) that it actually hits the shoulder, which is not considered handball anyhow.

So, because of that -- it seems to meet all the criteria in the LotG NOT to be called handball, and I'm good with the overturn here. :)
 
Her hands were down by her side but she deliberately moves herself towards the ball. If it hits her arm, it has to be a penalty.

The question is, did it hit her arm?


(If it hits her body and then arm, it's not a penalty)
 
I also feel the referee had a much better view (during live play) than all of the camera angles and should have kept this in mind during the VR.
 
AlexF said:
The way I'm looking at it, she's put her arms down by her sides, in a natural place, not making the body larger.

Secondly, watching it live, the player moves her body into the path of the ball, and live, it's not clear if hits the side of the chest or the bicep, but hey, referee thought it hit the bicep, so, let's go with that.

Video replay at speed and 3/4 speed, it's unclear if it's hit the chest or arm or both. The first angle (from behind), it looks like it's hitting nothing but arm. The second angle (from in front) it looks like it's hitting the chest, but not clear if it's hitting the arm -- the path of the ball helps give that impression here. The final angle, from the side is, to me, the most conclusive, and it appears to be hitting the shoulder (not the bicep, but up at the joint) -- and it's this one that I can understand why the referee thought it must've hit the arm.

With all that in mind, for me, if it does hit the arm (rather than shoulder), it's hit the chest first, and the arm is in a natural position. Having said all that, I think (based on the last angle) that it actually hits the shoulder, which is not considered handball anyhow.

So, because of that -- it seems to meet all the criteria in the LotG NOT to be called handball, and I'm good with the overturn here. :)
Click to expand...
Can’t argue with the logic there. I would say though that unless conclusive in the replays that it didn’t hit her arm (which it wasn’t), shouldn’t they be sticking with the original decision? Although, someone has mentioned on here that referees see replays we don’t see at home
 
QuaverRef said:
Can’t argue with the logic there. I would say though that unless conclusive in the replays that it didn’t hit her arm (which it wasn’t), shouldn’t they be sticking with the original decision? Although, someone has mentioned on here that referees see replays we don’t see at home
Click to expand...

You could see the 3 replays the ref saw at the same time. 1 was useless, the other 2 showed it hit her arm.

She moved her body towards the ball, she knew what she was doing haha
 
one said:
https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/vid...4j4XvIy_lsphfjR3ciYgGnTHogsAQEQFEnS6c8uSmulcw

If this is not geo coded, your thoughts on the penalty appeal on 92nd minute (1.12 on the video) and the red card on the 104 minute (1.58 on the video)?
Click to expand...

92nd min (ET) You're never getting a penalty for that.

The red card is contentious. I initially thought yellow card (SPA) because the ball was going through to the GK but I can understand the red card since we don't know if the attacker could have got to the ball before the GK.
 
one said:
92 min regulation time (added time).
Click to expand...

I couldn't view the video on the link you provided.

There was an alleged foul on a Norway player (mid-air collision) in 92nd min normal time and an alleged foul on an Australian in the 92nd min extra time (What a coincidence!). I thought you were referring to the latter. Anyway, I thought neither was a foul.
 
QuaverRef said:
Although, someone has mentioned on here that referees see replays we don’t see at home
Click to expand...
I don't believe that to be so. In fact I'm sure I've seen the opposite stated, that the TV viewers must be able to see what the referee sees - for reasons of transparency. From what I've read, apart from two specialised offside cameras (I think the ones that the VAR team use to plot the offside lines) all the replays and different camera angles come from the TV broadcast feed.

This is from a FIFA article describing VAR use at the WWC:
The VAR team has access to all relevant FIFA host broadcaster camera feeds as well as two additional offside cameras, with the exception of a few cameras that do not cover the game.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen of what they show when the referee is in the RRA, I think they're showing us exactly what the referee is looking at.
 
The Referee said:
92nd min (ET) You're never getting a penalty for that.

The red card is contentious. I initially thought yellow card (SPA) because the ball was going through to the GK but I can understand the red card since we don't know if the attacker could have got to the ball before the GK.
Click to expand...
I would have that in reverse. If we dont know then is it obvious Goal scoring opportunity?
 
JamesL said:
I would have that in reverse. If we dont know then is it obvious Goal scoring opportunity?
Click to expand...

I meant that I understand why VAR didn't overturn the red card once it was issued. If the ref gave a yellow card, I suspect VAR wouldn't recommend a red either. It's one of those grey area situations.

I guess VAR and the ref thought that the player was obviously denied the opportunity to get to the ball (and score a goal).
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a good penalty call watching it live, but that's what VAR is for.

I think there's also a clip on that IFAB slideshow similar to this which is classified as a 'no handball offence.'

For me, in those situations the deciding factor for me would be whether they move their arm outwards, as I think it would be difficult, if not ridiculous to expect a player to remove their arm when trying to lead with the body like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top